AA50 on Steroids!

Updated with a new 1941 setup.

There are also new naval movement and scramble rules.

@CentralCommando
You will be pleased to see there are more units in Africa.

I use a LL chart for Russia and sometimes UK gets a Destroyer. Plus in Ger NA I have if they get they can buy a Ger piece and place at a Italy ic or buy Italy 1 piece and place at a Italian ic. I think this is best way so you don’t interfere with the Transports. Besides I have enough convoy raiding going on in the Atlantic. If you guys are interested in my rules and game NA just to give u more ideas I can post more here if you’d like.

I just tried to addressed to the one of the main complaint about Japan’s power in Anniversary and claimed that having Japan with that power is not a must for maintaining balance but happy to see different income distirbutions with No’s or not.

@Cmdr:

Actually, i think I’d like it better for Artillery, not Armor.

Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 2.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 3.

Then again, I like changing Artillery to a 2/1 unit, instead of 2/2.  (attack/defend.)  I mean common, those 88’s on defense have to fire into their own ranks, right?  One would hope the cannoneers would be EXTRA careful lining up those shots!

Good call. Totally agree with:
Artillery without infantry support - Defend @ 1.
Artillery with infantry support - Defend @ 2.

But I’d also keep Armour without infantry support - Defend @ 2

it was the softgun part, i was just imagining those pvc mini-marshmallow shooters that are all the rage at 5-year-old’s birthday parties plinking off of a Tiger Tank….
:-o

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.

@bugoo:

As far as tech goes I would propose a point system.  Assign a point value to each tech.  Purchase researchers as normal.  Roll as normal for research, but add up the total rolls and apply them toward the selected tech.  You could assign different researches to different techs, but cannot change the tech they work on once purchased.  Once point value is reached, tech is gained said researchers are lost.  For example.

As US I want heavy bombers eventually, they are worth 30 research, so on turn 1 I purchase one heavy bomber researcher.  I roll and get a 3.  Now I need 27 more research to get heavy bombers.  On turn 2 I decide I want super subs, and since that tech isn’t as powerful I only need 15 research to get them.  I purchase 2 researchers, both for the subs as I want to sink japan’s navy now.  I roll a 2 for my heavy bomber researcher, leaving 25 left, and then roll a 4 and a 5 for my subs, leaving 6 left and with any luck on turn 3 i’ll get my super subs.

This will allow you to slowly work at a tech, rush for it, and choose to go for the good but expensive techs, or take an easier, faster, tech, or all of the above.  Now all nations may buy a heavy bomber researcher turn 1, but hey there is nothing wrong with that!

Hello.  I am digging up this as the tech lovers/haters discussions have started to heat up.

I re-read your thoughts and am wondering if you ever did anything more with this idea of a tech pointing system.  Did you ever come up with point targets for each tech?

The neat thing about this is that it can be easily tweaked with out re-writing the whole process.

Or you could go one step further and adjust the targets by country too.  For example, make super subs very low (read affordable) for Russian super subs or something like that, or even harder for the wealthy countries (like extra points for USA for Long Range)

Well latter i did figure out what the rule was and amended my house rules along his idea ( except its really the old AAE rule on fighter escorts).

On night bombing raids… i got 50% effectiveness, but no escorts/interceptors…or AA