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

@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!

What do you think about implementing respectively national adventeges  from 1941 spring (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 2.0)  to the 1942 2ed?

Especialy together with a initialy proposed by Larry Harris new setup.

I think, especialy the Soviet –Japan non aggression treaty would make the game a lot more historical correct.

If you think it would be accepteble the problem is German Scientists national idea is not implementabe to the 1943 2ed, since in 1942 2ed there is no weapon development, so  I think, it could be replaced by Fortress Europe (included in Larry Harris tournament rules v 1.3) or some national ideas from Mr. Andersson’s House Rules for Axis & Allies Revised v1.1

Personaly I woul prefer using one or two of national ideas per country, if using this national idea would not destroy the game balance  at all.

Also I do not know, wheter the Panzerblitz national idea:

(Panzerblitz THE COLOSSAL PANZERS RUMBLED ACROSS EUROPE AND NORTH AFRICA. THEY WOULD BREACH ENEMY LINES, THEN TURN AND WREAK HAVOC ON THE 38 DEFENDERS. If your attacking forces destroy all defending units in a territory in one cycle of combat; or, if no combat was necessary, any of your surviving tanks in the attacking forces may move 1 territory during the noncombat move phase.)

means, that the tank can move not only to a friendly  territory (due to the standard non combat movement rules), but also to enemy controlled (but not enemy occupied territory).

What is correct understanding of it?

I am also afraid, that the Luftwaffe Dive-Bomber national idea:

(EUROPE WAS BLITZED AND BOMBED. THE JU-87 STUKA DIVE-BOMBER, A SMALL PLANE, PLAYED A BIG ROLE. ITS SCREAMING SIREN GENERATED TERROR ON ALL BATTLE FRONTS. Your fighters may conduct first round tactical bombing runs. They are subject to antiaircraft fire as normal. In the first cycle of combat, if there are no defending fighters present, the fighters hit on a roll of 5 or less in land battles only. Any units hit still fire back normally in that round of combat. In succeeding cycles of combat, the fighters hit normally. If defending fighters are present, this first cycle ability is cancelled.)

can make, that the odds in potential intitial G1 battle in West Russia can get slightly towards Germany, but I did not check it out precisely yet.

@NilOGrav:

Big thanks for Young Grasshopper,

Played this last weekend in combination with the Halifax rules (option 2, the greater Commonwealth). Fantastic. We have added a ton of luxury materials (NO-cards, scoreboards, country sheets, , IPCs, tokens, etc) to help speed things up and are looking for a year now how to create a one day game w/o losing the characteristics.

This completely answered our questions! Congratulations on a job well done.

chrz Eppo

Thanks for the comments NiIOGrav, glad to help… I honestly think these VOs are a no brainer for those that want to sum things up in a 10 hour day. I will be releasing my new game accessory card deck soon, keep an eye out for my next “essential customizations” video.

Cheers.

Mech Infantry are not IN AA50

Well the map is not accurate in this respect, but Shanghai would be Japanese original. If it was up to me the VC should be in Manchukuo and that other territory held in Chinese control in 1941. Sometimes you have to just do the best of a bad situation.

@Argothair Funny thing is, this is a example of an idea coming along early - Oztea’s Garrisons are mostly the same thing as A&A&Z’s Recruitment Centers. Main differences being that Garrisons can make more than just infantry and when Recruitment Centers make infantry, they do it at normal price. Of course, the fact that this thread is 10 years old may mean that it’s just you and me in here for now.

-Midnight_Reaper

Cmdr,

TG:

In anniversary, the only way to have a submarine threat is to have your submarines scattered about.  So far it has been my experience that usually you are attacking from at least two different sea zones, this would encourage you to attack from three or more to get the wolfpack bonus.

I disagree.  One of the best reasons to buy subs is that they’re cheap and can take hits during a naval battle.  If you’re subs are scattered in different sea zones, you negate this fodder ability in a defensive battle.

Secondly, I’m all about simplicity.  Forcing the player to attack from 3 Different Sea Zones adds an unnecessary complexity to the game.

Weren’t we trying to make subs A LOT better, as you claim they are “Bogus?”

3)  Submarine captains spent long times lining up shots in the security of knowing they were not seen and had plenty of time.  They could be choosier.

Okay, you clarified it for me.

tekkyy,

well both principles (1. a ratio whatever it is 2. each destroyer roll one die) encourages players to build more destroyers
the actual numbers can be tuned

I like ratio better because it doesn’t add to the combat sequence
its also something players are used to (from placing infantry on 1 or 2 on the battle board)

Agreed.

Joe,

I would think if you’d want to fix the role of submarines, then fixes should be directed to possibly to biggest impact subs had on the war - attacking shipping and supply lines.

How about a “SBR-type” rule for subs in key sea zones?  Maybe against shipments to UK and Japan only since they were most dependent on outside resources?  Destroyers protecting these sea zones get a “AA” type role to defend so that subs have a chance to live and there is incentive to build subs?  I would think that this could open up the Atlantic and Pacific a little more for something more than just sea unit stacking.

Seconded.  +1 for an inventive idea.

It could be weird to have 2 new players controlling all the minor-allies and minor-axis nations.
Like they would collaborate with superpowers but not really among themselves.