[House Rules] Bid Amount?

Really? For me I heard that 1941 is grossly weighted towards specifically Japan with the amount of ships they have. I can confirm because I’ve played 50th on Triple A, and they definitely start with a lot carriers and transports.

Yes, National Objectives are in Anniversary. In fact, this was the game to introduce them as far as I’m aware.

I don’t believe so.
This IPCs boost is needed for Germany in that one.

National Objectives are optional in AA50.

Thanks for the correction Krieghund.

Every time we have played Anniversary, either 41 or 42, the Axis always seem to win.  Next time we are going to try not using the NOs to see if the Allies have a better chance.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Is AA50 the game that introduced escorts and interceptors for bombing raids?

No.  These were introduced in the original A&A Europe.

I’ve been playing the 1941 scenario with the Turkish straits closed and a bid of 12 to 18 ipcs for the allies. Seems to work well, depending on everyone’s skill level.

Another factor is whether Tech is being used.  Those too, like the national objectives, are optional (thank goodness)

What about waiving the bid and giving the allies a free IC+AAA to place somewhere?

@vodot:

What about waiving the bid and giving the allies a free IC+AAA to place somewhere?

That’d have to be a UK IC in india.  That might make things pretty interesting

Well, you could let the Allies choose where to put it. Australia, Brazil, South Africa, or even Archangel could be reasonable choices, although I agree that most players would want it in India.

@Argothair:

Well, you could let the Allies choose where to put it. Australia, Brazil, South Africa, or even Archangel could be reasonable choices, although I agree that most players would want it in India.

Well, sure, it could be anywhere, but if you want it to be the most useful, India would be the best

@axis_roll:

@Argothair:

Well, you could let the Allies choose where to put it. Australia, Brazil, South Africa, or even Archangel could be reasonable choices, although I agree that most players would want it in India.

Well, sure, it could be anywhere, but if you want it to be the most useful, India would be the best

What about requiring that the TT contain either a victory city or be worth at least 2 IPC, but then auto-boosting whatever TT gets the bid IC to 3 IPC (if less)? Does boosting Australia to 3 help make AUS a viable location for the bid factory, or does it simply ensure that Japan gains another point of income? What about Egypt or SA for a hard counter in Africa, or Hawaii for the US? If it is just the ‘2 IPC-ness’ of these outlying territories, I think we could fix that. If they’re simply in a strategically less relevant position (relative to India), not much to be done.

Trying to combine an Argothairian idea (make the periphery more interesting) with a Black Elkian idea (balance the game with one elegant change) with axis’ chicagoism to at least the extent that we could see a viable PTO or KJF.

Adding an IC might not make the periphery interesting… and those ‘pre-conditions’ might be less than elegant… and maybe all it does is expand Japan’s PTO (which hardly wants doing). Who knows?

It could work well. What if…you drop the preconditions? Pick any Allied territory; its new value is 3 IPCs, and it gets an AA gun and factory.

Is there a downside? Is it abusable? The most unrealistic / overpowered choice I can think of is Sudan…but the UK mustered and organized thousands of troops from Yemen, Qatar, Jordan, Kenya, etc. at Port Sudan before sending them north to Cairo and Tobruk.