AA50 on Steroids!

@Witt

Thank you for your comment. I guess we think the same way.

Lowering the tanks‘ attack value for two Axis powers and one of the Allies has already changed a lot, because especially Japan has to rely heavily on tanks when marching though Asia. Attacking with „2“ instead of „3“ takes 33% of their power away. The UK usually is less aggressive and needs less tanks. The US can provide that element while establishing in North Africa, Norway or France.

But the idea is still in my mind to enhance UK’s firepower for the later stages.

@General-6-Stars would you mind to share it with me as well. Thanks a lot

I get enough of this crossing out BS from my English teacher.  :lol:

I do get your point.

_Here’s a rule with two aims:

1. Safeguard Russian production (with some historical precedent) from relatively easy/early/immediate German poaching
2. More setup variety and more interesting potential play at the periphery of the map._
3. Enable/strengthen KJF and bilateral games.

The Rule:
During setup, do not automatically place any ICs in non-capital territories.  Instead, those ICs (and up to one AA unit/gun that accompanies it) may be placed in any territory controlled by their owner. The choice of where to place any starting ICs can be discussed openly, but should be made in secret and revealed simultaneously by all players.
Optional: If the UK does not start with at least one non-capital IC, allow it to place an IC+AA unit as well.

I think this works best with some of kind of mild incentive to encourage creative placements, so here are two versions of a bonus (pick one):

Bonus version A: Wherever a starting, non-capital IC is placed, permanently increase the IPC value of that territory by one (but not above 3).

Bonus version B: Whenever ANY non-capital IC is built or placed (for the duration of the game), permanently increase the IPC value of that territory by one (but not above 3).

I think that radar is a little weak. Perhaps make it a minor tech? Or make radar activate always active AA guns. That would be scary.

@oztea:

Interesting Idea fighter commander, a re-worked tech system with a 3rd and 4th chart, only open to the axis or the allies respectively.

Ive been dabiling with a tech system that locks each country onto a tech tree. It doesnt have to roll for resarch, it just has to pay an R&D fee, as much as it wants each turn, to consistently recive tech.

For example, Germany: for each  3 IPCs germany devoted to R&D, place a tech counter on germany

2 tech counters - Advanced artillery, to represent 88’s
4 tech counters - Rockets, the V2
7 tech counters - Jet Fighers, the Me-109
and so forth

I havent fleshed it out yet, or even gotten anywhere near doing all the other nations.

mmmm personally I think that Wpns Development the general type of breakthru should be elective but the timing of the breakthru should be largely random rather than budgeted

but that’s me… :-D 
And I will confess: I also don’t like NAs unless there’s a reason beyond a strict replay of WW2 (e.g., no Japanese rockets or Russian marines etc.)

I have cobbled together suggestions voiced online here and Larry Harris site,
what players believed may be missing from AA50 1941,
   This is a simple compilation of those ideas, just started testing;

1)selected Neutral Territories can now be invaded ,
     with added defensive units for Neutrals.
     also:see house rules for additional ideas on how to handle Neutrals.)
2)Earlier setup than OOB-March 1941, Greenland is still a Neutral territory,
     Persia(Iran) is also a Neutral territory.
3) Added suggested IPC strength to Allies:
         Canada divided into (4) Territories;
         Australia divided into (5) Territories.
         U.S.A. added (1)new territory Rocky Mtn West and
         moved Central U.S. next to Eastern U.S.
4)Axis Africa was still in play;:
         (Italians control East Africa, Vichy control West Africa/Madagascar, )
          with added Vichy and Italian units to support.
5)Added for those who wanted value, (1) IPC to all island territories,
    only for those Islands that previously had no territory value.
6) Added Player’s suggested Units for balance:
     Germany-Battleship-BB
     U.S.-Crusier unit-CA, ARM
     U.S. UK Japan-SS units missing from Pacific added.
     USSR-FTR and several RTL
     UK-CA, DD, INF units to Africa campaign.
     Vichy French-Naval-CA, SS, DD, RTL, INF for Africa campaign.
     Italian-DD, SS, FTR, INF for Africa campaign.
     Japan -BMB, DD
     1941 China starts with qty (11)INF

Suggested Optional Rules:
Optional rule:Non-Aggression Treaty between Japan-USSR, if they attack each other penalty invoked, focus Japan on Pacific and U.S.S.R. on Europe.
optional rule:Stealth Subs-pop up undetected and ambush your enemy.
optional rule:Vichy units-will they Defend yes/No.
optional rule:Carrier Island to give Islands tactical value.
    (this provides Island based Air units a slight range increase.)

Thanks everyone for the ideas.

Setup Map can be found here under Folder AA50 Variants-AA50Shades of Grey;
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449d2db6fb9a8902bda

I got to say that the introduction of the National Objectives concept, was a stroke of genius imho.
Now, the game, through the NO Bonus Incentives, push the players towards their historical aims.

Anyhow, as with any setup, I think that even with the NO setup, AA50 might go stale over time.
Also, not ALL historical strategies are being encouraged by the OOB NOs. What about the German Sub strat, for example? It is not shown in any NOs at least.

Therefore, I thought of the Variable NO concept. It runs like this :

We create a list of, say, 5-10 NO’s per Nation (not possible to create even THAT many for a nation like China, for example). Before the game starts, every nation rolls randomly to see what NO’s they get.

1 NO: China
2 NO’s each: Italy and Soviet Union
3 NO’s each: Germany, Japan, UK and US

I like the thought of China having their own NO/NOs, but of course, they could be incorporated into the US one.

What’s your thought? Or maybe you got some NO’s of your own?