North-West Europe

[Imperious Leader]

Personally traded zones make the game silly like a cartoon where some Elmer is opening a drawer to find the rabbit and the rabbit is always in the unopenend drawer like a sick joke.

It also makes for a busted game mechanic derivative of what happens when reality is ignored. Allies landing in the same place and trading the same territory with the axis with double income collection should have been fixed like some other rule sets do ( no i am not plugging like others).

Trading the same zone over and over because the ‘system’ allows it should have been fixed.

Invasions should cost IPC, they are not undertaken lightly. It takes years to prepare for it.

[Lucifer]

@Imperious:

It also makes for a busted game mechanic derivative of what happens when reality is ignored. Allies landing in the same place and trading the same territory with the axis with double income collection should have been fixed like some other rule sets do ( no i am not plugging like others).

Trading the same zone over and over because the ‘system’ allows it should have been fixed.

Invasions should cost IPC, they are not undertaken lightly. It takes years to prepare for it.

Agree, it would not be difficult to make an easy ruleset which prevents TTT. By accepting same TTT in AA50 like AAR, A&A also has some technicality matters like chess, which is not bad by itself, but a 1-2 punch is both logical and acceptable, TTT is not.

I do not agree that invasions should cost ipc, more than it already does, you pay for units when they are bought, and A&A has no logistical mechanic like some other wargames. Its not free to have soldiers neither at home or at the front, soldiers must eat and need ammo, new guns and stuff, but this is already paid for when units are bought.
If a crucial issue like this is changed then its no longer A&A, and it would be difficult or close to impossible to rember everything, its already too complicated to remember all the rules playing the boardgame, thats why I prefer TripleA.
With logistical cost A&A would be like Panzer General, which I hope it will never be, even if PG was funny…

Best option imo is to change TTT only, say Germany must keep TT for one hole round to get money for TT’s. So if there is 6 powers in AA50, Germany plays first, Germany will get their money after US/China turn.

[Imperious Leader]

A number of options can solve the problem beyond what i offered. Any number of them can easily solve the problem without having a cost, but having rules for weather ( you roll to see if the ocean permits a smooth landing) or some defensive benefits ( blockhouse/fortress). Its not too hard to make it somewhat more realistic with minimal rules.

[Admiral T]

I personally think the best method to counter ‘trading’ territories, would be to make an incentive for one to hold it continuously. More specifically, collect your income at the BEGINNING of your turn, THEN purchasing your units. It doesn’t make much sense to be earning x amount of man hours towards your war effort if that territory was just a war zone. It takes time to coordinate masses of people and having them change their economy as to benefit your own war effort.

[Guest]

@Admiral:

I personally think the best method to counter ‘trading’ territories, would be to make an incentive for one to hold it continuously. More specifically, collect your income at the BEGINNING of your turn, THEN purchasing your units. It doesn’t make much sense to be earning x amount of man hours towards your war effort if that territory was just a war zone. It takes time to coordinate masses of people and having them change their economy as to benefit your own war effort.

I agree, if you want to end this flaw, this is the cleanest way to do it.  However, I believe the rule is like that to encourage attacking, so this could lead to more defensive play.

[cousin_joe]

Exactly Rakeman…

Less Stacking, More Attacking!!!   :-D

I remember classic where Germany built up in EEur, and the Allies built up in Karelia.  Those were true snoozefests.  Now that they added a whole bunch of territories to the Eastern Front, it makes things a lot more dynamic, and in turn, more fun.

[Admiral T]

Collecting income at the end of the turn does encourage people to attack, but it encourages attacking on faulty logic! How can France, a 6 IPC territory produce 6 for the Germans, then 6 for the Brits after they conquer it? That means that France produced 12 IPCs in one round! Ridiculous!!!

By collecting income at the beginning of your turn, it would encourage aggressive play, but in a different way. Lets take the France exchange as an example again. If the British take France, they don’t gain anything this round per se, but they deny Germany 6 IPC’s of income the next round. In turn, the Germans would want to counter attack in order to deny the British their income from France. This means that this zone, which is continuously being overrun by armies and having its infrastructure being destroyed in the battles, is unable to produce anything until it finally sees a bit of peace. If you want to gain an income from a certain zone, you have to earn it! Take it, and by god HOLD IT!!

[Bardoly]

Yes, but then there isn’t enough money in the game.  Perhaps if the IPC level of all territories was increased by 1, then there would be enough money in the game to collect money at the beginning of your turn rather than at the end of your turn.  That solution would also partially solve the problem of having too few locations with which one can build an IC because now every territory would be a minimum of a 2.

[Guest]

@Admiral:

Collecting income at the end of the turn does encourage people to attack, but it encourages attacking on faulty logic! How can France, a 6 IPC territory produce 6 for the Germans, then 6 for the Brits after they conquer it? That means that France produced 12 IPCs in one round! Ridiculous!!!

Looting and pillaging!  \m/ :evil:

[Lynxes]

This TTT discussion is interesting, but shouldn’t you throw in National objectives as well, the big change in AA50? You now have a reason to hold on to specific territories that weren’t worth much in AAR such as Gibraltar, Midway Island, Karelia and Algeria. Maybe that will go some way to lessen the dreaded TTT?

[Imperious Leader]

collect your income at the BEGINNING of your turn

That option already exist in some house rule sets for a long time and it solves the problem completely. Income basis reflects only what you managed to hold, not taken and lost every turn by trading.

[Admiral T]

@Lynxes:

This TTT discussion is interesting, but shouldn’t you throw in National objectives as well, the big change in AA50? You now have a reason to hold on to specific territories that weren’t worth much in AAR such as Gibraltar, Midway Island, Karelia and Algeria. Maybe that will go some way to lessen the dreaded TTT?

Yeah, I was thinking about this also. I think that the income you collect from completing the new NO’s are meant to represent an increase in morale from your citizens- and therefore and increase in production. Again, it would make sense to collect this bonus income at the beginning of your turn!

Anyways, you are absolutely right Lynxes, these NO territories are going to lessen the amount of time people spend trading IPC territories. We will now be focusing on worthless territories a lot more, effectively attacking the morale of your opponents citizens. Good stuff these National Objectives. :-)

[italiansarecoming]

that coudl work you do not ge that income until the second turn you have fulll control to the teritory like finland russia takes it first turn dont get its income second turn you do!
that sounds more like a house rule lets get out of that idea :|

[Lucifer]

If I’m not mistaken, there are no new rules regarding NO’s and collecting income?
This is the same as AAR, although AAr dont have NO’s.

Then it’s fully possible that we will see even more territorytrading in AA50 than AAR…

If you trade some nice TT’s, then you get 5 ipc extra income    :?

[Imperious Leader]

If you trade some nice TT’s, then you get 5 ipc extra income

And by the same token if a man selling flowers on the street corner makes $100 a day and his money gets stolen…then it can be also stolen a second time by a second crook  in the same day for another $100 dollars? The money he makes is doubled somehow even if only $100 is generated. Thats totally asinine.

Broken

[italiansarecoming]

hmm.

[cousin_joe]

@Imperious:

If you trade some nice TT’s, then you get 5 ipc extra income

And by the same token if a man selling flowers on the street corner makes $100 a day and his money gets stolen…then it can be also stolen a second time by a second crook  in the same day for another $100 dollars? The money he makes is doubled somehow even if only $100 is generated. Thats totally asinine.

Broken

What if said man has a million dollars in his pocket, and every time he gets robbed, he takes another $100 out.  Then in theory, said man could be robbed 6 times a day, by 6 different crooks, and never appear to go broke  :-D

[Lynxes]

If you trade some nice TT’s, then you get 5 ipc extra income    huh

Yes, in theory this is possible. But this game is not a win-win-situation. If your opponent wins IPCs, you lose by it. Take France in AA50 for example. Yes, Germany can allow for invasions and retake the area. But now instead of UK winning 6 IPCs by this move, UK wins 11 IPCs and US 5 IPCs. Hardly a funny situation for the Axis…  :wink:

[italiansarecoming]

that could work that way worth fighting for p.s. i was in a&ae and basically i had 37 inf. in stalingrad germany had 15 tanks?

[Imperious Leader]

What if said man has a million dollars in his pocket, and every time he gets robbed, he takes another $100 out.  Then in theory, said man could be robbed 6 times a day, by 6 different crooks, and never appear to go broke

The problem is the mans net worth/value is fixed per measure of unit or turn and  if it was set up where anybody can rob the fixed income generated up to 6 times in the span of a single turn…it leads to longer games because more income is artificially generated then is possible and this allows more units to be built, which in turns takes more time to destroy.

An addition, the allies didn’t get income for ‘liberation’, while the axis plundered conquered nations. At a minimum the Allies should just reduce the axis nation by the income of what they liberate, rather than take the same money.

Lastly, the territory has gone thru the ringer and the field of battle leaves devastation so getting full value for a nation that was just invaded makes no sence either.