So guys, this Thread might get a bit convoluted, but I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this that I will do more test and maybe adjust the setup one final time… Since what bothers me so far is the unusual high number of Infantry in India that has to counter the unusual high number of Japanese transports. :D

I might do something that will reduce both the number of Infantry in India but also the amount transports (and maybe fighters) that Japan starts with. Because of this, Japan can expand in the East at will and because of all the fighters, it can both attack and defend wherever it wants to.

So stay tuned! I might create a new thread once all this tests and considerations come to a close for a final setup!

China Factions:

Mao’s Red Guard Take clearly different soldiers from another Axis and Allies game you own. 1 troop may spawn in either Ninxia or Chingai per round.

Chaing’s Nationalists: 1 troop spawn per Chinese coastal territory controlled. Take clearly different soldiers from another Axis and Allies game.
*The rules for Anniversary edition still apply (half of territories rounded down) representing unaligned Chinese units. These may attack with either the Red Guard or Nationalist but not with both. If a Communist force loses to Japanese and retreats, it must attack a Nationalist army if there is one adjacent. This represents the infighting which crippled Chinese forces and suspicion the two factions had against each other during the conflict.

Zhang Xueliang: son of a powerful Manchu warlord Zhang Zuolin who wished for the restoration of Manchu dominance of China. Northeast Chinese forces pledged loyalty to this Independent opiate infused warrior. Who will he align with?
Discuss: If the majority of players decide to engage Zhang in the game, he overcomes his opiate addiction and womanizing ways. His loyalty to either Japan, Chinese Nationalists or Chinese Communists will be determined by the dice. Place an industrial center on Manchuria if not one already, or fully repair one. The IPCs for this region are now worth 4.

1 Zhang politically embraces communism and joins Mao’s forces. Place a tank, and three soldiers on the area.

2-3 “Communism was a cancer while the Japanese represented a superficial wound!” Zhang screams while surging onto the board with five soldiers allied to the Nationalists.

4-5 Zhang allies with the Japanese to restore the Qing Dynasty. Two Japanese soldiers and two artillery pieces placed. An attack on Soviet forces must occur within two rounds or Zhang will ally as a neutral Chinese force.

6 Zhang dies from an overdose

My Manchu grandfather was a destroyer captain for the Chinese Nationalists and passed down stories from this time. Manchuko’s politics were more independent than many realize. Historically Zhang sided with the Nationalists to help key victories and recognized as a hero by all Chinese. The scale of this struggle was as large as any European front, therefore, more infantry should be represented!
Have fun :)

@Wise:

Thanks SS for the Oil rules you sent to me. I’ll think we will go with those instead of dice. I’ll be back with a review when we have played with them.

Sweet. Looking  forward to some results.

@Admiral:

Hi Baron,

I know it’s been a while since you posted this, but I have been toying with the idea of increasing air-to-air combat in a way that is very similar to what you have presented here.

I think the A2 D2-3 C6 Fighter is a very interesting idea. Having them target other air units before anything else is a simple and effective way to simulate that air-to-air combat. I also like how the combat values would now be the same in SBR (makes things simple).

I also really like how you altered Tactical Bombers to be A2-4 D3 C8. The two attack bonuses really give meaning to the importance to air supremacy.

I am curious to know how these two units have worked for you.

Thanks!

It evolves into this roster:
Baron’s HR units charts and set-up for 1941, 1942.2 and AA50
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36833.msg1469053#msg1469053

The main reason is because of too many combined arms and bonus for TcBs and Fgs.
Makes for longer combat round and more details to consider to get the correct bonus per combat round.
Since the point was about hitting directly other planes, I simplified the TcB special ability.
That way, combined arms is now reserved to ground units.
So, it is easier to focus on what is specific to Fg and TcB.
I always start combat rounds with preemptive AAA, then these two units (when present) fire, then all other units.
HTH.
Baron

@Der:

Hi Marc -

I put in the possibility of removal of the chips in case the player was faced with a huge attacking force and wanted to withdraw everything but did not want the enemy to capture and use all of his entrenchment. (kind of a scorched earth thing)

I put some entrenchment in the Causasus because on my map Stalingrad is located there. I didn’t put any in Hitler’s Atlantic wall because my map starts in 1942 and the player can always add some later. Plus the German player gets an automatic 3 entrenchment anyway when the Allies try to land from the sea.    Â

Okay, thanks for the clarifications.  About the scorched earth thing, the ideal technique (and I’m just kidding here) would be to wait until the attacking enemy infantry falls into the abandoned entrenchments, then to fill in the trenches by blasting their walls with pre-set charges of TNT.  Sort of killing two birds with one stone.  :-D  In fairness, U.S. troops sometimes used a variation of this technique in the Pacific.  When confronted with a particularly tough dug-in Japanese position that would cost a lot of American casulties to clear by conventional assault methods, the troops would simply use a bulldozer to fill it in or collapse it.

just because USA has more capacity, doesn’t mean it can produce units cheaper.
Quote
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.

THAT is what ‘economies of scale’ mean.  Operational efficiencies can be view in terms of {technological} improvements in manufacturing procedures.  Procedures do not necessarily require robots.  Better Rivets (materials) or better training (labor) or better materials delivery systems (just in time) are all realized without robots.

These efficiencies come at a higher economic cost. They are not born out of low income economies. Just look at how many small economies can produce battleships at a lower cost than a larger economy. They don’t exist if you compare quality. If you can show me an example thats fine. The largest economies can do this mush more effectively than a smaller economy, so “economies of scale” also has the meaning that the greater investment of money will necessarily lead to a greater efficiency of effort.

“refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased.”

I look at this as the more income you got for investment, the greater the potential for economies of scale. So to me these are built in factories assumed by the larger, burgeoning economies in the game.

“…since some economies of scale may require a larger market than is possible within a particular country — for example, it would not be efficient for Liechtenstein to have its own car maker, if they would only sell to their local market.”

Another indication. Italy in the game would be less capable of this compared to USA or Germany.

Perhaps rather than a tech for every 20 IPC lead the combined axis or allies have over the other side receives a -1 cost benefit for naval. that would model “economies of scale” a bit better IMO rather than paying some dude in a white lab coat 5 IPC to “invent” a cash poor nations way of getting cheaper battleships, when another nation much larger is somehow paying a 20% markup for the same battleship but has 3 times to economy to do it.

We have to agree to disagree.

My son and I are setting up an AA50 game to play tonight. I’m allies he’s axis. We went over some house rules for the match. The oob rule for subs is a fleet can ignore just subs and pass over to the next sz, or if you have a dd you can engage them as an option but that would stop your movement. He wants to also give an engage battle option to the subs below. Subs would roll an attack dice @ 2 (3w/ss) or def dice @1(we have also talked about subs def @2) not sure which at this point. He says that it would not stop movement because subs would only get 1 shot each then you could continue on. I of coarse said that if your taking pot shots at me I’m firing at you. His reasoning is subs would make such an attack, they wouldn’t just sit idle. I can see his point, but pointed out that each sz is 100’s of miles and they could pass and never know it. He says yea but not every time. Again we don’t want these subs to be able to block movement, but a 1 rd battle might be ok with the surface fleet getting its licks in. A destroyer in the fleet would also negate a surprise first strike. Who knows it might back fire on him and rid me of those pesky German subs.
**I’m not sure if this is allowed to happen who would get attack dice and who should get def dice.
**I was thinking maybe the subs would get a dice roll to determine if they can engage?
Any quick feed back would be great. Thanks WB

@Imperious:

heres some manageable rules to use:

I most like the part about destroyer and crusier negate submarine’s preemptive fire on a 1-to-1 basis (rather than unlimited in AAR).

Simple enough to implement for even first time players. Yet quite effective in improving gameplay dynamics.