AARe: Suggested Alterations

[Jennifer]

@axis_roll:

why replace Hawaii with Midway?    :? :? :?

could be the makings of a long game

A)  Midway is not one turn from New Zealand/Australia.  This alone would force Japan to either make a special trip or wait a full turn to get their fleets back up/down there.

B)  Midway was actually a target of invasion in the real war.  Hawaii was not.

C)  Midway is worth 0 IPC.  It’s so pointless that the defender is NEVER attacked and very, VERY rarely ever even collected.  Why not make it worth at least something, if not monetarily, at least as a condition for victory.

D)  Hawaii is too valuable as a victory city.  It’s a staging ground for W. USA attacks as well as Canada and Alaska.  It’s prime for stopping the Americans from re-entering the Pacific from the Atlantic via the Panama Canal.  It’s worth 1 IPC.  And against a determined Japan, impossible to hold.  Midway has a lot of the similar characteristics as Hawaii, except it is NOT in a position to stop America from coming through the canal and it is NOT worth 1 IPC.

E) Other then being a VC, Midway has no purpose for existing in the game as it is.  Making it a VC would give it a reason to exist.  (Wake at least is a good platform to move fighters over for America and to assault Japan with Bombers.  Midway is not for either side.  Hawaii is better for Japan, Wake is better for America.)

---

I agree.  With a VC in S. Africa England has something to defend in Africa outside of money.  In fact, the more i think about it, I want Tripoli (Algeria) to be a VC instead of Warsaw (E. Europe) as well.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

@axis_roll:

why replace Hawaii with Midway?    :? :? :?

could be the makings of a long game

B)  Midway was actually a target of invasion in the real war.  Hawaii was not.

C)  Midway is worth 0 IPC.  It’s so pointless that the defender is NEVER attacked and very, VERY rarely ever even collected.  Why not make it worth at least something, if not monetarily, at least as a condition for victory.

D)  Hawaii is too valuable as a victory city.  It’s a staging ground for W. USA attacks as well as Canada and Alaska.  It’s prime for stopping the Americans from re-entering the Pacific from the Atlantic via the Panama Canal.  It’s worth 1 IPC.  And against a determined Japan, impossible to hold.  Midway has a lot of the similar characteristics as Hawaii, except it is NOT in a position to stop America from coming through the canal and it is NOT worth 1 IPC.

E) Other then being a VC, Midway has no purpose for existing in the game as it is.  Making it a VC would give it a reason to exist.  (Wake at least is a good platform to move fighters over for America and to assault Japan with Bombers.  Midway is not for either side.  Hawaii is better for Japan, Wake is better for America.)

Too valuable to be a victory city?
That’s the silliest argument I’ve ever heard of for NOT making a territory a VC

Also Japan probably SHOULD have invaded Hawaii!

Can you imagine the consequences

THAT’S what A&A is all about… changing the course of history.

Japan has their own worthless islands, should we make them VC’s too?

[tekkyy]

so what about Africa?
whats your take on that, axis_roll ?

[Jennifer]

No, Japan’s worthless islands don’t need the prestige of becoming victory cities because Japan’s islands are generally invaded anyway.  Midway serves absolutely no purpose in this game other then an ego boost to the US Navy as it is now.

Solomons are invaded because it’s a dumping ground for ground forces to get them off transports.  Wake is invaded because it’s the closest landing zone that allows American bombers to hit Japan.

Midway?  There’s nothing at Midway you can’t get at Hawaii and Hawaii is also a good staging ground to stop America from using the Panama Canal.

So why are we putting a Victory City there!?!?  It just seems like a really silly, arbitrary location for a victory city.  Kinda like someone said “Hey, America needs another VC, hmm, Alaska or Hawaii…let’s flip a coin!”

[tekkyy]

@Cmdr:

Solomons are invaded because it’s a dumping ground for ground forces to get them off transports.  Wake is invaded because it’s the closest landing zone that allows American bombers to hit Japan.

Midway?  There’s nothing at Midway you can’t get at Hawaii and Hawaii is also a good staging ground to stop America from using the Panama Canal.

yeah its a funny contrast between geography and in game

in game…
Wake becomes dumping ground (a 1500 floor high-rise apparently…)
Solomons is not touched
Midway is rarely, but can be, used for SBR

[Jennifer]

But Hawaii can also be used for SBR.  So why even bother with Midway?  It’s just going to take time and resources and gives Japan absolutely nothing, but a substandard Hawaii.

Anyway, I have a question:

Can Japan put 5 Submarines in SZ 55 and SBR W. USA or is SBR/CRD cumulative up to territory value?

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

But Hawaii can also be used for SBR.  So why even bother with Midway?  It’s just going to take time and resources and gives Japan absolutely nothing, but a substandard Hawaii.

Anyway, I have a question:

Can Japan put 5 Submarines in SZ 55 and SBR W. USA or is SBR/CRD cumulative up to territory value?

SBR’s occur during your combat, Convoy raids happen on the affected countries collect income phase.

These happen during different countries turns.  The affects are seperate and cumulative.

So yes, US can lose up to $20 to bombing raids ($10 on Germany’s turn and $10 on Japans turn) and then $10 to convoy raids on USA’s turn if those subs are not submerged

[axis_roll]

@tekkyy:

so what about Africa?
whats your take on that, axis_roll ?

It seems a VC in SAF would be too much of an allied advantage.  That’s really far away for German/Japan to go, and a lot easier to defend for the allies.

[Jennifer]

Okay, I was a bit confused on that.  So Japan could put Heavy Bombers in Hawaii, bomb America into the stone age and then compound it by leaving 5 submarines in SZ 55.

Man, that’s gunna REALLY hurt America!

---

S. Africa is not that hard for the Axis to get too.  I submit it’s actually easier in most games for Japan to take S. Africa then it is for America or England to defend.

Of course, it may result in England putting an IC up down there just to keep it, in which case, are we not achieving the objective of this rule set? (Spreading the war over the entire board, instead of ONLY in Europe and Asia?)

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Okay, I was a bit confused on that.  So Japan could put Heavy Bombers in Hawaii, bomb America into the stone age and then compound it by leaving 5 submarines in SZ 55.

Man, that’s gunna REALLY hurt America!

Yes, that’s the point, make USA pay if they ignore the Pacific

@Cmdr:

S. Africa is not that hard for the Axis to get too.  I submit it’s actually easier in most games for Japan to take S. Africa then it is for America or England to defend.

Of course, it may result in England putting an IC up down there just to keep it, in which case, are we not achieving the objective of this rule set? (Spreading the war over the entire board, instead of ONLY in Europe and Asia?)

Yes, the allies would make SAF more of a priority if it were a VC.

I never said adding more VCs was a good or bad thing.  I think you can take the VC concept to many different levels (major/minor cities is one example I’ve seen) and they are an excellent addition that came with Revised.

I think the additional VCs were added in Enhanced to make it a game that could be won without having to take Moscow (removing the mad tank dash/Kill Germany First prevelant strategies).

I do not think making the game a global warfare was a major objective of Enhanced, I think that major goal of Enhanced was to ensure there was a Pacific war and a way to win without taking out Moscow.

Again, I am NOT saying more VCs wouldn’t work or couldn’t be a cool thing.  Perhaps you can create your own extention of the Enhanced rules with the additions of VCs as a way to spice it up… but there are already many, many strategic options as is.  :)

---

Not so sure I like the ‘have to hold for one round idea’.  My quick thought is that may make a game that takes a long time to play out.  And when you play a long game, you are forced to play a long game strategy, which means economics come much more into play, which means you start to limit your strategic options (i.e. forced to play a long game, all the time)

I kinda like that the axis can get very creative and go for a very quick kill.  The allies have to recognize this and adjust quickly or lose.

[Jennifer]

I like the idea of holding it for a round because it prevents winning with whacky dice.

For instance, if Russia cannot take Ukraine because Germany put 2 or 3 infantry of bid in there, and they leave enough in Caucasus to stop 97.8% of German attacks, but Germany attacks anyway and wins and walks into Karelia then Japan only needs to get two victory cities.  Not that hard if you think about it.  Tokyo Express  and a standard set up gives them India and Hawaii 70% of the time, give or take 5%. (Doing the math in my head, I know it was 85-90% for each battle, that’s 70-80% for both.)

Meanwhile, America has ZERO chance to liberate Hawaii on Round 1.

However, if you have to hold them for one round, Russia could easily liberate Caucasus in most cases, thus ending the axis win.

However, in MOST games where the axis DO win with victory cities (which so far has been every game except one I played in AARe) they easily held their victory cities for a full turn - or would hold them for a full turn even if they had too.

It’s the same problem I have with doing VCs in AAR.  End of America’s turn is just not sufficient.  It should be a full turn from the time you get the 9th until you go again.

[tekkyy]

@axis_roll:

@tekkyy:

so what about Africa?
whats your take on that, axis_roll ?

It seems a VC in SAF would be too much of an allied advantage.  That’s really far away for German/Japan to go, and a lot easier to defend for the allies.

what about North Africa like Egypt?

I am thinking its not an advantage if you give it to Allies and now Allies just need 1 more VC to win

[Imperious Leader]

Pagan has told anybody that their will never be any changes of any type unless a discovery of a ‘trick’ is found in play. Even thought it was Cousin Joe who created it, Pagan is basically in charge of it and only seems to tweek the wording on it, and very minor changes were concluded. I have never known them to change any of their NA’s except very modestly to remove any perceived ambiguities.

So essentially its a closed system. What changes you speak of wont get done, certainly not changing the Victory cities.

[axis_roll]

@Imperious:

Pagan has told anybody that their will never be any changes of any type unless a discovery of a ‘trick’ is found in play. Even thought it was Cousin Joe who created it, Pagan is basically in charge of it and only seems to tweek the wording on it, and very minor changes were concluded. I have never known them to change any of their NA’s except very modestly to remove any perceived ambiguities.

So essentially its a closed system. What changes you speak of wont get done, certainly not changing the Victory cities.

That’s not to say we can not create our own victory rules utilizing the same ‘Enhanced rules’.  I would be interested to see how more VC’s changes the game.

This could become an alternate / optional rule that could realistically be added to the Enhanced Rules if they turn out to be balanced and fun.

[Jennifer]

I’d hope the VCs make life slightly easier on the allies for the first few rounds and harder in later rounds. (By allowing them to at least have two rounds to get mobilized but then spreading them out across the board to engage in Africa, Pacific, Atlantic, Asia, Asia Minor and Europe.)

[Jennifer]

I believe I have found an effective counter to the allied destroyer strategy.

Need a new opponent to test it on though. :P  Bean’s in school! hehe.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

I believe I have found an effective counter to the allied destroyer strategy.

Need a new opponent to test it on though. :P  Bean’s in school! hehe.

it is defintely a beatable strategy

[Jennifer]

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

I believe I have found an effective counter to the allied destroyer strategy.

Need a new opponent to test it on though. :P  Bean’s in school! hehe.

it is definitely a beatable strategy

Let me redefine my statement, I have found an EFFECTIVE counter to the allied destroyer strategy.  I know there are ways to stop it by shooting yourself in the foot with the axis.  But I think I have a way to do it without selecting National Advantages specifically to beat it and not racing for technologies specifically to beat it (though they make it easier.)

In other words, a very slight modification from the game as normally played.