AARHE: Phase 3: Revised NA's

Hey Young Grasshopper,

Can you say a few words about why you’re writing these house rules, who they’re for, or what you hope to accomplish with them? Hard to offer comments in a vacuum.

Because there are no neutral victory cities in Anniversary, I’m not sure your VP system changes anything beyond just counting up each victory city as one point. Any time I take a city, that means you lost a city, and vice versa. Normally, when I take a city, I gain +1 VP and you lose -1 VP, so the total VP swing per city is 2 points. Under your system, when I take a city, I gain +2 VP and you lose -1 VP, so the total VP swing per city is 3 points.

That’s it – you’re changing the swing from 2 points to 3 points, but it’s not like you can conquer half a victory city, so it really doesn’t matter if the swing per victory city is 2 points or 3 points or 50 points. I’m pretty sure it all works out the same in the end. No? I imagine you’re trying to reward players for being aggressive/proactive, but I don’t think your rule actually accomplishes that.

Also, to echo Baron Munchhausen’s concern, I don’t like the idea of allowing intercepts against bombers that only deal 1d6 damage, because then it virtually never makes sense to launch a bombing raid. It really doesn’t pay to launch more than 2 bombers against the same factory (you wind up wasting some of their power because the damage gets maxed out, but you still risk losing them to flak). So if I can defend my home factory with 2 or more fighters (really not that hard) then there is no point in bombing anything – between the 2 pips on the fighter and the 1 pip on the AAA gun, you have almost a 50% chance of losing your bomber on each run. 50% chance of dealing 3.5 damage vs. 50% chance of losing a 12 IPC bomber is a terrible trade-off. Sure, you could escort your bomber with fighters – but nobody in Anniversary has that kind of air power to spare. If you can spare 4 planes for a mediocre bombing raid, you should be using them to take territories. Just my two cents. If you’re going to import the interceptor rules, I’d like to see some kind of buff to the bombers.

taamvan,

Excellent analysis on the differences between G40/G42 vs Oztea’s 41. I think in some ways, the 41 setup has “almost” fully realized the potential of the Global board. I like how it initially looks. It makes think of coming into a high level situation brief on in-progress ops. I imagine a table top board would seem very busy at first (I’ve only seen it on triplea, even there it’s cluttered). But like all axis and allies board games, they clean up real quick along the frontiers. Â

I did notice how this setup forces the Axis to stick to realistic solid objectives; but dangles out some “mirages” like Cairo.  I’m of the opposite opinion. I think I’d even evacuate the german tank and 1 infantry on turn 1. Rarely I see people really invest in Cairo and going for the middle east, but on the forums some people talk about it. I’m never good at that.

I don’t know which way the game leans axis or allies. I’ll have to play it out a few more times before I’ll have a definite opinion. Do you remember which sides won at your club? Regardless, it seems very balanced and the US could get real aggressive anywhere it wants immediately. The US does start out with an Army, but Germany has a sizeable European garrison for defense and a nice navy in the Baltic for reinforcing Finland. Russia starts with a destroyer/sub combo in the artic, so they have a chance to kill a german sub in sz 125 and can therefore almost be guaranteed to collect their 5 IPC bonus for a few turns. Also, over time, the allies gain a few more IPCs as the French territories get occupied by allies. Russia might be tempted to stack it’s much larger mobile army at Amur on round 2, but I think it better to move it to Europe.

Thanks for your imput.

I included the critical strike on grounded aircraft to give the attacker reason to get involved in a dogfight seeing how deffending aircraft hit @4. The critical strike is @1 and for the first round only, I believe attackers shouldn’t get a disadvantage for being agressive. Without the critical strike, players ask themselves why should I attack with my valuable aircraft and get all the odds against me.

I don’t enjoy changing the attack and defend capabilities of any units, I believe the game is difficult enough without trying to calculate all the different changes for any given senerio. for example: Fighters attack @3 except when escorting and except in dogfights and except on carriers and except….ect.ect.ect. (you get my point).

I am still tweeking the merchant convoy rules when transporting supply chips however, this is a major aspect of my rules and it must be handled with care to balance the game. On one hand, the allies have enough to do, what with keeping up with with the axis agression during the first 4 rounds and on the other hand it is too much of a factor to just ignore the importance of the merchant shipping lanes. For example: if I were the supreame commander for Germany during the war, I would never have shiffted towards bombing London or even think about opperation Sea Lion when they were so close to starving the little Island. Non the less the rule is still a work in progress… any Ideas?

I might think about a rule for the Gibralter however, I don’t want to limit the Italian fleet entering the Black Sea. That would only limit them to Africa and I want the Italian player to have options.

As for my Tech charts, I believe that if your going to have the kind of game ender like a nuke just for historic reasons, I would prefer to limit it to one Nation (U.S) and still leave it to chance of getting that advantage. As for Nations limited to thier own charts, I have found in my games that players really think hard about what Nation they wish to play at the begining of the game because they want to play with some charts but don’t want to be up against others. One aspect that I have found very important is giving each nation one free chance per turn to get a tech, this way techs are always a factor in the game while still rewarding others for buying extra chances.

I have a book where I have cut and pasted the Axis and Allies rules into a word document and have added my own rules to make everything more compleate to the newbies I play with. It took alot of work and I think it looks nice, I could e-mail you a copy if you like and that way you can edit it to your own house rules, the good thing is that most of the work is done for you. Just send me a personal message with your email address… I think you would like it.

for the system that you have made, i think that the cost of i.c. would have to be very low,

Yeah, I agree. After thinking about this some more, 10 IPCs for a factory is probably still too high.

Thanks for the feedback, I think I’ll try re-costing them at 5.

@axis_roll:

Would your Victory city points be the only way to win or another way to win (meaning 10 VC’s is a win regardless of how many points I’ve achieved) ?

I haven’t thought about that.  I guess victory points would be just one way to win… I guess I’d have to test it.

ok thats fine then.

yeah I checked out your USSR player aid
I feel a complex pattern might make it slightly harder to read the text on the printed thing
maybe just go along the line of one compact and one pretty presentation version

so would be nice to have additionally a simpler one for “comfort zone” reasons
it would look similar to revised OOB in colours patterns and style

Ok I’ll make it more precise.

I am touching up the the player aids atm.