AARe: Suggested Alterations

I took another look at the house rules I’m considering, and hopefully will get a chance to test it out over the coming Christmas holidays. This mod is definitely intended for games with 4+ active players so that multiple people can be “active” at once and encourage a quicker, less downtime game.

If you only have 2 players, then of course use the the standard turn order.

My 2nd pass of writing it up has resulted with this. Rules/changes in bold, with discussion following.

-Start of game, the “one weird turn”: Russia and Britain take one simultaneous turn. Russia acts as normal. Britain only starts with 12 IPCs and can only move pieces from or into territories east of and including Persia. UK can only buy/place units on the pacific side of the board during this turn

-After this turn finishes, the turn order becomes: All axis powers followed by all allied powers

-The above change allows simultaneous turns while preserving the general flow of each theater and keeps the usual critical opening strikes intact.

Consequences and clarifications: A couple situations will pop up due to the changes.

1)Multinational attacks:
Still not allowed, instead if more than one nation attack a single territory, battles will be resolved one attacker at a time.

IE: If Russia, Britan and US all combat move to a single axis territory, the attacks happen one at a time. Russians fight untill they win/lose/retreat, followed by UK, followed by US. The allied player 2nd/3rd in line may decide to immediately retreat before dice are rolled if they don’t like the results of the previous players attack.

Can opening: No longer possible. Losing this “trick” is an acceptable loss IMO.(Personal taste: It’s very “gamey”)

Loss of landing planes/strait use. IE: US cant land planes on territory UK just conquered. In practicality, this is a minor nerf to allied KGF play.(landing planes in west europe. If there is an example of strait use that happens in a “typical” game I’m unaware). Is this a big enough deal to warrant additional changes? We will see. Easiest solution for balancing may be modifying the British “bid” introduced for first turn pacific spending.

Anything I missed?

My rationale for altering territory PF values was to attempt to make them more ‘relatively’ accurate. Part of the problem is that A&A is a simplified simulation. A simplified map and simplified PF values.
My proposed changes barely alter the map (I include a new South India Territory). Where I attempted an alteration was to spread PF values into ‘Siberian Territories’ , to better reflect Canadian PF values and to do the same with ‘Indonesian’ Territories.
Kreuzfeldt, I am not or was not basing my alterations on ‘oil’ or ‘resources’ only. A&A, in all it’s various incarnations, is a simplified simulation.
As to your numbered points;

The map given is the map that must be worked with. I had no thought of population as opposed to resources. My alterations to PFs are my opinion of the relative values of the Territories affected. There is an emphasis on Canada to more accurately, imho, reflect it’s component parts. I am a Canadian so I wish to see a better relative accuracy there (here). The maps and the PF resource values may not be entirely accurate for the original territories (or even for my suggestions). Again, A&A is a very simplified simulation. Compromises have to be made. It is a fact that capital Territories, especially, in Europe (& for Japan territory) HAD the overwhelming or virtually all the concentrated industry (& resources). This explains where the Factories are placed. I see no problem, therefore, that PF values for France, West Germany or Russia are increased somewhat. You think the UK (England territory) should be worth considerably more than ‘France’ (Paris) or West Germany (the Ruhr)? Your choice, not mine.
4)My intent was to give ‘relative’ value to as many ‘spaces’ (territories) as possible. This is why I added value to some of the ‘Siberian’ territories in the USSR. This is why I spread the Indonesian values out to a few more spaces. The idea of ‘oil’ is subsumed into the game. It is not necessary to make Rumania so valuable (6 pts) as you suggest. I could be incorrect about the relative value I give to the Urals & NovoSibirsk, however, I observe that the ‘Urals’ space  reflects the ‘northern (arctic) Urals’ (hardly the space for industry). NovoSibirsk space could have a higher value. Note, Kreuzfeldt, the actual names used in the USSR & the fact many of these ‘spaces’ would have had a value greater than 0. Hence, I place a number of ‘value territories’ in the spaces that reflect ‘Siberia’ or parts thereof). So, I am trying (tried) to reflect an importance for Siberia (more, in fact, than the original map).
I did not alter the PFs (total points) of any ‘Nation’ from the original game. I simply attempt to offer a more accurate ‘relative’ PF value for certain Territories. I created a few new Territories but only where logical and where able (using the original map given).
Some players may dispute my new ‘relative’ PF Territory values. I am sure some values might be altered, however, not by much, imho.
As to A&A maps? All I will say is they have improved from the original but they still present ‘problems’.
Again, A&A is a simple simulation and ‘compromises’ are (& will) be made. The above Global 1940 Map alterations are my suggestions to making this map a little bit ‘better’.

Hello there.  I’ve really enjoyed reading up on those these rules and I’m sure I’ll have fun implementing them as well.  A couple questions though.  With the Free French I read that they’ll be implementing the “China mechanism” where I get no industrial complexes are used.  My question is “does that mean they can only place infantry and artillery?”  Also i assume that Germany can collect tribute IPC’s from ANY Vichy territory with German units occupying it.  Thanks for any clarifications.

Yeah thats what I thought. I mean when I got Pacfic I thought oh thats so cool! Now I can have battles on all these iconic islands like in the Pacific theater. But for most except for those involved in NOs their useless. This would make island warfare more important.

@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)

Yea, Convoy Raiding Damage is huge!  It may seem like only 8 IPC here or there, but it adds up over time and those submarines have to be targeted with 10 IPC destroyers (which have to be built, moved into position, SURVIVE THE ENEMY, and then attack!)

And CRD (Convoy Raiding Damage) is in addition to any Strategic Bombing Runs you may attempt!  (That means E. USA can, technically, sustain 36 IPC in damage.  12 from CRD, 12 from Japanese Bombing Runs and 12 more from German Bombing Runs.)

@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.

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