AARHE: Phase 2: National victory conditions

@shake118118 if you’re referring to the triplea game you can make requests here:

https://forums.triplea-game.org/category/42/feature-requests-ideas

This explains how triplea works:

pact_of_steel_2.xml

It may already be possible. Idk. Basically you would want to trigger a “relationship” change between players.

Hi, Taamvan.  thanks for the comments.

Sorry, the values are all 4 IPCs for National Objectives.  The NOs came from Argothair, but with some tweaks by our group (I think originally came from a different A&A version).  More money on the board makes the game a little more fun, but in theory it should last longer (which is not desirable), but I feel like we get to the climactic battles faster than we would with minuses…

I do feel like the board is still tilted for the Axis, but Russia having an extra 8 IPCs per turn is a bigger impact than Germany having an extra 8 IPCs.  We maybe could nerf the values down for the Axis, maybe.  I feel like the paratroop rules and the Russian fighter conversion support the Allies.  We’re trying to steady the board without tilting it to the Allies; and meanwhile trying to make some other strategies playable.

I prefer to think along the lines of many fewer, large sea zones. Ships of both sides can co-exist in them, and must make search (or intercept) rolls to initiate combat. Land based fighters cannot attack ships.

I like the idea to create a new unit class that behaves in a unique way, and the AAgun does seem to be pretty good to denote it (since they’re rarely purchased). But of course, creating a new unit class does create some barriers to entry and diminishes the ease of adoption.

Basically the Bazooka concept as described (whatever you end up calling the unit, for me that’s not as important) will require an update to the battleboard, and the unit cost/abilities lists of the maps/book. Its one more thing that players have to learn, in addition to the new set up, so in that respect it will be harder to gather testers than if you just stick with the regular unit roster. Sure it’s a different balance then, but at least everyone has the info memorized already.

I think the easiest approach for a mod to adopt is to keep everything else the same, and just a offer reprint of the unit set up cards for each nation.

Those are typically separate materials anyway, and even the OOB cards have misprints (for the starting IPC value of UK and Germany) and printing out a few new cards is pretty easy. Placing starting units for a new set up takes about the same amount of time as it does to set the OOB game. So that’s pretty easy too.

I like a lot of the concepts here, especially the 1 ipc factory, which I think could be a major benefit to the play patterns on the board. But the Bazooka concept might overshadow them.

Perhaps test the Bazooka concept first in the OOB game to see how if it gathers interest? But I kind of like this set up, with the placements, even if they’re just normal AAguns. You can always use a bid, or further tweaks to rebalanced the situation (sans bazooka concept, if that’s needed.) I like pretty much all the other ideas. Though I’d still pull for a Pearl Factory hehe
:-D

Again man, nice concepts

Nice one video!  :-)
Thumbs up!

I agree with the initial premise of this post. Russia could definitely use a boost in 1942.2

@Der:

Or you could give Russia production bonuses after holding out a while, to represent the increased production over time. Like after round three Russia gets 3 bonus IPCs per round, after round six they get 6 IPCs per round, etc.

This is one of the more interesting ideas I’ve heard in a while. I like it for its simplicity. You could play this way with a direct correspondence between Round and IPCs awarded.

Round 1 = 1 ipc
Round 2 = 2 ipcs
Round 3 = 3 ipcs
Round 4 = 4 ipcs
Round 10 = 10 ipcs
and so on

this would mean that the effect on the early game would be fairly minimal, but each round that the game progresses, the Russian advantage would become more potent. The higher boosts would also kick in at precisely the time when the Russians need more loot, since all their land has been snatched. This would give the Axis a strong incentive to attack early, rather than trying to wait it out. So for example, as Germany, if you had choice between a somewhat risky attack on Moscow, or waiting 3 more rounds for Japan to back it up, you might just go for the attack rather than facing the extra lend lease loot that Russia receives. Each round you push the game out the larger the benefit becomes, which would encourage faster game resolution, at least on the part of Axis. Not sure might work.

I support basically anything that gives the Russians a boost on this board.

My favored change (in terms of a hard and fast set up adjustment) is to just give the Russians a bomber. Which seems to work fairly well at balancing this board in my playgroup :-D

So recently I played out a game using this system. After many rounds and one of the longest games of axis and allies I have ever endured, it was a stalemate. As Gargantua predicted, London fell. Though we had Britain with two capitals, there income was combined and allowed to be spent at either side of the board. Even after all unit builds went to London turn one, it fell turn two. So only London income was lost and the Brits fought on from India. Nevertheless Italy become a God economically and militarily. The Brits in the Med and Africa were sunk naval wise and overwhelmed on land by Italy. The German navy became large enough to contend with America, and later on in the game, Italy almost took Stalingrad and successfully took Calcutta for one turn and also controlled all of the middle east. Japan was effectively contained by America, Britain, China and ANZAC and suffered huge losses after very early wins. Japan doesnt stand much of a chance we decided. Russia got hit hard by German attacks and Itailian attacks on their flanks through the middle east. Russia also rolled terribly. But their navy was strong and the capital never fell. America was hard pressed and couldnt fight Germany effectively while also dealing with Japan. It was mostly string after string of failed landings in Africa and the British mainland while sending a token navy to assist the rest of the allies in the Pacific.

Overall, the system sped the game up tremendously and kept all players focused. I find it to be balanced decently. The axis seemed very strong early in the game and kept the allies at bay except in the Pacific. Britain’s economies should be combined probably, but with a better experienced British player this just might create hell for the axis. Great house rule and I will be playing again with my group this way soon.

Yeah you’re right, finished, not finalized…