[AA50] Looking for ways to add more income without national objectives

I think you’re asking a lot of the right questions: how to add more variety, how to make the game more truly global in scope, how to create advantages for the Allies without overcorrecting. I’m not sure how well you’ve thought through some of the specific changes that you’re recommending.

Moving the British ships from Gibraltar to east Africa does nice things for a British naval presence in the Indian Ocean, but it makes it way too easy for Germany to win the Battle of the Atlantic – Germany can now routinely take out all of Britain’s ships in the Atlantic on the first turn without taking too many risks. This means that Germany can totally evacuate France on turn 1 and probably also on turn 2, which gives Germany a big advantage against Russia.

The Sea Lion threat is probably exaggerated – sure, if you spend 100% of your economy on ships and planes for India, then London could be in trouble, but it’s pretty easy to build, say, 4 infantry in London and still have enough cash left over to place a variety of units in India. Britain starts with 43 IPCs, and London’s not that hard to garrison.

Meanwhile, Japan’s ability to take India or use it as a base to threaten Russia is almost entirely gone. One of the key threats the Japanese have in OOB Anniversary 1941 is building a factory in Indochina on turn 1, capturing Burma turn 1, and then threatening to build a factory in Burma on turn 2. If Japan pulls this off, then it doesn’t matter if Britain has a factory in India, because Japan is still outproducing Britain 4:3, and Japan will wind up with all 3 factories, which can then churn out infantry and tanks to head for Stalingrad. On the other hand, the only way Britain can prevent Japan from pulling this off is by sacrificing its entire starting force of troops from India and Persia, which is expensive and leaves Egypt vulnerable to the Italians.

In your version, Burma is only worth 1 IPC, so there’s very little point in having Japan build a factory there. Japan can’t take Bengal until at least turn 2, and the UK starts with a factory in India, so even if Japan gets a factory in Indochina right away and an eventual factory in Bengal, that’s very unlikely to be enough to deal with the forces Britain will have been accumulating in India proper. The Indian factory is almost 100% safe against anything short of a massive naval invasion – but that naval invasion is much harder to pull off assuming even a modest USA presence in the Pacific, because Britain now has two extra warships in the Indian Ocean, plus a starting factory there.

I think the dance of attacks and counter-attacks you outline in West Africa is entertaining, but unrealistic in terms of strategy – if you’re playing to win, then nobody cares enough about French West Africa to bother sending a transport there. Allied transports are much better off going to Morocco or Gibraltar, and Axis transports are much better off going to Gibraltar or Egypt.

Finally, I don’t think an Indian factory is likely to have any effect on the war on China – it’s 3 moves away from the nearest Chinese territory, and likely 4 or even 5 moves away from the Chinese front lines by the time forces actually arrive.

What all of these admittedly nitpicky corrections add up to is a sense that your changes won’t actually deliver that much variety. You get a different scenario with your changes, but it will always be the same different scenario: Germany wipes out the British Atlantic fleet and then charges hard for Moscow while Britain easily holds London and India and stalemates Japan. The USA can choose to either knock out a weakened Tokyo (and try to get to Tokyo before Germany gets to Moscow) or rush toward Paris and Rome (to try to set up a stable beachhead on the Western Front before Germany gets to Moscow). Other than the USA’s single choice of whether to go to the Atlantic or the Pacific, nobody has any interesting grand strategy decisions to make. Italy has to fight for Egypt, Germany has to fight for Moscow, Russia has to fight for Moscow, Japan has to fight just to hold onto a decent income, and Britain has to defend London, Egypt, and India. The details will vary from game to game based on tactics and dice, but I predict you’ll see a lot of the same general campaigns over and over again.

You may be interested in this earlier thread about splitting India and splitting the Indian Ocean:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41826.0

I have been working on something that may help balance any abilities you give to cruisers . A way to add more of a “capital” ship into the game, so I have bought blue, black, and orange counters (same kind as stock white and red ones) and plan on using them to mark hits on capital ships, orange being fire (dive bomb/ kamikaze) and blue being water (torpedo bomber). I have bought several new units from HBG to depict the different aircraft, but being largely a historian I find the loss of a battleship or carrier during one roll kind of odd. I know you have the option to tilt the piece for a second hit? But what about if you mark the ship with a hit or two and then put a black marker for smoke? Now while you are limping the ship to port for repairs attacking battleships can fire from longer range instead of attacking within the same sea zone. This in effect would make any rules to cruisers balanced because they can be sunk in a round of combat. Whereas if capital ships BB and CV’s are sunk in shallow water areas they can be raised as well. Now your poor man’s BB pales in comparison because it won’t have the capability to take multiple hits and long range engagements. As for balance the very fact that when crippled movement shall be one space and the smoke allowing for long range engagement should even things out. I don’t mind adding miniature elements to the game because it only enhances play.  What do you guys think?

These posts from a past thread on AA guns summarized many AAA’s limitations:

@Vance:

I guess the issue is that AA guns are of equal value to fighters, as Fortress said, but only in terms of defense.

Fighters are expensive units, but are often a good buy because they provide defense, offense, and mobility.

AA guns are all defense, only move 1 space in NCM and have no offense at all.

So while its true that a $5 AA gun has a 50/50 shot at taking out a $10 plane (and yes sometimes they get 2 or even 3 planes, including more expensive tacs or bombers), overall you don’t see people building AA guns very often, if ever. A house rule for AA guns getting something extra like antitank capability would add some extra historical flavour to the game.

@allweneedislove:

like ryguy, i also would like to know why aaguns were changed but still suck.
aaguns were a boring unit that no one purchased. 2nd edition did a good job changing them to behave like a regular unit that can have more than one in the same territory and be taken as casualties. however, they are still boring and a bad purchase.
@Fortress:

Why are we trying to fix something that’s not broken? I laid out the math very specifically. Nobody has refuted it. It literally couldn’t be fairer. They are worth exactly what they should be worth. Where’s the case that there is a problem?…

aaguns are broken and should have been fixed with the 2nd edition revision. they are overpriced.

@Fortress:

….That is absolutely perfect. You can’t improve on that. Literally.

i think you are being disingenuous. you are a better player than what your posts in this thread would have readers believe. you do not purchase aaguns yourself as they are the least flexible and cost efficient unit.

your math works with the framework of a single battle with fighters attacking aaguns. thankfully the game is more than just this one type of battle.
like vance states, they are the unit with the least offense, they are the unit with the least mobility, they only fire if planes are attacking them, they are only used in land battles, they are the 2nd most expensive land unit.

@ryguy:

Part of the problem might be that they are so damn immobile when traveling overseas. Why can’t AA guns move during the combat phase? Would it mess the game up completely? If you capture a territory overland, you can always move the AA gun into that territory during the non-combat phase on the same turn so you are accomplishing the same thing. You cant do that via transports however if the transport was involved during the combat phase. Why cant you just unload the damn AA guns with the attacking force? Why not treat AA guns like tanks/mech infantry/artillery in respect to transports? Why not let the AA guns travel with the attacking force overland during the combat phase?

If were talking in real life terms this might seem weird (Im not a buff on military equipment used in WWII) but it makes them more versatile. You can make it a rule that AA guns cant be chosen as casualties when attacking if you wish, but they definitely cannot shoot at planes when attacking. Theyre just along for the ride. This makes it much easier to transport them overseas without having to purchase separate transports for the non-combat phase. I like mixed arms and this might incorporate AA guns into the mix more often for the Allies.

Im not sure if I like the idea of one IPC AA guns with one shot. I would rather see the current AA gun scheme with a value of 3-4 IPCs with the above rule changes about movement perhaps. If theyre valued under infantry they will get used as fodder more than their original purpose and I dont like that. I still find it strange that AA guns can be chosen as casualties first. Was that rule created just because of the UK and Sea Lion?

@WILD:

Yeah I don’t like how AAA guns are just ignored after the first round of battle, and normally are the first casualty (seems like a flaw). Not sure that they should be able to fire one shot each round afterwords though unless you made it that they only fire 2 shots in the opening round, and one shot each round after that. I also agree that attacking planes should have the option to attack AAA guns directly (maybe AAA is taken as a casualty if air units roll a 1?), and/or can retreat after any round if AAA are allowed to continue firing.

WILD BILL provided two interesting abilities to planes which can limit somehow the unbalancing effect of AAA#1 or AAA#2 continuous firing :

1- Any hit from attacking planes could be directly taken on AAA units.
2- All attacking aircraft units can retreat after each combat round while ground units still be part of the battle.

Maybe one or both should be add to the mix to reach an equilibrium point.

@CWO:

One low-cost way for you to experiment with this concept to see if it works, and to then help you decide if you should invest more money in the way you described to give each nation  its own special HBG unit, would  be to:

Pick up a copy of A&A 1941

Extract from it the unique sculpts that represent weapons which were actually used by the nations which produced them, and ignore the ones which are “national mismatches” (American IS-2 tanks, and so forth)

Designate them as special units and create (or find) house rules to govern them

To give some examples:

The tank sculpts in 1941 represent German Tiger and Russian IS-2 tanks, both of which were heavy tanks.  Those two nations would therefore have the ability to build heavy tank units.

The battleship sculpts in 1941 represent the British Hood class and the Japanese Kongo class, bot of which were battlecruisers.  Those two nations would therefore have the ability to build battlecruisers.

The other units aren’t as clear-cut as examples, but you could use a similar technique.  The American Sumner-class destroyer could be used to represent destroyer escorts (which, I admit, they weren’t).  The British  Lancaster could be used to represent a bomber with a super-heavy lift capacity, the Lanc being the only Allied bomber which was long enough and powerful enough to carry the Grand Slam super-heavy bomb.  And so forth.  The point is that one single copy of this game, which is fairly inexpensive, would give you lots of unit types with which to test your concept.

Interestingly enough, I actually had a new 1941 at one time (I got it as a Christmas Present), but returned it for the very reason that each nation didn’t have unique sculpts. I grabbed the Seafarers expansion for Catan instead.

But thanks for the idea.

@templeton:

@Cmdr:

All this tech does is allow you to keep your artillery safely behind the lines - you know, where artillery is in REAL LIFE?

Counter battery fire is what tends to get artillery… anway at the scale of Axis and Allies this would make it more effective than MRLS!

We’ve used this rule in AARe and AA50e (enhanced) and it does not seem overly powerful.

As for realism, think of it as your guns have twice the range of their guns.  So you can hit them and they cannot hit you.

ammend the NO’s
give germany +2 Sub in 41’ and +1 sub in 42’

Now that solves your “make the atlantic more important” objective of your stratigic game

@Cmdr:

Actually, i think I’d like it better for Artillery, not Armor.

Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 2.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 3.

Then again, I like changing Artillery to a 2/1 unit, instead of 2/2.  (attack/defend.)  I mean common, those 88’s on defense have to fire into their own ranks, right?  One would hope the cannoneers would be EXTRA careful lining up those shots!

Good call. Totally agree with:
Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 1.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 2.

But I’d also keep Armour without infantry support - Defend @ 2

I think the Revised NA would be a better idea.  Yes, a lot of tweaking would have to be done, but it’s doable.

I think a lot of the old NAs blend perfectly with the new game.  Here are some examples:

1. Lend Lease lets USSR convert US and UK pieces to USSR pieces.  This means you won’t loose IPCs when your allies try to help you.

2. Japan is now an “island” on the new board, which means Dug-In Defenders now apply.  Didn’t it seem dumb in AAR that Japanese infantry would put up a better fight on Iceland or Greenland than Japan?

Examples of needed tweaks:

1. Siberian Railway would obviously be extended to include the two new territories.

2. The Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europe NA would be weakened if the wording “all gray territories” were kept as is.  At least it should be extended to “all gray and brown territories”.  Basically, German Infantry and Artillery get a bonus fighting in Italy, but Italian Infantry and Artillery don’t.  It seems paradoxical, but that’s the way it happened.  Germany fought to the teeth while Italy surrendered.

I don’t think Italy should get a national “advantage.”  Really, was their anything special or unique about Italy in WWII to warrant a NA?  Personally, I think no NAs add to Italy’s character.  It’s small, poor, and has only 2 NOs.  Yet, it’s probably my favorite.  As the old saying goes, “Small is beautiful.”