Topics created by Veqryn

These answers are correct.

So….

Yes… the Submarine gets to shoot at my transport during combat (and i should not have brought the transport along)
No… I may not land my troops after the surface warships are cleared, simply because there was a battle in the first place and the sub is still there
Yes… I may retreat my dumb transport and fighters

Well, you guys might be missing something here.  You do not need to agree that the game is imbalanced, or have a consensus on what bid is necessary to balance it, to have a consensus on what I am talking about.
Example: Person A may think the game is already balanced and that a bid is not necessary, Person B thinks an Allied bid of 6 ipcs is needed when you play with NOs, and Person C is nutty and thinks that 21 ipcs are needed for the allies with NOs.  But all of these three people may in fact agree that a bid of 2 infantry in europe would be equivalent to a bid of 2 naval warships off the coast of america.
Agreeing on what to do to balance the game is not a pre-requisite to agreeing on certain bids types being equivalent.

Or, to think about it in a different way, lets think of this as a Ratio.
I’m just going to throw this out there, but lets say you have a Bid of X.
If you use it on the “front line” in either Europe or Africa/MiddleEast, then all you get is X.
If you use it not on the front line in Europe/Africa/MiddleEast, or you use it on the front line in China, then you get X1.5
If you use it not on the front line in China, or you use it in the Atlantic on Navy, UK main island Air/Land, then you get X2
If you use it on Pacific navy, or American Continent Land/Air, then you get X*2.5.

Now, as you can see, if you think X should be zero, then they all end up as zero.  If you think X should be 6, then you could either get 2 europe/egypt inf, or 3 chinese inf, or a cruiser in the atlantic, or a DD + a sub in the pacific.  If you think X should be 10, etc, etc.

Egypt has 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, and 1 fig.  5 extra units that could be in persia, while, G keeps 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm in libya that could be used to counter allied algeria landings with air support from france/berlin.  I’d say that favors the axis as far as time is concerned, and time is on the axis side in my experience.

Barring the very extreme example kh has shown, to help yoy, just think of an AA gun like an IC

no matter who takes what from who and where…

if it was an IC who would be building units in this Zone ?  Thats who controls the Gun.

In this senario, you are in control.  The Russians support both.  Japan and Italy MUST follow your lead.  You are in the driver’s seat.  The US is somewhat free because Japan will have to bring his ACs and battleships down to defeat India.  Can’t happen until T4 at the earliest.  Probably T5, unless Japan plans on letting China grow out of control.  By that time, USA must be ready to knock on GE’s door hard.  Keep Russian tanks in Cau for a retake if Japan gets lucky.  There are never enough Japanese inf to keep it for long.  Haven’t figured out USA completely, but this is a solid start.  Maybe not Egyptian complex T1, but as soon as possible.  Transport guys in SA to Congo to expedite reinforcements.

@zooooma:

I was never a big fan of the unit bid.  I posted years ago about bidding for NAs in revised.  Also I wanted an option to play minor victory, which I think also helps the Axis.  I used to like to play Classic with Restricted russia and Weapons Development Bonus.  If this doesn’t eliminate a bid it should at least reduce it.  I used to advocate for that option in the Axis & Allies Member’s Cluib (AAMC), but there wasn’t much interest.

Best of luck in your endeavors!

Alot of people played this way on the CD version (when those old gaming rooms were around).

Axis_roll is correct.  Sea units may not enter or leave sea zone 16 under this optional rule.  Bulgaria/Romania being cut off from the Mediterranean is just a by-product of the way the map is drawn.

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?

_Posted by: Veqryn
Instead of this: Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, Australia, and/or India

Japan’s 3rd National Objective should read:

Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least one of the following territories: Hawaiian Islands, and/or Australia_

great idea, or make it two of the three (HI, Aussie, India)

If America leaves the Pacific, I’m often seen placing 3 IC’s, one in Bor, one in Sum, and one in Ind.

With 6 TP’s, 4@SZ35, 2@SZ49, I’m throwing 6 inf 1 art 4 arm at Russia per turn. That’s 42 IPC, but if I’m making that much before NO’s, why not? Russia can never withstand that force. Any extra IPC’s are spent on bombers at Japan, to be thrown across Asia to aid against Russia.

That’s if America leaves Japan alone, though.

@Veqryn:

What turn and what do you use to destroy the Italian fleet?

There are a couple options:

You build 2 bombers as the UK, and use 3 bombers + 1 fighter to destroy them UK turn 2 (landing in Caucasus if Italy is SeaZone 14, landing in Trans-Jordan if Italy is SeaZone 15).  You should have only 1 bomber left after this attack, but you could easily also have nothing left.  If you try this, you will most likely lose that one bomber to a German attack on G3 on trans-jordan.  The other problem with this is, you only have 7 ipcs left over the first turn, meaning you can’t buy anything, meaning your entire europe theater navy consists of the transport and cruiser you leave at SeaZone 1, which you have to leave there because if you come any closer you will get attacked by a German submarine + fighter + bomber on G2.  Turn 2 you can build more navy, but it really looks bleak since you can not move your first set of troops until either Norway turn 2, or Algeria Turn 3 (which means Germany can get Africa for a few turns anyway).

You build 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 transport UK1, and 2-3 bombers UK2.  You can destroy the Italian navy on turn UK3 with 2-4 fighters and 3 bombers.  This would seem far superior at first glance, but there is a major problem.  It really is not that difficult for Italy/Germany to take Egypt on their Turn 2, and then take Trans-Jordan on their Turn 3.  Without both of those, you have no place to land the planes, and without any place to land you can not attack in the first place.

The USA can not launch a solo attack on Italy before their Turn 3.  They can mop up after an partially successful UK attack on US2, but if USA tries to attack on their Turn 3 the run in to the same problem as before: they have no landing zones.  If the USA wants to attack with ships, this is not possible before USA4 (assuming Italian navy is in SZ15).

So…… what the heck are you guys doing to BOTH kill the Italian navy, and Retake Africa before the Axis conquer much.  It seems that if you try to kill the navy quickly you will not have enough ground to retake africa successfully before the Axis kill off Egypt and Transjordan, but if you go for a longer approach the Italian navy stays alive until turn 4, which is much too long and the axis get to control africa anyway. 
Please help.  Ideas anyone?

you have a fault
you shoulmd have battleship and such aswell in UK1
attacking those with germany is suicide
they’ll probably attack sz 12 or the US seazone (2 good looking transports)

Ignore it and have enough in England to prevent an invasion.

I have read this thread and I have to chuckle as I think people have lost the purpose of the bid. People are concerned about how the placement of immediate units imbalances the game but who allowed that opponent to walk off with so much cash in the bid.

If I think I can win with the axis straight up (no bid) when why would I bid more than zero? The bid is like “name that tune” where you challange your opponent to beat you with less. I am reading bids of 12 or more and I think that is nuts (who allows someone to walk off with 12 IPCs? I wanna play you!)

As for the play testers, Larry Harris is far from perfect. I know far more complicated systems that let have huge amounts of play testers and even they let some things through.

Over all, I like the bid system for if you really want to play the axis…bid low!

i was thinking 1942 for that one, 1941 i don’t build anymore

Springs player here too.  Hope to get some local games going.

Try this house rule for China to have IPC’s like other allied countries:
1941 China Modifications
These changes enable China to function like a 4th allied country. China collects income at the end of a turn just like any other country. China starts the game with $7 IPCs. $2 inf for China, other unit costs are unchanged. China can save unspent IPCs. China gets to Non Combat Move their fighter and place their IC before start of game play (start of round 1). China gets an IC for mobilization of new units. The IC can move one territory per turn and place units into the just moved into territory even if China just took the territory this turn (no unit limit on placement of Chinese units).
If China or her allies capture a Japanese IC in Manchuria or Kiangsu or ANY original Chinese territory, the IC is immediately destroyed. If China captures a Japanese IC in French Indo China, the IC is destroyed. If any allied country captures a Japanese IC in Burma or Kwangtung, it would revert to UK control. If any other allied country (besides China) captures a Japanese IC in French-Indo China, the IC is not destroyed, and control would be reverted to the capturing country. If China’s IC is captured, it is destroyed, and China no longer can ‘purchase’ units. Without the IC, China can get new infantry units per out of the box rules. Chinese units may now be engaged outside of China in Burma and/or French Indo China.

China has its own National Objective:
The Burma Road If the allies control Burma and 2 of these 3 territories: India, Yunnan, and Hupeh, China receives an additional $2 during their collect income phase.
China Modifications FAQs

Are all Chinese units limited to China and Kwantung? (as per AA50)
• Chinese units may now be engaged outside of China in Burma and/or French Indo China.

Can China roll for Tech?
There is no restriction on how China spends its money.

Can the axis conduct Strategic Bombing Raids on a Chinese IC?
No, since the IC has unlimited development. The Chinese IC is limited by the fact that China has few IPCs to spend.

May Chinese infantry be placed the same as AA50? (i.e. not just at the IC)
If China still has its IC, new units may only be mobilized in the territory where the Chinese IC resides. Since the IC can move into Allied territories not under Chinese control, reference "Handling when China moves their IC out of territories under Chinese Control.” Once the Chinese IC is lost, AH original Chinese rules apply.

Can the Axis use the captured Chinese IC to build?
No. When the territory where the IC resides is captured, the IC would be destroyed.

What happens when China loses its IC but still has Chinese units / territories under Chinese control?
When China’s IC has been captured and destroyed, China reverts to getting more infantry as described in the AA50 rules. They no longer collect income in the form of IPCs, nor can they ever get any other unit than infantry

China just lost it’s last territory and still has IPCs in her bank. What happens to the IPCs?
Any Chinese IPCs go to the conqueror.

Can the Chinese fighter (the Flying Tigers) attack units in sea zones outside China if it returns to China in the same turn?
No, it can’t leave China/Burma/French Indo-China/Kwangtung, even temporarily.

I’m not sure I see a lot that’s new here.  The Axis has always been easier to play because it’s more intuitive.  No need to develop an infrastructure, just roll those tanks and march those men.  (Japan less so, but drop a complex or two and you’re there)

The Allies require logistical thinking that would challenge a UPS transit engineer.  And AA50 42 is that times 2.  One of the keys to Allied success is the patience to build a fleet in the Atlantic that cannot be sunk and get it off the European coast by turn five and no later.

@Funcioneta:

A good question is why Manchuria and Kiangsu have a japanese marker. It would be easier having only a Chinese marker, I cannot convince my friends to put the jap control marker on them  :-P. That jap marker printed on map only serves to one purpose: confuse

You are correct,

and that 33/67 split is going to be actually more historical for that opening of the war as well.  Europe was the stated first objective, then Japan from the US standpoint, so more money did go that way at the start.