AA50 with updated rules and New units?

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion thread, and my comments will just relate to one point from your original post, in which you were commenting that “the current way to deal with neutral nations is not good and makes the playing feel simulated.”  I quite agree that the game’s division of non-player countries into three types of neutrals (pro-Allied, pro-Axis and strict) and its two types of rules for neutrals (one for the pro-type neutrals and one for the strict neutrals) is problematic in several ways, particularly the rule which says that every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y.  A point that should be kept in mind, however, is the reason why those rules exist.  The reason for the existance of the rules makes a certain amount of historic sense, even though the actual mechanism of the rules is arguable

I don’t think the rules actually state the rationale explicitly, but it seems clear – based on an examination of which countries have which type of neutral status – that the neutrals rules are meant to strongly encourage (one notch below “force”) the players to replicate some of the historical events of WWII which occured after the game’s 1940 start date.  These situations include certain countries fighting alongside the Axis powers as co-belligerents (examples: Finland and Iraq) and certain countries being pitched into the Allied side either because they were invaded by the Axis (examples: Yugoslavia and Greece) or because they were preemptively invaded by the Allies over concerns that their current government was too sympathetic to the Axis (example: Persia / Iran).  As for the very unrealistic “every strict neutral state in the world joins side X when one of these states is attacked by side Y” rule, it’s basically a blunt instrument aimed at keeping all the player powers out of the states that managed to stay neutral in WWII.  And to reinforce the message, the neutral states are given different-sized “keep out” signs (the size of their standing armies) to underline which ones the players are particularly discouraged from invading.  Turkey, with its standing army of 8, comes at the top of the list – nor surprisingly, because Turkey offers a potential link-up between the war in North Africa and the war in Southern Europe and the USSR.

I was hoping you’d post these!

Here are some of the rules I liked that are different:

Naval spotting - makes sense, maybe add +1 to spotting roll if sub or plane present.

Research - I’m assuming those are free rolls.

AAA - firing before each round.  At 5 planes seems a bit steep.

Cruiser (AA) - That’s a house rule I already use.  Makes them a little more useful.

Railroads - I’ve seen and used them, but with a limit to units moved.  But since your limiting it to 2 spaces.

Research Focus - A research tech for your research roll.  Brilliant!

Heavy transports - Another one in use.

Sonar - Interesting concept.

Not sure on the “Dodge” concept.  Thanks for the listing of your rules.

@Baron:

Do you mean there won’t have any Destroyer to buy, only the Classic units?

No artillery?

No, sorry, I mean use the Anniversary rule-set in the Classic game version (where appropriate). Just an idea really, and I was wondering if anyone has done something like that in order to make the transition from Classic to Anniversary easier.

Most times simple is better.  Production and economics with AA although simple, provide enough richness to allow for economics to be part of a war game without putting us to sleep.

So an IC built in Egypt can build two units for an infrastructure investment of 15 IPC.  But that same 15 IPC when spent in Western Europe allows the owner to build six units.  The same 15 IPC provides for two different results.   Why?  Is this fair?  I’ll use the map for '42 for examples.

Fair enough.

The argument that because the host territory has a value of six versus two provides for the basis of my defense of this.  The sizx income represents a pre-existing level of infrastructure versus that of Egypt’s two.  The 15 IPC investment leverages the pre-existing level of infrastructure.

But…

There is a big difference between an IC in Egypt pumping out two battleships per round for the current owner Japan compared to an IC in Western Europe owned by Germany pumping out 6 infantry per round.

What about factoring in the value of what is being produced at the IC?   Allow a base multiplier to be spent say (3-5 IPC) * (Max # of units that can be built at the IC in this location).  This value would represent what could be spent at that IC with no production penalties.   A couple of brackets larger than this value would be created to allow for more money to be spent at this IC with a financial penalty increasing per bracket.  This penalty would represent the loss in productivity per IPC spent to ‘over-drive’ production levels ie over-time etc.  A top end cap could be established.  Japan can spend 20 IPC in Egypt for example but not 40.  Yes, you can build one battleship or two fighters per turn in Egypt, but the infrastructure there would never support two battleships per turn in production.

It would make it a bit more expensive to save up your money then drop several turns worth of savings down in one build of 12 bombers in Western USA, indeed, you could build 12 fighters but only 10 bombers, your IPC cap there might be 120 IPC of production costing you 125% of 120 with the 25% production overdrive penalty.   You could still spend 60 IPC per turn with no penalty.

It would make SBRs a bit more effective.  It would cost the victim of SBRs a bit more to just save money for 2-3 rounds then max repair the IC and build a stack of tanks and fighters.  Indeed, the repair costs to the IC could be included in the  totals and caps.

I would be interested in what others think about this.

I have some additional rules here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/70044/aaa50-expansion-rules-tech-chart

And the tech chart as an excel:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/70044/aaa50-expansion-rules-tech-chart

They’re for AA50th but should work fine…

Well a couple of things:

Spain should be at 4IPC: 4 inf, 1 ARM ,1 art, 1 fighter, 1 DD, 1 AP
Turkey at 3: 4 Inf, 1 Arm, 1 Art, 1 AP
Arabia at 2: 1 INf
Sweden at 3: 3 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Arm, 1 AP
each South American nation gets 2 Inf, and each African neutral gets 1 Inf

Sweden provides 1 IPC to Germany each turn as aid as long as they are neutral
Spain can loan out its armor division representing the blue division to Germany while neutral.

Diplomatic is done like Technology except you cant buy it: each side targets one ally per turn and its converted on a roll of 6. If its converted you pay IPC equal in cost to value and then you can use the forces, but you dont collect any money. The only way to collect income is by direct occupation and violate its neutrality.

Either side allies or axis can do this at any time, but you must defeat all its land forces. If it has any leftover naval or air they can be ‘interned’ by the other side and converted (replaced) with its own pieces.

problem solved easily.

Skytrex has no legit US supplier… it has to be be ordered direct from UK.