AA50 with updated rules and New units?

Basically I have two kinds of players I play A&A with. For casual player and family I can con into playing A&A with during the holidays, it’s all about simplicity. When I can get an A&A junkie like myself and one of my brothers playing, we can do complicated HRs. For that middle ground game I use a little of both. Frankly most games I get in, because I only play FTF, are Revised and Classic with 42.2 coming in distant 3rd place. Global with “Toblerone’s House Rules” is solo and experimental.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You could use the same general rules for AA50, but you would have to pick one of the AA 50 setups (1941 or 1942) then add up the total cost of starting units to get the starting cash for each country. For one thing, I think there are less starting pieces for all the nations because AA 50 has a smaller map than the 1940 games so there are less pieces. Another thing is I think the prices are a little different in AA50 than in the 1940 games, plus you won’t have Tac Bombers or Mechanized Infantry as those units didn’t come out until the 1940 games.
Also, I’m not sure how you would handle China, since in AA50 they don’t actually get IPCs but rather 1 infantry for every 2 Chinese territories still under Chinese control at the beginning of their turn.
Other than a few small changes though, I think you could still adapt this idea to AA50.

I really like limiting the Hawaii IC to two units max build.  I can understand the US getting an IC on Hawaii, but I always thought it was ludicrous that it had unlimited build.
The India getting an extra infantry each turn can make it pretty hard for Japan to take India.  That’s an interesting rule that those free infantry can not be moved.  So basically, those are strictly for defense of India.  That might be an interesting rule to incorporate for all capitals, and even in other games as well.  Ever play a game of A&A and mistakenly left your captial undefended?  Now you would always at least have some infantry there.
I am wondering about Rule #6b.  Why would you not let Japan build more than 3 subs per turn?  I take it that applys ONLY to building new subs, right?  Japan is allowed to have more than three subs on the board, right?

My suggestion to the downtime while another player is doing their turn is beer.  In the group I play with, the players who are not involved chill out with a couple of brewskies and some light-hearted conversation.  Just don’t let the alcohol sway your tactical decisions too much.

@General:

hi jen, thanks for the rules.  I have a few questions though.

How does rolling for research work now?  Do you just pick a tech and if you roll a 6 you get it?

Yes, technology works the same as it did in Revised, but with the 4:6 rule as in AARe.  It makes it a more cost effective choice since you’ll never end up with one you cannot use - especially helpful to Italy and Russia, but also to the other nations.

does Italy place their afrika corps every round?

No, it’s just like before.  You get the units on the round you get it.

Do you place 2 free infantry every turn for mech inf?  And what does 1. Borrowed from American National Advantage mean as the usa do not have this advantage

Again, it’s just the round you get it.  And yes, if something is “borrowed from” it means that it was a rule for that nation at one time that is now being applied to all nations to account for the advantage being turned into a technology from revised to anniversary.

The italian advantage ii. +5 IPC if Axis controls: Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Sudan, Italian Africa, Gibraltar, Balkans, Algeria/Morocco and no enemy SURFACE ships are in SZ 13, 14, 15 or 16. isnt this the same as the regular no ?  and where is Italian africa?

Italian East Africa is that spur sticking out into the Red Sea to the right of Egypt/Sudan. (It is directly south of Sudan on the map.)

No, it is not the same since Italy now needs more territories and the entire sea, instead of just three.  Also, France is not a requirement for Italy to have this NO.

Thanks :)

You’re welcome.

Wild Bill:

Yes, joint strike can be absolutely devastating to the axis forces if and when it occurs, but it is designed to be.  Furthermore, if the allies give up taking it, that means the axis could defend it with less and put more pressure on Russia.  It’s a game of weighing the odds and this is a strategic decision - do I force Italy/Germany to defend France early and give up Joint Strike, or do I let them move more towards Russia so I can have a joint strike later?  It’s all how you think your opponent will play, will he mass defenders to stop you, or will he ignore it in hopes you take it then mass defenders?

Ok, so I kind of think that sea units currently cost a little too much, here is my alternative pricing for AA50:
The new price is similar to the price of ships in AA50 with the Improved Shipyards Tech, then the prices get even lower if you actually have the Improved ShipYards tech.

Starting Cost … Cost with Improved ShipYards … Ship Type

17 . 15 . Battleships
11 . 09 . Carriers
10 . 08 . Cruisers
07 . 06 . Destroyers
05 . 04 . Transports
05 . 04 . Submarines

The goal of this is to make the Pacific Theater more attractive to Japan and America.
I also think that transports should cost a little less, to make them cost the same as Subs.
My only issue is that with Improved Shipyards Cruisers need to cost 8.5 but i can’t decide which is closer, 8 or 9.  I am also not sure if maybe BB should cost 14 instead of 15 with ImpYards.

What do you think?

@bugoo:

I was wondering if it would imbalance the game or add to it if there were locations where nations could build only inf on a territory as if it had an IC.  For example, I would allow the UK to do this on Egypt, India, Australia, and Canada.  I’d remove one of the Russian ICs and make it function in this manner, or perhaps all but the one on moscow.  Also, allow Germany to use Algeria, and either Norway or Finland in this manner.  Thoughts?

yeah you could just let any territories with 2+ IPC deploy infantry
its easier for gameplay to have a system than to short list territories