Posts made by vodot

Yeah, a math error like leaving a Capital open is obviously fatal, balance be damned, unless Japan in in position to take a capital of it’s own the same round or next. Which is not impossible. :)

RE: Bids, You’ve got lots of options!  I believe that the going tournament bid for the allies is 13, but I have seen a range here from 11-20+. The rules for placing bid units usually specify that:
1. At max one unit can be placed per territory/SZ, and
2. Bid units may only be placed where there were already other units belonging to that power.

Destroyers in the Atlantic and Russian Infantry/Fighter are popular choices.

Personally, I think my option (posted in this thread) is fun: instead of a bid, give the allies a free ‘colonial’ Industrial Complex + AA Gun to be placed together anywhere they like before the game starts, then permanently boost the value of that Territory by +1 IPC (but not above 3). So a 1 IPC territory is now worth 2; a 2 IPC territory would now be worth 3; and anything 3 and up keeps it’s OOB value.  I think it makes the whole mega-Japan much less inevitable… or at least gives mega-Japan something else to kill besides/before Moscow.

India, Australia, and Sudan make really interesting choices for this sort of ‘fixed’ bid.

Beyond that, consider two other popular options that fix issues that should probably not survived playtesting (in my opinion):
1. Move the DOA China fighter towards Russia a TT or two (or just let its placement within China be determined by the US player), and
2. Close the Turkish Straits to the Italian Caucasus Kamikaze. At least, close UKR and CAUC to sea invasions.

@Rank:

Nicely done, we may tryout the buy technology.

This is similar to the way we play our HBG1936 game. We bought  tokens/chips of a yellow colour to denote any upgaded/heavy units under the pieces. They interlock with oob chips, Blue marine, etc.  Better to experiment with these instead of buying new sculpts you may not use, and rather simple/cost effective to implement. Available at HBG or some boardgame stores, mini poker chips by Kaplow games.

Hey, thanks! yeah, chips that interlock with (and sit atop) any QTY chip stacks are what I use. I just use sharpies on some of the excess gray chips I have lying around, but colors would, of course, be awesome. :)

@Rank:

For the political situation.
Example: If both sides pay for Turkey’s interest? How do you decide a 50/50 die roll, Bidding war, Something else?

Turkish Pact is first come, first serve. Probably need to clarify that.  Other players can always just invade Turkey later to take control of the straits, but only the active player can ‘buy’ the technology.

But an Auction… what a fantastic idea! I could really see that working as well in some form, if perhaps not as a “Technology” like this.

@Rank:

Recommend looking at HBG1936 rules and expansions, they include variations for most of your ideas. This may give you some other angles to look at your technology changes or methods to implement them. They are not perfect but different and play tested.

I will totally do that.

@Argothair:

Interesting ideas.

I thought that you would be one of the aforementioned "people who would want to geek out on something like this :)

@Argothair:

You provide an entertaining and thoughtful mix of special abilities. My main concern is just wondering how you plan to keep track of all of the various “modifier” chips. We already use chips under the pieces to show how many units are in a territory, so adding additional chips (of many different varieties) could easily get confusing. Is that 2 marines, or 3 paratroopers, or was it 4 infantry plus 1 heavy tank? If somebody knocks over a stack, it could be really hard to put the stack back together again from memory.

Yes, true. Of course there are those with the actual units to represent these pieces, solving one problem; I personally have sharpies (GASP!) for that :) hopefully as I continue to play these out I’ll know more about how to contain these sorts of issues.

@Argothair:

Another question I have is why some of your abilities are priced in terms of $5 up front plus $1 or $2 per unit you want to upgrade, whereas other abilities are priced as a large up-front cost of $10 plus $1 more for each unit you have. Right, like sometimes you give the user the choice of whether to upgrade, and sometimes you’re charging a variable fee upfront that essentially forces all units to be upgraded. The latter ability seems vulnerable to abuse, because I can research, e.g., Super Subs first, and then build as many subs as I like for no extra cost. The former ability seems a bit finicky, like I have to make all these little decisions about whether to pay $1 to upgrade each individual unit. I’d prefer a flat fee like $15 or $20 that doesn’t have anything to do with the number of units. Another option is to say you can have up to 3 upgraded units of each type (up to 2? up to 5?), at no extra charge, and after that the rest are normal. E.g. for $5 I can build 3 heavy tanks; the rest of my tanks are normal.

These are valuable thoughts. I had originally conceived this as 100% flat fees; the ‘per-unit’ surcharges evolved as a balancer, and then evolved again in balance of the choice vs. auto upgrade issue- and now here we are with the “build NO subs until they’re super subs” exploit.

Raising the ‘flat fee’ component of all of the auto-global-upgrade techs might fix this… or the whole ‘per-unit’ kicker cost idea might be a bridge too far in terms of bang-for-finnickyness.

@Argothair:

It’s hard to tell without playtesting, but I think you are probably charging too much for targeted strikes. Like, I’m almost never going to give up 3 submarine hits to generate 1 hit on a specific target. What am I going to aim for, your carrier? To prevent your planes from landing? You could just take the planes as casualties; it’s not going to be notably more expensive than, e.g., suffering 3 hits on destroyers. I guess if I’m attacking your mixed fleet of BBs and CVs with nothing but subs, then the targeted hits could be useful, but then I’m throwing away my fancy upgraded equipment just to get in one spite shot. Doesn’t seem that attractive. Similarly, if I have a trio of bombers that hit on 4 or less, I’m not excited about downgrading that to 2 or less just to target my shot. Killing 2 infantry is roughly as good as killing 1 tank.

This could definitely be true. I love the targeted strike idea, need to spend some more time testing things out. Not sure I can get it to work in A&A, given that nothing else in the whole system is designed for it.  In my dreams, we get a complete “All units target other units individually”  system with armor/defensive modifiers adjusting attacking dierolls, but that entails not tweaking but overhauling the cost structure, dice, setup, build restrictions, etc.

@SS:

Nice ideas but your going away from KISS

I will 100% cop to that, SS.  I try to keep the rules descriptions themselves as KISS-y as possible while behing cohesive… but KISS overall is not really my aim with these. There is definitely room for a far simpler set of flat fee technologies- it would be funny if that is what I ended up with after starting with all this complexity. :p

@SS:

As for the tech if you want it you can buy it with rolling 4 D6s and add up the 4 dice. Or try with having a 2 D6. 3 D6 4 D6 per tree level. Or just pay 10 icps + 2 D6 rolls. Play around with it.

I love this idea! I had this thought a week ago, and I totally forgot about it until reading your comment!

@SS:

Nope

Led Zeppelin

BAHAHAHAHA  :lol: :lol:

This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.

This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.

Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).

Fixed_cost_Tech_v2.xls

_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).

@CWO:

I think that this Zeppelin Carrier should be given a substantial amount of armour plating, and that its defensive rating should be increased accordingly.  In fact, if it’s given enough armour, it will become completely invulnerable to the enemy’s fighter defenses because it won’t be able to take off and thus will never reach enemy territory.  By sitting on the ground at home in this manner, it would, however, be vulnerable to enemy SBRs, so to deal with this threat it should be given a significant built-in AAA capability.

wait- so much armor plating that it could remain submerged under water for long periods without surfacing?? Unterseezepplin!

A0
D2
M1
C20
3-hit

Carry 2 planes when not Sumberged
AAA Roll when not submerged
Surprise Strike when submerged (Strength 0)
Boosts enemy subs to A4D4 on a 1:1 basis

@P@nther:

@vodot:

@P@nther:

@axis_roll:

Can I non-combat a sub into a SZ that contains a Destroyer and immediately submerge?

You can non-combat move into that SZ but you cannot submerge. Submerging is done during Conduct Combat Phase. Also a Destroyer cancels the Submersible ability of subs.
Combat would result in case the move happened during Combat Move Phase.

So when would the ensuing combat occur? Does it necessarily happen during the next Conduct Combat phase, or does it only occur if the active power has combat to conduct in that zone?

Can I sketch some scenarios?

1. G sub moves into SZ with UK DD.
on next (UK) turn, can they move DD out of that zone, avoiding combat? If so, is that a combat move or a non-combat move?

2. G sub moves into SZ with US DD.
on next (UK) turn, if they have no units in (and move no units into) that SZ, does combat still occur between the G sub and US DD? Can the UK move through that space and ignore the sub, even though it is not ‘submerged?’

Combat is initiated by the power moving during Combat Move Phase. It is resolved during the Conduct Combat Phase immediately after the Combat Move Phase.

Scenario 1: Here the “Sea Units Starting in Hostile Sea Zones” rules apply (rulebook page 14). The UK destroyer moves from a hostile sea zone to escape combat as its combat move (also on page 13), then.

Scenario 2: In case Germany moves the sub into the SZ during Combat Move Phase, combat occurs during Germany’s Conduct Combat Phase.
In case Germany moves the sub there during Noncombat Move Phase no combat occurs, as this is not a Combat Move and the Conduct Combat Phase is over for that German turn. UK can move through that space simply ignoring the German sub - (the German sub can’t be submerged, as submerging takes place only during Conduct Combat Phase). When it comes to US’ turn, US can choose to engage the sub or not.

Ok, so units of two opposing powers can be present in the same SZ without combat, as long as it is not the Conduct Combat phase during one of those powers’ turn? Appreciate the help and your patience.

@P@nther:

@axis_roll:

Can I non-combat a sub into a SZ that contains a Destroyer and immediately submerge?

You can non-combat move into that SZ but you cannot submerge. Submerging is done during Conduct Combat Phase. Also a Destroyer cancels the Submersible ability of subs.
Combat would result in case the move happened during Combat Move Phase.

So when would the ensuing combat occur? Does it necessarily happen during the next Conduct Combat phase, or does it only occur if the active power has combat to conduct in that zone?

Can I sketch some scenarios?

1. G sub moves into SZ with UK DD.
on next (UK) turn, can they move DD out of that zone, avoiding combat? If so, is that a combat move or a non-combat move?

2. G sub moves into SZ with US DD.
on next (UK) turn, if they have no units in (and move no units into) that SZ, does combat still occur between the G sub and US DD? Can the UK move through that space and ignore the sub, even though it is not ‘submerged?’

@Nowhere:

@Midnight_Reaper:

@Nowhere:

If it’s “Hungry Hungry Hippos: 1941 edition”; Now with Japanese Tiger-Is and British and American IS-2s.

You say that like it’s a bad thing! :-D I prefer to think of them as Heavy Tanks for all the major powers. Just because the Japanese never built Tigers doesn’t mean that they could have never done so. After all, Japan never conquered India in real life either, but that doesn’t stop Japanese players from doing so on a regular basis.

It is a bad thing. The Japanese didn’t build Tiger tanks, the Germans did… the Americans and British didn’t build IS-2s, the Russians did. Using the wrong equipment for the wrong country is a bad thing… just watch the Iron Eagle movies and tell me how cool Russian F4 Phantom Migs are and tell me its a great movie… bad things are made by people being lazy and loose with history… like Iron Eagle and 1941.

Japanese tanks were terrible from start to finish. When all your tanks make the M4 Sherman look like an overpowered, unstoppable juggernaut, your nation has serious tank-design problems.

Look, I don’t have a problem with alternate history… I don’t have a problem with saying “maybe if the Japanese tried a little harder here, and committed some more forces there, and the British foolishly let their guard down, a different history in Burma or India might occur”… that’s one thing… but to give the Japanese tank industry Tiger tanks? To say America and England just threw up their hands and said “you know what, we’ll just mass produce Russian tanks instead”!!! No thanks.

If I want heavy tanks for the US, England and Japan, i’ll just go to HBG and buy a few of the actual tanks produced by those nations. 1941 has some nice unique sculpts… and I use them for the appropriate nation… American & British IS-2s, Japanese Tiger-Is? I tossed every one of them in my trash can… it was fun hoops practice.

I think we can all agree that it’s within each of our own rights to determine for ourselves where to draw our own ‘accuracy vs. practicality’ line in the sand; for reasons financial, aesthetic, OCD, or otherwise. I’m sure that’s a thing that has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, of all places.

On the issue of Japanese heavy tanks, for example, I think it’s a little silly to allow the Japanese to “try harder” in one arena (say, committing land and naval resources to the conquest of Alaska) while preventing them from “trying harder” in another arena (say, committing scientific and economic resources to improving their tank manufacturing). Is this a deterministic simulation, or a game?

Sculpt accuracy is also a slippery (and expensive!) slope- and it is ultimately just as arbitrary. Someone could purge their entire setup of all non-native units, but I guarantee they’re still playing with green IS-2s somewhere- in that we all make trade offs between perfect accuracy and practicality, and use our imagination or ignorance to cover the gaps. It’s just a matter of what an individual is or isn’t willing to personally accept to meet their minimum conditions for ‘Secondary Belief.’

If you get the urge to throw any more units in the trash, Nowhere, I have a mailing address for you! :)

@Midnight_Reaper:

@barney:

Concerned for everyone else as well. Major Black Eye for the Brand. Would’ve been better if they never released it.

Hush you. I waited a long time for them to gin up a new version. It’s imperfect, what else is new? I’m just glad I could get one for myself for less than the price of a used car.

As for board warp-age, a little bit of plexiglass over the top, and Bob’s your uncle.

-Midnight-Reaper

I agree.  Even with these defects I’m really pleased to get a copy. It doesn’t hurt that I got mine for a phenomenal price, either!

@warTorn:

I want it to be that cheap in Canada is what I want

How much is it in Canada?  I have a ‘special’ (exterior box damage, like I’m buying it for the box :roll:) coming in from Amazon this very minute that I would be willing to ship to you at cost, if it’s more economical than you ordering direct…

Nate

Hi All!

Name: Nate
Area: Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA
Games: A&A (any; I own AAR, 41, 42.2, and AA50).

@axis_roll:

@Argothair:

Well, you could let the Allies choose where to put it. Australia, Brazil, South Africa, or even Archangel could be reasonable choices, although I agree that most players would want it in India.

Well, sure, it could be anywhere, but if you want it to be the most useful, India would be the best

What about requiring that the TT contain either a victory city or be worth at least 2 IPC, but then auto-boosting whatever TT gets the bid IC to 3 IPC (if less)? Does boosting Australia to 3 help make AUS a viable location for the bid factory, or does it simply ensure that Japan gains another point of income? What about Egypt or SA for a hard counter in Africa, or Hawaii for the US? If it is just the ‘2 IPC-ness’ of these outlying territories, I think we could fix that. If they’re simply in a strategically less relevant position (relative to India), not much to be done.

Trying to combine an Argothairian idea (make the periphery more interesting) with a Black Elkian idea (balance the game with one elegant change) with axis’ chicagoism to at least the extent that we could see a viable PTO or KJF.

Adding an IC might not make the periphery interesting… and those ‘pre-conditions’ might be less than elegant… and maybe all it does is expand Japan’s PTO (which hardly wants doing). Who knows?

@taamvan:

G40 - infinite (or seems like it)
G42 - at least 2 sessions or until beer is depleted and board flipped during #ragequit

:rolling_on_the_floor_laughing: I have never played G40 (played P40.1 once), but that’s definitely how it appears, given what just P40 was like.

I was hoping you’d post these!

What about waiving the bid and giving the allies a free IC+AAA to place somewhere?

Thanks YG, this is terrific!

Interesting that someone decided that Russia is likely to out-navy Italy (+2 TR and +2 CA)- just in case Stalin decided to float the mighty Caspian Armada? Bummer for those of us for whom the italy units were always a big selling point :)

Yeah, my copy has four issues:
1. Dented setup boxes (all of them!)
2. Deformed infantry rifles (1-5 each side)
3. Molding defects (short shots, delaminations, burn marks)
4. Sprue/cutting defects (large/sharp white burs)

I haven’t done an OCD count or anything, but I’d estimate that most of the ships (esp. Carriers) suffer from #4, and at least a handful of the other units for each side appear to suffer from #3. Contacted Wizards and got the high volume response; hopefully we’ll see some replacement pieces and boxes flowing out eventualy.  It’s a bummer for WotC and the A&A brand, but this really does look like 100% MFG/China error given that the molds look identical to 42.2 and those pieces came out nearly perfectly.

On the plus side, my map does not have the warp/gap that some others are describing; and all of the counters/etc. look great.

UPDATE: got a new message from WotC asking for pictures before they will escalate to the parts replacement team. More than happy to oblige. No additional update yet.