AAR Kremlin - Abattlemap Module?

I remember right after AAR came out, almost five years ago, playing a game of AAE with tanks that defend on 3. It was horrible, horrible idea. Germany just got too much out of that one. But reduced prices on fighters and carriers didn’t seem to break the game as much. Germany builds lots of fighters, but so do the UK and US. Nobody builds carriers in AAE unless something unusual has happened anyway.

At any rate for both AAE and AAP besides the reduced price on fighters and carriers to match AAR (and 24 VPs for AAP) my group plays with the rules as is. Transports are any land or one tank, tanks defend on 2, etc.
But now with AA50 there’s a lot of change. The problem with wholesale just changing the unit stats is that setups were designed for the original stats.

So I have a few questions:
Do you think fighters that cost 10 and carriers at 16 ruins or damages gameplay in either AAE or AAP? Especially considering escorts for SBRs it might be a concern.

Any consider going through and tweaking the setups for E and P to make them fair for the new unit stats? It might do good to freshen them up a bit. I think if well done it could further enhance the Pacfic especially. Convoy values, of course, are a concern.

What about tweaking setups to Europe to add Italy? Without Sub-Saharan Africa this might be pointless, but maybe the oil money alone would be enough.

@Aretaku:

I like it…

…I’ll probably use it in my next FTF game, I’ll let you know how it turns out.

Thanks, please do.

@tekkyy:

Yeah radar is so powerful.
Besides end game move, when would you ever bring air units to a radar territory?

When I want too.  AA Guns don’t scare me.

And if they did, just get Jets and become almost immune. (Not immune to radar, but it negates it bringing it back to normal.)

Yea, I got an idea…not sure if it’ll work.  But it’s an idea.

@Imperious:

heres some manageable rules to use:

I most like the part about destroyer and crusier negate submarine’s preemptive fire on a 1-to-1 basis (rather than unlimited in AAR).

Simple enough to implement for even first time players. Yet quite effective in improving gameplay dynamics.

Yeah I thought extending to all territories.
And I also thought of ncscswitch’s comment.

Its easy to argue why realistically only enemy Capital require this.
We could consider extending to all Victory Cities, but that might be too much too.

What we could also do, is that conquer Capitals goes back to original control if not occupied by you have no land units there.
And I just realise I didn’t finish typing the draft rule.

Conquer Capital

A captured capital territory generates 50% less income unless controlling player occupies it with sufficient number of land units. The number of land units required is equal to half the number of IPCs in income.

Capital Territory          Units
Germany/Berlin          5
Japan/Tokyo          4
Russia/Moscow          4
United Kingdom/Londom          4
Eastern United States/Wasington DC          6

But Shinano (same hull as Yamoto) took 1 submarine with 1 torpedo spread (one torpedo hit the I beam supporting one of the torpedo blisters and turned the I-beam into a battering ram that went through the boilers…)

While Yorktown was hit at Coral Sea, damaged, limped back to Pearl, and then fought again at Midway.

In both cases these carriers lost their battle with little against them… so id keep the one hit idea. If a Yamato class carrier can be sunk by a sub and the yorktown plus those 4 japanese carriers go down by a few planes i dont see why these ships need a two hit thing. The battleships should however. Do you not aggree?