AA50 Alternate Set-up

I found a post which say that SBR AAA kill ratio was 10% max:

What Larry says have flaws, and contradict to to base mechanic.

It should be like this:

1. Attacking fighter escorts roll dice, each 1 is hit, and defender move casualties to casualty zone.

2. Defending AA-gun roll dice, each 1 is hit, and then defending fighters roll dice, 2 or less is hit. Attacker choose his casualties.

3. Surviving bombers roll SBR dice against factories.

In real world, the attacking airfleet would first face the intercepting fighters, and then the escort fighters would do dog-fight. Later, the bombers would face AA-fire at the target. This AA-fire killed historically less than 10 % of the aircrafts. Using Larrys rule where AA-guns target bombers, you could be lucky and roll two 1’s and kill both attacking bombers, and get an unhistoric result of thousands bombers killed and no harm to the factories. Since its an abstract game, let the attacker pick a fighter as casualty to represent a % loss, and still have bombers survive to SBR.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1706&start=8
He is talking about an older version of SBR (AA50 Anniversary).

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Seven_Patch:

Well the IPC value is even between both the Axis and the Allies (except the original global set up of 19 Allies Infantry), I’m hoping it doesn’t throw things off too much.

Glad you like it.

If they have equal ipc’s of units, allies win due to their greater economy

My changes to the additional Global setup pieces are equal so it would just add equal amount of IPC value to the base set up.  I haven’t checked on what the balance is like for the base set up, I would imagine that the Axis have more units to allow the Axis a chance to try and win early while the Allies have to survive until their economic power tilts things back in their favor.

The Allies did win though, historically speaking  :wink:

I give credit to the testers and designers of this game, a game of this size and scale can’t be easy to balance.

5. Atomic Bomb  rolleyes Really? The atomic bomb was only used once the US had practically won the war. It might have been drawn out, but they would have won. This is already represented by VCs. Once you capture enough VCs, you win. This would happen before and atomic bomb was developed.
In regards to game play, it seems lame. The cost seems to be too much merely to prevent one turn of production. I honestly think the whole idea should be scrapped.

The war would have gone on till 1946. The two bombs dropped changed that. japan figured it could get a negotiated peace if it soiled the beaches of Japan with American blood. The bombs changed that completely. It was also dropped to get political advantage over the Soviets who wanted spoils in Asia and to deny them the same. The bomb was the most important invention of the war and it above all other techs must be represented. Obviously, it would be had to obtain and require alot of research to have. The idea is also to have one tech that changes the game and makes it end. Some games require such an outcome because players sometimes never surrender and Atomic weaponry will finish the stalemate.

And that is exactly what it did.

In some games you can play and not obtain an outcome, while with this technology you are assured that the game will finish up soon. In most games that last of normal duration it wont be developed and thats the charm of it.

@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.)

Ok, so I kind of think that sea units currently cost a little too much, here is my alternative pricing for AA50:
The new price is similar to the price of ships in AA50 with the Improved Shipyards Tech, then the prices get even lower if you actually have the Improved ShipYards tech.

Starting Cost … Cost with Improved ShipYards … Ship Type

17 . 15 . Battleships
11 . 09 . Carriers
10 . 08 . Cruisers
07 . 06 . Destroyers
05 . 04 . Transports
05 . 04 . Submarines

The goal of this is to make the Pacific Theater more attractive to Japan and America.
I also think that transports should cost a little less, to make them cost the same as Subs.
My only issue is that with Improved Shipyards Cruisers need to cost 8.5 but i can’t decide which is closer, 8 or 9.  I am also not sure if maybe BB should cost 14 instead of 15 with ImpYards.

What do you think?

@bugoo:

I was wondering if it would imbalance the game or add to it if there were locations where nations could build only inf on a territory as if it had an IC.  For example, I would allow the UK to do this on Egypt, India, Australia, and Canada.  I’d remove one of the Russian ICs and make it function in this manner, or perhaps all but the one on moscow.  Also, allow Germany to use Algeria, and either Norway or Finland in this manner.  Thoughts?

yeah you could just let any territories with 2+ IPC deploy infantry
its easier for gameplay to have a system than to short list territories

For the record, this is NOT an ENDORSED version of AA50e.

Jennifer, please stop posting your assemblage of rules as The Enhanced Rules for AA50..  Your rules were not created via a consortium of A&A players to fix agreed upon game playout issues nor have they been play tested.  You have even incorporated rules from other game editions for no reason!

Make up your own name for your Rules Set, do NOT used AA50e.

How about AA50HP  (HodgePodge)?

notably American fleet carriers Yorktown and Wasp

and i thought it was the Japanese planes from the Hiryu that did her in.

The only capital ships that went down solely by subs were Wasp and Shinano.

If Japan sunk the Yorktown by subs ( i am quite sure she didn’t), that’s after the battle, while it was sitting and listing.

IN any case by AA standards subs dont interact with warships in WW2. It does not meet the threshold in terms of ability and hard numbers.