Why not use First Edition rules?

How about the Soviets infantry/tanks always defend on a 3 in the opening round of any battle. After the 1st round they revert back to standard values

my initial thought would be that too quickly the Russians would be too strong for any attack Germany could muster.  If they didn’t strike too quickly they never could, but it is something I haven’t tried and would like to try it before really judging it.

there is the thought that this wouldn’t be the most historical change, historically I think the Germans over ran Russian defensive positions pretty quickly all the way to the 3 cities shown on the gameboard.  Perhaps giving the cities an advantage of defense roll would be the right place for it.

overall, i have to more agree with Aretaku that even with the tank-stack Germany is not invincible.  We have been playtesting a number of tweaks and changes and trying to find balance where the tank-stack can work, but is not guaranteed.  Just like sea lion or the most balanced attack, they can work, but there is a chance for both sides to win.

Its out of print

@ShadowHAwk:

Where can i find the 2nd edition rules? As the rules on wizzards of the coast are 1st edition as far as i can determine.
And how does 1 recognize the box from 2nd edition. Im looking into expanding my A&A empire ( only got revised atm ) and i dont want to buy an outdated version.

The box should look the same, it’s just a couple of the rules that changed, so if you can find it, it will work for either edition you want to play the rules of.

attached is a pdf of 2nd edition rules, or rather, the changes from 1st to 2nd.
below they are listed as well.

“WHAT’S DIFFERENT ABOUT 2ND PRINTING RULES?
1. Destroyers support shot on amphibious assaults has been reduced from
a “3” to a “2”. The destroyer’s attack and defense roll remains a “3”.
This rule change only applies to support shots on amphibious assaults.
2. As part of the Patriotic War rule, the Soviet Union may change Allied
units into their Soviet equivalents. They may now only do this in a
territory that contains a Soviet home Industrial Complex. This means
that Allied units may only be exchanged in Leningrad, Stalingrad,
Archangel, and Moscow itself. This is different from the first printing
rules that stated that the U.S.S.R. may change pieces anywhere in
Soviet home territories.”

AAE2ndEdRules.pdf

I like the idea of the city advantage. Something like a +1 to defence of infantry making them a 1,3. To keep it fair, this would have to be applied to all cities in the game though. Seems like a good simulation of troops desperately mustering their resolve to hold key cities.

Another thought just occurred to me… Instead of a +1 for defenders, how about a -1 for ground attackers. Infantry would not be affected as they are already a 1, but artillery would be a 1 and tanks a 2. It forces a more hard fought battle and makes the attacker use a stronger attack force. Same idea as my last one, but minimises the affects of defenders infantry stacking.

@Variable:

I like the idea of the city advantage. Something like a +1 to defence of infantry making them a 1,3. To keep it fair, this would have to be applied to all cities in the game though. Seems like a good simulation of troops desperately mustering their resolve to hold key cities.

I like this “fortress” idea but all inf def at 3 may be a little too much. Perhaps a dice roll before the battle equal to the # of defending infantry can be done with the # of dice  >3 raising that many inf to a 3 def. This might better simulate the rousing by the komissars.

you can always give INF defending in cities 2 hits to take before destroyed to help simulate the house to house fighting that would have to occur and the need for 3x the number of defending troops…

I’ve read IL write this a couple times, that AAE is broken unless a way to beat the tank-stack is found and right now I’d agree.  I have a list of options we’ve tried but to no avail thus far.

The best solution to resolve this is:

The German player must garrison each Soviet territory with at least land unit, or he does not collect income. This is modeling Partisan activity and in game terms it takes away fodder for the strike against Moscow. The other thing is to give the Soviet player a cash fund to simulate the Siberian army which shows up on turn 3 at Moscow.

Lastly, allow the Soviets up to 6 shock armies which are 6 pairs of Tanks and infantry, which boost the infantry to +1 attack and +1 defense for the infantry as long as its with a tank. Remember no more than 6 of these can be created at any one time.

In all actuality it was almost pure luck that Russia did survive the war. If Hitler had not split his massive Barbarossa force to attack South, Moscow would have surely fallen. I think the best way to make the game a little more fair is have it start in 1940 or 39 like the new AAE40 will do. Starting at the beginning of 41 like AAE does highlights the ineptitude that Stalin had by not strengthening his front lines and purging his army in the 30’s by killing I believe 70% of his officers. If we are given control in 1939 the German force would be smaller than the Soviets (had the largest army in the world: equaled all other armies tanks put together and had more planes than all others combined), but the Germans have a stronger economy. So the Russian player is given time to move his forces (albeit outclassed forces) into position for a massive offensive by Germany. We could right Stalin’s mistakes and Hitler’s as well (he attacked Yugoslavia right before Barbarossa, killing 6 precious weeks of good weather that would be needed for the Russian offensive). But at the current state the game is pretty accurate, if there is a determined German player and a non-cohesive allied force then Germany will win 90% of the time. But if the allies work together (UK helping out Russia while the US does its thing to invade Europe) then the game swings to a very balanced game where dice rolls and a little luck is what usually wins the day, or a little mistake by either side, which is how the game should be IMO.