Updated FAQ Posted

Okay, so if the entire Royal Navy is sitting in the Baltic/North Seas (SZ 5), and we’re talking 40 aircraft carriers, 80 fighters, 100 battleships/cruisers a few dozen destroyers and a submarine (just to “represent”) Germany can still take her bomber and one infantry over SZ 5 and drop them on England taking out the undefended land there?

@Telamon:

And if the defender is concerned they might lose their fighters because the escort stack would shred them - they can let the bomber(s) through to the keeper and they have wasted the opportunity of the escorts to do something better.  And the fighters still suffer akak fire, for no gain.

Wow, I completely missed this part the first time I read it.  Yuck!  You can’t even use your escorts to try to overwhelm a token interceptor?  They can just sit safely on the ground if you send enough figs?  Goodness. That takes away the incentive for sending a major airstrike.

I don’t like the new SBR rules. Allies need the power of their starting bombers to try balance their starting massive disadvantage in 1941. I would buy one bomber to replace loses, but not fighters for escorting SBRs (better used in Pacific theater or as defense in atlantic ACs). I would not risk a soviet fighter to defend from SBR, by the way  :-P

The Black Sea … not sure. It means Caucasus will be safe from sneaky italians, but it will focus Italy in Africa, a thing I don’t like playing UK.  :|

Make a fixed setup and/or make China a full power. This is much more needed. But I said that before  :wink:

if you close the black sea, you might as well forbid Amphibious Assaults on norway from sz 3 and 6…  :roll:

I like the optional rules since they can be added to affect the balance of the game without bids which are too random for my taste (yes, I’m a bit obsessive-compulsive…).

The Dardenelles rule of course really helps the Allies, and could go some way to counteract the economic advantages of the easy-to-get Axis NOs. It’s also in line with Larry Harris ambition to lessen the attractiveness of JTDTM strats, since Caucasus will be easier to defend for the Russkies.

The interceptor rule helps the Axis, since Germany and Italy are the worst hit by SBR usually. Especially Italy needs SBR defence, they are really sitting ducks to SBR now. So, if we get the Allied strats right we might arrive at the fact that the interceptor rule is needed together with the Dardanelles rule.

Since I also like historicality, I love both rules and will be arguing for both to be included I think! Thanks Krieghund!  :-)

I’d almost go far as to say SBR is “broken” in no tech games.

I all my games as the Axis, the Allies are constantly throwing cheap $12 bombers into Rome and Berlin and there is nothing I can do about it (other than get lucky and roll heaps of “1’s”).

Tech addresses this as 2 techs help counter the economic benefit of SBR, while only 1 tech directly aids it.

Why the errata about the Increased Factory Production???

This kind of kills the Aussie or South African factories.

I though consensus was the Axis have the advantage, so surely this just cements things even more!

Or was this always Larry’s intention and it was omitted from OOB rules?

Well, TBH I personally don’t think Aus makes a good IC locations anyway.

I’ve seen Saf in plenty of non-tech games anyway, so it shouldn’t affect that decision massively, plus it’s generally built on UK1, at which time you generally can’t rely on achieving that tech anytime soon.

Building 4 in Kar as Germany would be kinda cool though!  :mrgreen:

Wow, the errata on increased factory production is huge.

There were two problems with Increased Factory Production as written:
Production was doubled or tripled in low-IPC territories.

True, but how is this really a “problem”? :?

One-IPC territories were impossible to shut down with SBRs, since the maximum damage that can be applied is two points (1 IPC - 2 damage + 2 for IFP = 1 unit produced).

Ok, this makes some sense, but then why not make the minimum 2 IPC territories? You can still apply 4 damage, thereby shutting it down. What’s special about 3 IPC territories?

Having 3 as the minimum detracts from factories in Australia, South Africa, Egypt, Karelia, Burma, FIC, and Kiangsu, all of which are fairly common sites for ICs and will now be less attractive. On the other hand, it’s not like anyone really builds ICs in 1 IPC territories unless they already have the tech. It just seems like having 3 IPC territories as the minimum is a kinda arbitrary and affects gameplay more than have a minimum of 2 would (maybe this was the goal?).

I though consensus was the Axis have the advantage, so surely this just cements things even more!

I’m not sure this is true, the errata hurts Japan also.

4 would have made the tech useless (except to reduce SBR)

3 is probably a nice compromise, but time will tell.

The good thing about Larry is that he embraces community feedback and uses the web as an information resource. I’m sure if in six months he sees this as a mistake, then he will address it.

Thanks for the reply Krieg. :)

Just to clarify a few of my points:

The problem is that Germany’s (a major industrial center) production is increased by 20%, while Algeria’s is increased by 200%.  That math just doesn’t work.

Yeah I mean obviously this is unrealistic (like many things in A&A), but I meant that I don’t see it as a problem from a game balance perspective. I guess I just don’t get why this is unrealistic enough to warrant errata, while something like transports passing freely through sub-infested waters is not.

These sites will be less lucrative, but that doesn’t necessarily make them less attractive.  True, they won’t get the increased production, but they will still benefit from the reduced repair cost.  If they are “fairly common sites”, why should they depend on success with a particular tech to make them so?

I don’t think it will stop players from building on those sites. But for nations like Japan, Increased Production was a very good tech specifically because of those 2 IPC build sites. Making 3 the minimum really reduces the value of the tech for them, by a big margin. Its just one less trick in Japan’s bag is all, and I don’t see how that is a good thing.

There’s a big difference between 2- and 3-IPC territories in the percentage increase achieved when adding two to the production cap.  2-IPC territories increase by 100%, while 3-IPC ones only increase by 67%.  Each one IPC of value from there reduces the percentage increase even further.

Yeah, I get this. The problem is arises from adding a constant amount to different production levels. I said the choice of 3 IPCs as the minimum was somewhat arbitrary because, well, where do you draw the line? 67% is acceptable while 100% is not? Why not 50%? You guys settled on 3 as the minimum, and that’s fine. I’m just curious if you guys considered whether 2 may have been better since it’s less “disruptive” to gameplay.

Even though it is historical, I don’t like closing off the Black Sea. Unless you make some corresponding change that helps the Axis, this rule is almost a complete give to the Allies by taking away one of the more relevant uses for the Italian Navy. Maybe a middle ground would be to apply a penalty to entering the strait (loss of IPCs, minefield that rolls on “1” like AA fire, etc) instead of closing it completely.

On the improved IC production, I think this is another change that hurts the Axis (particularly Japan) more than the Allies.  Another option might be to limit, but not eliminate, the use of improved factories in low IPC territories. For example, allow factories in territories of 2 IPC value or less to increase production by one but don’t let them have the benefit of lower repair costs.

On a more general note, I think the whole tech structure needs to be re-worked. I like the concept of tech, but under the OOB rules, one lucky tech roll can effectively throw the game (i.e. Heavy Bomber to the U.S. on round 1). No tech should be that powerful.  There are a number of different ways the tech rules could be modified, but I think it starts with an acknowledgment that the OOB rules don’t work very well if the object is to keep the game balanced and not dependent on a luck tech roll.

@DY:

Why the errata about the Increased Factory Production???

This kind of kills the Aussie or South African factories.

There are 2 ways to apply this strategy:

• Build from the beginning Aus or SA ICs. In that case if you invest in tech, roll and get Increased Factory Production it would be nice if they could produce 4 units but, you don’t really know if you’ll get that tech will you? So the strategy of building them from the beginning is still valid from this viewpoint, since you’d build them in any case. But the strategy of building them and then hoping to get Increased Production is dependent on a lot of rolls.
• Invest in tech and by chance get increased production. If this happens in the first rounds, yeah it would be worthwhile to buy a factory there. But afterwards it might not be a good idea since Japan might have overrun Australia and be ready to take over Africa.

Now look at the benefits for J:

• J rolls and gets Increased Production then takes and build 2 ICs on Ningxia and Sikang, and you’ll be able in 2 turns to attack Kazakh/Novo with 6 infantry. Build another in Chinghai and you’ll be able to pump 9 units each round at the heart of Russia.
• Allied bombers go after the ICs to reduce their production but they can only deal 2 points of damage, at a total of 6 for the 3 ICs and it only costs J 3 IPCs to repair then.

So is it more balanced with OOB rules or with the changes in the FAQ? My money goes to the FAQ.