ONLY Axis BBs 2 hit @ start…

If the axis has 30 points at the end of any turn they win the game. They have 10 turns to achieve it. Here is the points chart with bonuses.

F312C176-91BB-45BF-AAFE-DAD740F6925F.jpeg

Not looking to change this as of now.
Basically trying to get an idea on what would have Russia done with factory and resources.

I like it now (will be tested in 2 weeks) where Moscow falls the factory goes to Samara ( build 2 max ) and Germany receives half of Russia’s income. If Germany bombs the 3 Russian oil derricks ( 2 icps each ), ( plus 4 icps convoy box ) then they would lose another 10 icps on capture. Also would need to repair oil derricks in order to get the Middle east oil bonus point.

But also if Germany is bombing the 2 factories that are moving have to be repaired first so this weakens Russia builds too.

In a game did move Moscow factory out on turn before Germany attacked Moscow and moved it to Samara anyway. This way Germany would not get factory on capture. Then Russia was able to hold Stalingrad and oil while allies took back Paris and Pacific allies liberated on there side.

Keep in mind if Russia moved 2 factories to Urals and Samara factory with Stalingrad factory with Tankograd they can build 12 units and counter with retreating figs from Moscow battle.
That is key to. Figs leave Moscow battle no combat with Dog fighting but then Russia needs those figs to counter or defend Samara/Stalingrad and Germany needs to get at least half his planes back to hold West Germany or Berlin.
Also if Russia receives there 2 NA’s of Lend Lease and Conscripts ( above pic ) plus Lend Lease roll at end of turn gets 3 more pieces to add to map.
All kinds of action going on which I want in game based on nobody really has this scenario in there game unless I missed it.

@variance:

Transports no longer defend at 0; they revert to their original and correct defense of 1

So go back to the scenario that transports protected warships? Or are you going to keep the rule that transports are always taken last but still allow defence on a 1?

Interesting idea, assuming it is a yes to the latter above.

If, instead, you allow US player to simply  built up to 2 Infantry per turn on any Allied chinese territory

That works OK, Baron – I’d prefer to the OOB rules. The problem with building infantry is that it doesn’t create an interesting choice for the US player, and if Japan kills the Flying Tiger on J1 (as it always should without an American bid or a radically intense Russian reinforcement gambit), then China never has any offensive potential no matter how much Japan under-invests there. Right, like let’s say on turn 1 I kill just Szechuan, leaving you with 4 infantry. You build 2 more infantry, now you have 6 infantry. So…so what? I’ve got something like 6 infantry, 2 artillery, and 2 fighters in the region; you don’t have any interesting counter-attacks.

With an IC, America can choose to build infantry (standard play) or something aggressive like a tank or fighter (Chinese gambit) or build nothing at all and save the IPCs for the ocean (Atlantic gambit).

Typing from a smartphone is the best way to respond LOL! So sorry for the typos and grammar.

Anyways Hotspurs. I really encourage you and others to play around with the game.

@Black_Elk:

I think we’d probably only need to go down to 12 ipcs for the cost of the factory to make it a viable purchase option in a place like Africa. Or if there was a 2 ipc space in Australia, a factory there might be feasible if they only cost 12. At 15 the only players that have much use for them are Japan and the USA.

For a while now, I have definitely been in favor treating IPC values more like “abstract game points” than actual industrial production, so I really don’t have an issue with concepts like increasing or decreasing the value of specific territories, if this serves the gameplay.

In the post above I tried to confine my suggestion to the one area of the gamemap that has been a consistent disappointment for me and that is the valueless Pacific. I know there are people who believe that these territories can be made “valuable” in other ways, but I just don’t see it. Until they have a value of 1 ipc, I think they will be ignored. USA has no strong incentive to take them, and Japan has no strong incentive to hold onto them. Just making them worth 1 would make all the difference.
That would put 6 ipcs into contention, in areas that the USA can reach early on, so the first 4 rounds of the game aren’t so boring to play as USA.

I picked the 5 Japanese territories that I feel should have a value of 1, due to their historical significance in the war. And Midway too, because it’s Midway! That’s 6 territories that are currently worthless, which would be brought into play. The island of Formosa is less important to me.

If I had my way, every territory on the map would have a minimum value of 1, but I would be happy enough if the main Pacific islands that were contested during the war had a value of 1. Basically I was trying to find a simple way to keep the game at a similar economic scale, but with a more compelling Pacific distribution.

I tend to agree with wittmann, USA feels pretty cash strapped compared with Japan. I think there are two ways you could approach it, either more total IPCs or more starting ground units in North America (so you don’t have to buy them.) I think either approach to balance might work.

I would like to see Hawaii at 2 as well, just to give the territory more potential significance as a factory location, or as a target/springboard for Japan against North America. I’m not looking for huge changes to the map, I think we could accomplish a lot just in the range of +1 or -1 ipc in a few specific places :)

If you add 3 IPCs to USA, rising the starting money to 45 IPCs, maybe you can give 31 IPCs to Japan. How?

+1 IPC to Hawaii, Midway and Alaska while keeping Central US at 6 IPCs.
(less change on the original board, simpler to make the calculations).
Now, Formosa can rise to 1 IPC. (All “No IPC” Islands have a worth of 1 IPC.) Simpler to calculate.

If you think USA need another 1 IPC (46 IPCs) gives 1 to Greenland. And all 0 IPC islands will have their value.

@SS:

:-D :-D :-D

@crusaderiv:

I’ve seen the T34 and sub rules somewhere…

Sorry, I completly forgot that you wrote such HR.
So I credit the idea above as yours Crusader.
I was thinking about ATG and this T-34 redux cost came to my mind as another way to provide a counterweight to German’s MI, MArt and Tank.
Then, I looked for a way  to give a special thing to Germany.

I resulted into your HR.
I like it as a small mod which add a lot of historical flavor.
Good idea Crusader!

I don’t think the US could be charged for passing through the Suez, since they’d have to be at war to get there.

@Trusty-Sapper
Wow, you’ve responded to my reply from a year ago, on a very old thread. I checked my PM’s and I was able to send Bass my most recent version of AARe.

I do agree with you Trusty, that “National Advantages plus bid makes every game a strategic puzzle”
Don’t forget the targeted tech rolls too. No chance to develop super subs when my scientist were working on long range!

I was a bit upset when it was only a short 5 years after Revised was released (and we fine-tuned Enhanced) that AA50 (Anniversary came out). Everyone ran for the new release and Revised was left to rot.