Chicago Rules for AA50 (1941 version)

@chrisbump86

@chrisbump86 said in AA50 on Steroids!:

@Bigwatcher Hello,
I am trying to open the links to your national identity cards but they don’t seem to be working or up any longer.
Would you be willing to share those links with me? I am particularly interested in the idea of adding to what you have created if that is possible.
4e6b4d8f-e6f6-4727-970b-f1e92bfdb5e2-image.png

My email is: cncbump@verizon.net.
I hope to hear from you,
Thanks!
Chris

Count me in too, Bigwatcher!

@Wolfshanze:

Ya… I believe the 1984 Classic A&A map had every territory worth at least 1 (and of course others more).  I’m not really a huge fan of territories worth nothing.  If I was more talented, I’d be breaking into the Supreme map files and jiggling with the numbers across the board for sure.  I still also see some value and charm to the original 1984 Axis and Allies classic game.  While the new boards and new units are vastly superior to the 80s version, some concepts were fun, such as every territory being worth something and a nice balance of money values, not too high, not too low.

Yes, there was the infantry wall problem in classic, but it can/should be easily solved by reintroducing artillery to 1941, which is simple as saying “here they are, have at it”.

I think 1941 is closer to being Classic A&A than 1942 is, with the exception of the income issue.  I was pulling up some numbers, and this is what I came up with… here’s the starting incomes of each nation based on version:

Classic A&A (1984 release)
USSR: 24, Germany: 32, UK: 30, Japan: 25, US: 36

1941 A&A
USSR: 7, Germany: 12, UK: 12, Japan: 9, US: 17

1941 A&A Custom Double IPC proposal
USSR: 14, Germany: 24, UK: 24, Japan: 18, US: 34

Even a simple doubling of the IPC values of the marked territories in 1941, would greatly increase income, but STILL be less than classic (or 1942 for that matter)… and toss in some artillery, you should be able to break those infantry walls.  Might be something to toy with, and its a lot simpler to double values than try to introduce new rules that need to be tracked.

I played with same cost for ground units but cheaper boat.
Sub 5
DD 6
CA 9
CV 12
BB 15
TP 7 (1 hit, but not totally defenseless, AA gun on board)

It allows more interesting purchase.

Planes were special
Fg 6
TcB 8
StB 10

@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:

France WILL still fall.

Germany has 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 6 Tanks, and 4 Mechanized Infantry that can hit Paris.

4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, and 3 Tanks from Holland Belgium, 4 Mechanized Infantry from Western Germany, and 3 Tanks from Greater Southern Germany.

34 ATK with 16 Units versus 26 DEF with 12 Units.

Just means that some German Tanks might be taken as casualties.

You could also be a bit more assured and send the Tactical Bomber from Poland as well.

Any Maginot Line Rule should also include the French/Italian border IMO. This section was known as the Alpine Maginot line, and had many fortifications along with natural mountain range defenses. The French defenses on the Italian border held the Italians at bay until the the armistice was signed and Vichy was set up.

So IMO the 3 tanks from Southern Germany shouldn’t be able to attack France through Italy either. Those 3 tanks going through West Germany into France would also hit the Maginot line.

Maybe instead of saying German (axis) units can’t go through the Maginot Line, the rule should give any attacking ground units -1 for all rounds of battle that cross the Maginot line (West Germany/France, and Northern Italy/France or S France). That way those units could still invade, but wouldn’t be as effective because they are facing more resistance. Yes you would have some inf with no attack value, but could still be taken as a casualty. If that proves to harsh (which I think it might), then maybe have all attacking ground -1 only for the first round of battle when attacking through the Maginot lines.

So if the Germans were to back out after a couple rounds, the Italian units would also be -1 in attack when they go for Paris.

This could also be a good lead into a Vichy Rule

They’re here.  We’re also experimenting with allowing the Central Powers to turn down the armistice, but that’s not entirely official yet.

"END TIME RULE: (See End Time Rule Handout) this is how game will end within the time constraints of the event.
"

Do you have any idea where to find this End Time Rule Handout?

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.

Nice work thanks, the dropbox files are still available! I have downloaded them all, now I have to find a way to print these in a decent way. Any tips?

@Micoom:

Germany had Already Radar in place to defend the “Atlantic wall” in Early 1941, long before “Barbarossa” would begin… So Radar shouldn’t be a UK advantage at all in a 1942 scenario. Only in a 1939…

We are working here on a Historical edition for A&A, so for this game timelines are essential and therefore more important then game flexibility, IMO.

Germany had short wave radar only, hence did not pick up a signal on airplanes being long away and the warning was too late sometimes!