AARe: Suggested Alterations

@baron-Münchhausen Well its to make the things Germany needs to do well-- without a disaster to have a good game. The margins are tight in sz 7, also to avoid piling on decisively in Egypt.

Regarding Sealion G2: Some guy says buy 2 CA and 2 AP and have the Medd BB attack the UK CA with 1 AP landing 1 Inf in Gibraltar. Landing 3-4 Tanks, 3-4 Men, 5 planes, and 3 CS SBs VS> UK builds of 7 inf, 1 fighter plus landing US bomber and all UK planes and 1 UK tank… I will try it 3 times in practice games, but i doubt it.

@simon98v said in [1942 2nd ed.] Suggestion for a setup change:

Russia: Add a bomber to Karelia, remove the factory there
UK: Add 2 infantry to India
US: Remove 1 transport from sz 11, but make US gain a full turn of non-combat moves
This will help the US preserve some of its starting fleet, save some of the troops in China, make Russia a little stronger vs Germany and help the UK hold India for longer. Thoughts?

It totally imbalanced toward allies… If you play OOB ( not LHGC version) this would track toward allied advantage. To balance you start with LHGC, and move existing units around for both sides, not just add 20 IPC to allies.

I have made a change to the destroyers in my proposal on the Sea Unit Rebalancing thread (inspired by DK house rules).

Yeah thats what I thought. I mean when I got Pacfic I thought oh thats so cool! Now I can have battles on all these iconic islands like in the Pacific theater. But for most except for those involved in NOs their useless. This would make island warfare more important.

it was the softgun part, i was just imagining those pvc mini-marshmallow shooters that are all the rage at 5-year-old’s birthday parties plinking off of a Tiger Tank….
:-o

I remember right after AAR came out, almost five years ago, playing a game of AAE with tanks that defend on 3. It was horrible, horrible idea. Germany just got too much out of that one. But reduced prices on fighters and carriers didn’t seem to break the game as much. Germany builds lots of fighters, but so do the UK and US. Nobody builds carriers in AAE unless something unusual has happened anyway.

At any rate for both AAE and AAP besides the reduced price on fighters and carriers to match AAR (and 24 VPs for AAP) my group plays with the rules as is. Transports are any land or one tank, tanks defend on 2, etc.
But now with AA50 there’s a lot of change. The problem with wholesale just changing the unit stats is that setups were designed for the original stats.

So I have a few questions:
Do you think fighters that cost 10 and carriers at 16 ruins or damages gameplay in either AAE or AAP? Especially considering escorts for SBRs it might be a concern.

Any consider going through and tweaking the setups for E and P to make them fair for the new unit stats? It might do good to freshen them up a bit. I think if well done it could further enhance the Pacfic especially. Convoy values, of course, are a concern.

What about tweaking setups to Europe to add Italy? Without Sub-Saharan Africa this might be pointless, but maybe the oil money alone would be enough.

@dpdlc:

I never understood, how researching a technology would instantly upgrade your units for 0 cost. While doctrines is a change in tactical thinking, using units differently. You don’t actually have to build anything or upgrade anything, but the techniques in battle change and represent a learning experience.

In real life:

Germany focus on armored manuver warfare, to encircle their enemies.
France focused on static defenses.

US focused heavily on heavy bombers and daylight raids.
While Brittain focused on night bombers.

Russia focused on heavy preliminary artillery bombardment, for battles.
while the US had artillery available quickly to lower lever units. (“RADIO”)

Japan developed the expertise and techniques for night battles.

I think these things add a  little bit to flavor in the game.

Hi dpdlc,

What you’re describing sounds like the National Advantages available in A&A Revised.  These were nation specific advantages that reflected certain tactics, special units, or strategies used by the different A&A nations.

It’s a shame they took these out of AA50 because you are absolutely correct, when balanced appropriately, they can add tremendous flavor to a game (check out AAR: Enhanced which uses a much more balanced set of national advantages compared to AAR OOTB)

@Yoshi:

But isn’t this choice only for the jet fighters hits ?

no, jet ftrs can intercept Rockets AND bombers…. unless the bombers are shielded via more escorts than jet ftrs.

@Yoshi:

Otherwise, if the defense player has 1 jet fighter and 1 AAGun (say attacker does not have Long Range Air Craft tech, but he got Rockets tech), then the bomber would be more protected that if the defense wouldn’t have jet power (2 hits@1 needed to kill the bomber).

More protected with less defending jet power?  I don’t think so. 
Jets can intercept both rockets AND SBRs.

Your example negated the bomber interception since you had escorts (LRA).
By allowing the attacker to choose the casualties, the attacker is rewarded for having rockets AND LRA.

@Yoshi:

Thank you for the answers. I know that this is a very special case, but I encountered this point (of the beginning of the thread) in a friend game.

You are welcome.  And it’s not a problem, I will support Enhanced when ever I can.