AAR Kremlin - Abattlemap Module?

For those of you who love Enhanced, now is the time to prove your skill in a tournament over at AAMC.

We need two more players or the tourney will be cancelled.
sign up here:
http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1641

Thanks and good gaming!

The mega offshore strategy:

Its definitely do-able though it seems to become a race. If Japan is not delayed with an UK Indian build or a significant amount of US Pacific naval build up, she quickly gets to a point where she can threaten Caucasus. Now with both St. Petersburg and Caucasus threatened, Russia is in a pickle and Germany may just have to hang on to France for one go to win on VCs no matter how grim the offshore scene.

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.

@dpdlc:

I never understood, how researching a technology would instantly upgrade your units for 0 cost. While doctrines is a change in tactical thinking, using units differently. You don’t actually have to build anything or upgrade anything, but the techniques in battle change and represent a learning experience.

In real life:

Germany focus on armored manuver warfare, to encircle their enemies.
France focused on static defenses.

US focused heavily on heavy bombers and daylight raids.
While Brittain focused on night bombers.

Russia focused on heavy preliminary artillery bombardment, for battles.
while the US had artillery available quickly to lower lever units. (“RADIO”)

Japan developed the expertise and techniques for night battles.

I think these things add a  little bit to flavor in the game.

Hi dpdlc,

What you’re describing sounds like the National Advantages available in A&A Revised.  These were nation specific advantages that reflected certain tactics, special units, or strategies used by the different A&A nations.

It’s a shame they took these out of AA50 because you are absolutely correct, when balanced appropriately, they can add tremendous flavor to a game (check out AAR: Enhanced which uses a much more balanced set of national advantages compared to AAR OOTB)

@Yoshi:

But isn’t this choice only for the jet fighters hits ?

no, jet ftrs can intercept Rockets AND bombers…. unless the bombers are shielded via more escorts than jet ftrs.

@Yoshi:

Otherwise, if the defense player has 1 jet fighter and 1 AAGun (say attacker does not have Long Range Air Craft tech, but he got Rockets tech), then the bomber would be more protected that if the defense wouldn’t have jet power (2 hits@1 needed to kill the bomber).

More protected with less defending jet power?  I don’t think so. 
Jets can intercept both rockets AND SBRs.

Your example negated the bomber interception since you had escorts (LRA).
By allowing the attacker to choose the casualties, the attacker is rewarded for having rockets AND LRA.

@Yoshi:

Thank you for the answers. I know that this is a very special case, but I encountered this point (of the beginning of the thread) in a friend game.

You are welcome.  And it’s not a problem, I will support Enhanced when ever I can.

@axis_roll:

@Cmdr:

I believe I have found an effective counter to the allied destroyer strategy.

Need a new opponent to test it on though. :P  Bean’s in school! hehe.

it is definitely a beatable strategy

Let me redefine my statement, I have found an EFFECTIVE counter to the allied destroyer strategy.  I know there are ways to stop it by shooting yourself in the foot with the axis.  But I think I have a way to do it without selecting National Advantages specifically to beat it and not racing for technologies specifically to beat it (though they make it easier.)

In other words, a very slight modification from the game as normally played.

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

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