My wife and I have played Richard Karpusiewicz’s “Great War” rules for AAE a couple times and thoroughly enjoyed it. We’ve thought of some rule changes that seem to enhance it, and I’ve put together a nice-looking manual for the whole thing (including new marker tokens for the WWI nations). The revised and reformatted rules are available as a PDF; I can’t post links yet, but you can get it here:

docs.google.com/open?id=0B4OjxFZJoutMQmMxOGJ3VzJBYUE

The end of the PDF summarizes most of the changes I’ve made to the rules. I’ve also laid out the new marker tokens for the Avery 4x6" circle labels, product number 5408; the PDF for that is here:

docs.google.com/open?id=0B4OjxFZJoutMX1p5ZTNDNEM2alk

I’ll eventually publish the LibreOffice source documents, SVG files and whatnot as well, in case others want to make further changes. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find Richard’s original rules online anymore. I haven’t played this scenario enough times yet to know whether it’s balanced; our first couple of games seemed to tilt slightly in favor of the Allies, which is partly why I shortened the number of turns until the Russian Revolution, and also added a probability of France having mutinies.

I hope my enhancements help to keep this great scenario alive, and I would love to hear feedback from anyone who plays it (either Richard’s original version, or my modified version).

With 4 subs, you may score anywhere from 0 to 4 hits. Each sub has a 2/6 (or 1/3) chance of hitting, and therefore a 4/6 (or 2/3) chance of missing. You can figure the total probability by multiplying the chance of each sub hitting, along with the chance of each sub missing. So for instance:

0 hits: 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 (all 4 subs miss) = 0.1975, about 20% chance
4 hits: 1/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 (all 4 subs hit) = 0.0123, about 1% chance

Things get a little more complicated with some hits and some misses involved. You might have:

• First sub hits (hmmm)
• Second sub hits (mhmm)
• Third sub hits (mmhm)
• Fourth sub hits (mmmh)

The probability of each of those four things is the same:

1 hit: 1/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 (1 sub hits, the rest miss) = 0.0987, about 10% chance

But since there are four ways it can happen, there’s a 40% chance of getting exactly one hit. Similar for 2 hits–there are 6 different ways of getting exactly 2 hits (hhmm, hmhm, hmmh, mhhm, mhmh, mmhh) and the probability of each is:

2 hits: 1/3 * 1/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 (2 hits, 2 misses) = 0.0494, about 5% chance

So 6 * 5% is about 30% for exactly 2 hits. For exactly 3 hits, there are again 4 ways, and probability of:

3 hits: 1/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 * 2/3 = 0.0247, about 2% chance

About 4 * 0.0247 = 10% for 3 hits.

The summary then:

• 0 hit: 20%
• 1 hit: 40%
• 2 hit: 30%
• 3 hit: 10%
• 4 hit: 1%

Which totals to just a little over 100% because of my rounding to whole percentages, but you get the idea. So to your original question, the chance of getting at least 2 hits is 30 + 10 + 1 = about 41%.

Now, if you want to take into consideration rerolling–that is, your subs got 0 or 1 hit, and need to go into a second round of combat, you’d have to figure the probability of the battleship hitting one of your subs (so you know whether you’ll have 4 or 3 subs in the next round), and then figure the probability of each contingency again, recursing forever… I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Played a game of AAE last night, with me as the Allies. On about the second turn, I put a nice stack of 9 infantry in Belorussia, thinking that would be enough to at least slightly mangle any German force that might attack. Germany attacked with a mixed force of about a dozen units, and got 8 hits on the first roll. My infantry? All 9 of the buggers missed. Missed in the second round also; Germany got Belorussia for free.

Later, Germany tried to take my fighter in Malta, with inf/art + battleship/destroyer OSB. Despite rolling 6 for the first 5 rounds, the fighter ended up winning :-)

Good thread, by the way. I try to make at least one completely crazy move every time I play; win or lose, it keeps things interesting.

Yeah, I don’t think I’d go so sub-crazy now, knowing that my blockade idea is illegitimate. In our next game, I played Germany again, and allowed the Atlantic to fall to the Allies pretty early. I spent the rest of the game attempting to rebuild my fleet, and at one point I even had a couple of aircraft carriers. I actually took Moscow pretty early on, but it was quickly reclaimed (by one stinking British tank, would you believe), and I never got it back. From there, it became a huge naval arms race that turned out to be Germany’s downfall. After about 8 turns, Germany was still very much alive, but spread thin and poorly positioned; the British and U.S. fleets killed most of my navy, Russia was growing stronger and Moscow was totally out of the question. Aside from an occasional skirmish into Leningrad, it was pretty hopeless. I resigned, saying that this was the point where Hitler locked himself in a bunker and ate a bullet.

I’d have to agree that Germany needs to focus on the USSR in order to be really effective. I’ve read a lot of stuff on this forum since then about the tank-stacking strategy that supposedly really does make Germany nigh-unbeatable, but that doesn’t interest me. Guaranteed-to-win strategies are no fun at all. I like to try something new in every A&A game I play; one of my favorite things about the series is that no two games are ever the same. Win or lose, I am in it to see something I’ve never seen before.

We’ve done a few games of Guadalcanal and Battle of the Bulge since then, but my wife and I agree that Europe is our favorite so far. Can’t wait to try it again, and I think I want to be the Allies next time. I’d like to see if it’s possible for the U.S. to build a permanent outpost in France… Or maybe Russia could build a navy…

I too found the victory point rules puzzling on my first game. Like the OP, I did not realize that VPs scored for airfields were per-turn (the rulebook is a little vague on this). After coming across this thread, it’s much clearer now. Plus, it’s always good to see that frame of Picard facepalming :-)

My wife and I have played a lot of A&A Classic, a little Revised, and so far only 3 games of A&A Europe. We’ve come to the conclusion that Germany is just a little too powerful in AAE, maybe even nigh-undefeatable. I’ve read opinions that go both ways on this, but I’m curious to get some input from more veteran players of AAE.

Tonight, I played Germany, and decided to make the bold move of capturing all 7 Allied convoys on the first turn. I purchased 5 more subs, expecting to lose a few, but the idea formed that if I could take out all the Allied naval units, I could place 1 sub next to every Allied industrial complex, and completely prevent the production of new naval units. Furthermore, since the rules say that planes cannot attack subs unless a friendly destroyer is present, this made the subs completely immune to attack. I didn’t manage the blockade until the fourth or fifth turn, but once it happened, the US and UK could do almost nothing except start sending planes to Russia for conversion. When we stopped playing tonight, I was at Moscow’s doorstep, and only 2 turns away from taking Washington and London to boot.

It has bothered me every time we’ve played that the convoys (worth 1/4 of US income and nearly 2/3 of UK’s) are completely unprotected on the first turn. It seems a little too easy for Germany to take these. Seems like there should be at least a destroyer in a few of them, so they’re not complete freebies. I know Germany’s submarine warfare tactics were brutal, but this is kind of ridiculous.

What do other folks think? Have you found the game to be imbalanced in Germany’s favor? If not, what are some Allied strategies that could prevent a total naval blockade? We discussed some alterations, such as allowing planes to attack subs regardless of destroyer presence, placing some initial defenses in the convoys, and allowing all three of the Allies to have the starting 12 IPC bonus (instead of making them split 12 IPCs between them). Supposedly, A&A Classic and Revised are weighted in favor of the Allies, and I’d agree to some extent, but in many dozens of games of that over the years I’ve never felt like there was an obvious and unfair advantage like we’ve experienced with Europe.

Edit: I just came across this tidbit from the AAE FAQ:

Q. Can the US build naval units in the US Eastern Coast sea zone if it is occupied by a German sub?
A.  The presence of enemy ships has no effect on naval construction.  If the Bismarck and the entire Kriegsmarine were in the US Eastern Coast sea zone, the US could still build a fleet there

I had no idea that this was the case! I guess we’re too accustomed to the Classic rules that say new naval units cannot be placed in hostile sea zones. This would have made a radical difference in our game last night. I also see now that the AAR and AAE rules both say that hostiles in a sea zone cannot prevent unit placement. It’s an ongoing learning experience :-)