Yes of course they had differences on many levels, but the technology of artillery boosting more men at double rate would indicate something like guided missiles ala desert storm.
In AA nobody measures German tanks any batter than Japanese tanks, Or Italian infantry the same as Americans… to then mark the comparative difference of better US fire control system and mechanization and assign double impact for THAT , while neglecting more obvious qualitative differences of the units themselves. Is not realistic at all. I feel they just got stumped for an idea and wanted a safe technology that could not get exploited and sacrificed realism.
Certainly they could have addressed other technologies like improved ASW which was must more decisive to the war, than marked differences of some minor advantages in artillery. Besides the 88 was one of the most effective weapons in the war. It was a triple threat to be used for all kinds of suited missions.
@Imperious:
and sacrificed realism.
:-D Which can be said for much of Axis and Allies!!!
But then that is where AARHE comes in - I’ve just been ploughing through your rules and really like them. I much prefer the idea of pre-battle air-fights like in GMT’s AWAW, so there is no longer the possibility to hid precious planes.
They constitute a nice bridge between more complex wargames and A&A.
@Imperious:
Ideas from elsewhere under consideration:
Bonus: When defending a victory city (that has never fallen), you can choose one round (per battle) where your infantry defend on a three. (dig in and hold to the last man).
-or-
When defending a victory (that has never fallen), on each round of battle after the first, you may add a virtual infantry to the fight (If you control at least one infantry and not a virtual infantry already). This one makes them much harder to kill if you don’t bring in a significant force. I really like the Stalingrad effect on this one.Penalty: When you lose a victory city that has never fallen, for your next turn, all your units have an attack factor one lower than usual (ones still hit). This one seems brutal, but really interesting. Talk about codifying national despondency.
How about an idea stolen from some other games where you have some sort of national morale? When you lose a victory city that you start the game with you lose 2 national morale points, lets say. When you capture one back you gain 1 morale point (the city has been devastated). You also get 1 national morale point for capturing an enemy objective and lose 1 if you lose it again. Each nation has a track and when their morale drops below a certain point their nation sues for peace and leaves the war.
The point is over time your national morale would drop if you weren’t defending your home territory very well, and eventually your nation would withdraw from the war. This is more or less what happened historically, after all we never did invade Japan. Given the ahistorical balanced setup of the game, if the real war had been more like that severe war weariness would have been much more likely to set in and the war would have been more likely to end in a settled peace. Even many of the Allied economies were shattered by the end of the war, let alone the Axis powers.
This would force players to defend victory cities “to the death” because they can’t afford the drop in national morale. If you wanted to flesh out the system further you could add addtional effects after morale has dropped below certain points but before a nation has left the war, similar to the situation with Italy at the start of 1943 where its troops had virtually no motiviation to fight anymore.
I love this one +1
They constitute a nice bridge between more complex wargames and A&A.
trying to bridge the gap with something with more teeth for people to chew.
currently we are working on a 4.1 which will be a dressed down version
I am thinking, wouldn’t it be nice to reward players for buying destroyers for their transports?
Perhaps a Destroyer paired with one or two transports should defend at a 3 or less?
Why would the destroyer get so powerful if it now has the burden of defending countless unarmed escorts on the high seas?
I am working on a new idea for a few days now…
Light cruisers!
3-2 unit also works like a destroyer with subs (negates the first strike) and costs 10 IPC
also considered escorts, which would be 1-2 units costing 6…perfect defenders for convoy.
Well, it isn’t really “so powerful” because we are just restoring it to the defense value it had in AAR.
What I am thinking is that a destroyer + 1 or 2 transports (not sure how many would be required to up it’s defense rate, I am leaning towards 2) would be acting as a convoy escort. So you are not really rolling the destroyer’s defense, you are rolling the entire convoy’s organized defense (the destroyer AND the transports acting in concert.)
Meanwhile, of course, transports without a destroyer telling them what to do and organizing them, would be hopelessly lost. (0 defense.)
And destroyers without the added firepower from the transports (and they had SOME firepower, not great firepower, but they did have a gun I believe) wouldn’t have the added fields of fire and would fight at a reduced defense power. (2 or less.)
Notice, this is only their defense! Attack would still be 2 or less. Though, I’d be open to a suggestion it should be lowered to attacking at 1 regardless of what ships are with it!
Lower the destroyers attack to 1 and bring on light cruisers
then cruisers should be renamed heavy crusiers and light cruisers can not shore bombard
also should all crusiers movement be increased to 3 as well as carriers, they were faster than battleships and stuff
I thing escort ships are to small to be part of the axis and allies fleet
but what about escort carriers
cost 9 or 10 move 2 or 3 attack 0 defend 1 or 2, can carrier 1 fighter
they would be good in the atlantic for defending, while the fleet carriers would still be good in the pacific for their greater long range firepower
Also, i don’t like the spy rules. I have played East&West, and they make a little more sense during the cold war, but even there they feel pretty stupid and don’t really add anything to the game
yes but the spy thing adds alot of the war plots involving:
Soviet Spy get our A-bomb technology
German agents operating in America
Russian agents in Germany
its basically something like another way to buy a technology… by taking the secret from your ememy. I will remind you a little of that ninja rules from MB Shogun. Just try it.
I don’t favor escorts anymore, but a light cruiser with no SB at 2-3
making the cruiser now a heavy cruiser, but i am not sure they should move 3, even if it would be my typical suggestion in the past.
I don’t like the idea of changing the values of OOB units because it disrupts the others. I think it should cost 10 IPC, which fits in Italys budget and makes a good defender.
what about escourt carriers?
oh jeep carriers….
0-1 move 2, carry one fighter, cost 10?
what about escourt carriers?
Encompassed in giving Destroyers a boost in defense when coupled with transports.
Basically, Transports (2) + Destroyer = Fleet Convoy (Destroyers, Escorts, Escort Carriers, Fighters with Sonar to hunt down submarines, etc.)
Weaker Escort Carriers for 10 which can only hold 1 Fighter? Why would anyone every buy them?
What the game really needs for naval warfare is a cheap “fodder” piece to defend against air fleets since the Sub can no longer be used as fodder and Bombers are cheaper.
That said, I would agree with making destroyers a 1 on attack and a 1 or 2 on defense for 5 or 6 IPCs. This would allow you to have the Light Cruiser piece.
If one doesn’t want to alter the OOB pieces, then add an escort destroyer with a 1 on attack and a 1 on defense for 5 IPCs.
We have a cheap fodder piece against air units. The Destroyer. It’s the submarine of AA50.
Perhaps the escort carriers could cost 8 IPC, Att 0, Def 1, Carry 1 Fighter, Move 2.
The solution is not to change the OOB pieces values. These were created and fit into a system whereby the alteration of one value may have an undesired effect on others. The only thing is to invent pieces inside of the current values.
Escort carrier is a decent idea, but since the real carrier is 14 IPC, perhaps 8 ipc will be great for a 0-1-2 unit with 1 fighter
Light cruiser would be a 2-3 unit moving 2 and a 1 @ SB, costing 10 IPC
Now we have two other units:
Mechanized Infantry:
2-2-2-4 unit can carry one inf or art one extra space at 1:1 basis
Fighter-Bomber:
3-2 unit costing 8 that SBR @ 1/2 rate
Fighter interceptors:
2-3 unit costing 8 that can immediately assist any adjacent attacked territory on the defense ( using its 3 value)
Heavy or Elite Armor:
4-5-2 unit costing 8. you can only build one per turn.
Can’t have mechanized infantry, it’s a technology.
I’d replace that idea with Commandos:
Call them marines, commandos, stormtroopers, whatever.
Idea:
Cost 4
Attack: 2
Special Attack: 3 First Round of Amphibious Assault
Defend: 1
Move: 1
With technology they could move 2 when coupled with an Armor (Mechanized Infantry)
Treated like Infantry in regards to Paratroopers and Transports.
@Cmdr:
Can’t have mechanized infantry, it’s a technology.
Well that depends on how much is going to be changed, is their going to be a whole new tech chart?
having a mechanized infantry peice i think adds alot, but i think tech changes should be agreed upon before changing other things,
also, commandos are such a small scale unit, you could argue marine corp, SS, or Guard units should be in the game but not commandos/rangers
I was reaching for names. That’s why I said we could call them Marines, Commandos, Stormtroopers, your SS, Russian Bears, whatever.
I’m gunna start putting together a beta AA50e (enhanced) this weekend, maybe even finish it off tomorrow.
Well for starters this thread has already outlined the new techs. Thats why you see some of the national advantages indicating such things as paratroopers.
I have playtested my rules and its really fun option
Also i have a new idea:
Battlecruisers are a better choice than light cruisers ( use the Milton Bradley battleships)
This is …drum roll… a 4-4 unit but takes just one hit to sink! I know this is brilliant!
So forget the light cruisers…these new units could represent pocket battleships, and older battleships.
I suggest the starting German Cruiser in 41 and 42 is this Battlecruiser. I suggest the cost be at 14 IPC and it can shore bombard at 4.
