Posts made by WILD BILL

Flash has a great point. I guess you could say tanks are using a rail system already and now your allowing inf, art & AA’s to use it too with some limits.

Most joint strike rules I’ve read don’t allow the US to use UK units that moved in noncombat or units UK just purchased. I think that you should be able to use these units in AA50 because Italy now goes between US & UK. Your rules allow this - I like.
Just for clarification is Joint Strike only on France from sz 7. Some allow JS on N W Europe,or could you JS the heart of Germany in Berlin through sz 5. I would think yes on the N W Europe and no on the later. On another thought JS could work against Rome or S France through the Med.

@Krieghund:

If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there?  Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10?  The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms.  As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.

I think the designers opened up the can of worms when they gave us the +2 bonus for these very strategic tt, then took it away. For example if you are UK or Japan do you place an IC on India @ 3 ipc (5 units), E.Ind’s @ 4 ipc (6 units), or Aus @ 2 ipc (2 units). Its just silly to think India & E.Ind’s could produce 2-3 times as much as Aus. It changes the game mechanics of where to put IC’s. Another option (we came up with last night) is to give +2 to capitols only +1 to all other IC’s worth 2 ipc or more. Its simple doesn’t create a complicated step system and more important it includes these very strategic tt. I think a change was needed, but I don’t think the designers thought this one out when they made the change there were other options.
The last part about still getting damage repair - I can’t think of another weapons dev. that gives only part of the tech to certain units and not all. This is it’s own step system, but its better then nothing.

@gamerman01:

With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3.  So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).  I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says).  What do you think about my house rule?  (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)

Many gamers have adopted similar rules. I allow 1 extra unit for a 2 ipc tt w/IC, but no extra units in a 1 ipc tt w/IC.

@Krieghund:

@gamerman01:

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).

That’s one reason.  The other is that increasing an IC’s production capacity by 100 or 200 percent seemed a bit excessive.  Your house rule certainly solves the problem that you mentioned, though.

Kreighund,
You seem to agree that bombing/damage is answered above giving 2 ipc tt w/IC +1 for unit placement.
I was wondering why the Errata didn’t give a 2 ipc tt w/IC +1 for unit placement. This would only give these tt a 50% increase in production. Would be the same as Caucasus getting +2 (50% increase in production). I know a line had to be drawn but I just thought there was room for +1 for these tt.  Karelia, Egypt, SA, Aus & Phil would all benefit. As it is it’s hard for the US to establish its self in Pacific, but 3 units in Phil would be great with this development. I do agree with no extra units in 1 ipc tt @ 100%-200% increase in production. I normally wouldn’t place an IC on a 1 ipc tt anyway. I’m sorry if you have already covered this.

I thought buying a dice was a little over the top when I wrote it. The dice should be free if you want to roll for passage once you have 3 or more surrounding countries. You could skip the dice altogether and treat it more like a canal . Control of 3 boarder countries gives your side free passage (as Cobert said). I know the straight was closed to war ships during WWII, and it was to shallow for subs. If Germany/Italy would have conquered  N. Africa, controlled Egypt, Trans-Jordan & Persia (more oil), isn’t it possible Turkey may have buckled. If given the choice of  invasion or open up the Black Sea Turkey very well may have give up control of the Dardanelles. They may have even joined the axis if things had gone better for Germany. In a lot of games I’ve played the axis gets control of N Africa & The Middle East. When this happens they should be able to attack or reinforce through the Dardanelles. I am just trying come up with a simple option to always open (oob) or always closed. Whats happening in the region should have some effect on the straight.

IL, I still say firing 2x @ 3 is to strong ( maybe you missed my above post). Could you explain why you would give them so much fire power against very expensive ships? Dose history reflect enemy ships taking that kind of hit when coming close to land or ports? I know they would be a good deterrent. Also will these batteries double as a bunker to give support to ground troops defending tt after a sea battle, or during a normal ground battle w/o ships. Or would you need a separate piece for this.

Bardoly, I don’t really like powers getting extra $ for taking away supply routes from other nations chalking it up to morale. I do like just getting a bonus for certain sz’s for each power. This could be used w/out NO’s or in other versions of AA. I like getting more $ into the game rather then penalizing, resulting in less units. Maybe up to 5 ipc/power payable in the collect income phase. Assign 4 sz to each power and give them 1 ipc for each of these sz that are clear of enemy war ships & subs (transp not included) at the end of their turn. If you have all 4 sz clear at the end of your turn you get an additional 1 ipc for a total of 5 ipc’s.
Possible sz in AA50:
*Russia-sz 3,4,63 and either 16 or 34.
*Uk-sz 1,2,8 & 9 keeping supplies coming from US & Canada.(could just go with 2,8 and commonwealth zones like Au 41 & SA 27)
*US-sz 10,18,56 & 53-supply Hawaii
*Germany- sz 5 (counts for 2) along with 14 & 13 (the med was very important for Germany to supply N Africa.(I know its double dipping but Germany is like that lol)
*Italy-13,14,15 only, no extra bonus for all sz’s.(This should help balance out above)
*Japan-62,61,36 supplies to and from main land,& 49-oil.
Well that’s it in a nut shell what do you think.

Some house rules I’ve read blended sea zones into the NO’s in AA50. Some examples:
Russia- Reduce its 10 ipc bonus to 5 ipc and create a sz 5 ipc bonus maybe sz 3,4,34 & 63. Or add sz 3 & 4 to its Archangel bonus.
US-Attach sz to it’s 1st NO(E.US, C.US & W.US) maybe sz 10,19,55,56,65 This one is way to easy to get anyway.
UK-This one is tough because It’s commonwealth NO is already hard to get at points. Maybe add certain sz (1,2,8,9,) to show supplies from US & Canada to UK
Germany-It’s original euro tt NO + sz 5, maybe 13 & 14.The med was as important for Germany to control as for Italy to keep supplies flowing into N. Africa.
Italy-No changes already has sz in its 1st NO.
Japan-Add the sz that connect It’s 1st NO (3 Chinese tt) to Japan,sz 36,61 & 62.

On a further note I know AA42 is blending some rules from AA50. NO’s will most likely make it as optional. Has anyone heard if more sz will be part of NO’s like Italy? That would be cool.

That sounds good IL. We just need to leak this project to the other parts of the forum with a link of some kind. Curiosity should take care of the rest. Maybe even a “MOVED TO”-would still leave a footprint (I know that would be sneaky and under handed but that’s considered  good strategy in AA lol).  Your right we should wait until we get pictures of the prototypes-more enthusiasm.

Firing @ 3-2x sounds a little to powerful for an $8 piece firing at ships. I guess that it would fire w/your coastal ships, because the enemy would have to clear the sz to land amp assault. If sea battle lasted 2 rounds this battery has the potential (50% rolls @ 3) to destroy 4 ships? Cost could be $30-$40 easy for the enemy. I have taken AA guns and painted the tips red using them for coastal defense/straights, but didn’t give them that much of a punch. Having a bunker piece is going to be great! I see why you would want them to fire 2x to have the ability to sink a lone BB passing through a straight or at least ding it if it was part of a fleet attacking your ships. Maybe fire @ 1-2x preempt and is upgraded with radar @ 2 for defending against ships? To give it more dimension allow inf +1 def in tt if attacked by land, or once amp troops land. Maybe allow the enemy to capture them, use damage markers to reduce its capacity some how? Then who ever owns it pays for repairs to bring it back online. What do you think?

Sorry I butchered the quotes, don’t know how to do it properly.

Posted by: dinosaur
Insert Quote
Wild Billy …
Or were you sugesting that IL make a notice in the other fora (AAR, AA50, AAG, AAE, AAP, AABulge & AAD-Day) to make sure the whole community is aware of this project?  That is how I Posted by: johnnymarr
Insert Quote
i think thats a good idea.  i’ve been coming to this site for a couple years, but never went to the variants page until a couple days ago but am extemely excited for these game piecesunderstood your question.  Take care.

Yea that’s exactly what I was saying, make a post (maybe a sticky) in the other sections. I’m sure that there is a large % of gamers that don’t go to AA Variants, and have no idea about the new sculpts coming. WB

I agree w/ Emp Taiki on this, I don’t think art or tanks should be dropped into battles. Maybe allow air movement in non combat only. I thought this tread was made to see what uses we could come up with for the new sculpts. We are getting a new inf unit right? Maybe that unit could have multiple roles. If your using it in amp assault its a marine +1 attack, defending coastal tt its island def +1 def, if dropped from an air unit its a paratrooper etc. Maybe only give it a bonus in the 1st round of battle. I know the training would be different for each unit but I’m just trying to make a unit/rule that would be easy to follow. I’m not sure were there airborne marines in the 1940’s?

I think your right on track w/paratroopers. Maybe match them 1 for 1 with ground/air units, like bombardment is in AA50. That would help with abuse and keep transports in the game. Matching also makes paratroopers part of a battle and not the whole battle & gets more units to the front or across water. Could allow lone paratroopers to take unoccupied enemy tt only. I would like to see paratroopers attack @ 2 in the 1st round of battle, but that’s just me. With matching I don’t think you would need to change AA guns or take away movement pts. I’m assuming an air transport would have to land safely and could not stay w/paratrooper.

Yea I guess with a range of 6 spaces the airbus merits more $. How about a range of 4 @ $9, would still be pretty good for non combat. Could also still paratroop short runs like from France to UK. If you wanted longer runs use a bomber to paratroop oob rules, or are you thinking bombers no longer paratroop?
Idea #2 I’m warming up to the trucks being linked, making it more like a rail track. I would think Builds would be @ IC then roll them out next turn. Maybe allow IPC value to dictate how many units could be trucked/railed trough a tt (might be to much). Should a truck be allowed to move units in combat & noncombat in the same turn. Can you use your allies trucks to pass through a tt. Maybe allow the enemy to steel them if they take over a tt w/truck, but like an AA gun they can’t move it until their next turn. hmmm maybe I need to buy little rail symbols instead lol.

Idea #1, Very similar to your post about rail systems, I like the movement pts capped @ capital ipc value. This would help from as you said “Going Buck Rodgers”. Extending it to air units is something I would have to give more thought. This with LRA could be trouble. I kinda think the sea is a little tight in AA50, I was hoping for more sz in the N Atlantic & Med when it came out. The extra naval movement might be better suited for other variants with more sz. I think personally I would restrict it to just ground units at least for a few games to get a feel for it. After that I would toy with these other suggestions.

Idea #2, I was thinking trucks would be more like a transport for land. Cost in the $5-$6 range & move two 1 movement units an extra space. Yea its kinda boring. Your idea that it would give the tt a movement bonus is pretty cool. I’m not sure about bridging to move through multiple countries. Larry outlawed using transports that way. He also took away transports defending @ 1. I would hate loosing a plane to a truck.

I didn’t say I didn’t like the air bus concept. I just thought it was over priced. Just like a transport is the lowest priced surface ship @ $7, the air bus should be around $8-$9 making it the cheapest air unit. There is a call for an air transport like when Germany can’t build fleet. I don’t think any of the transport units should get to roll dice.

By the way GO WINGS!      Yea I’m from the metro Detroit burbs

IL, I was thinking maybe you could re-post this project in other parts of the forum. It would affect all the AA games & house rules etc. Not everyone that comes to this forum would come to variants. Might help get the word out just a thought.

Not to change the subject but I was # 70 yesterday when I took FMG pole to prepay, so its still growing. I also plan on getting a set of battle dice for AA50 maybe two. So keep spreading the word.

Ok a couple of things here. 1st are you doing away with the paratrooper tech? Or are these new invisible air buses only allowed to move troops in non combat until you develop paratroopers. 2nd for 12 ipc why not just use the oob rules and buy a bomber to paratroop. Then make a house rule that bombers can be used as air transport in non combat. Then you could at least use the bomber as a bomber later. Not sure I would pay for a bomber and not get the full use of it. I think I would rather pay a smaller one time fee per unit with limited range. If you were paying 2-3 ipc per unit depending on distance traveled cost alone should prevent abuse. If you wanted to transport 3 inf from Italy to Libya (2 spaces) cost $2 each or $6 From Italy to Egypt (3 spaces) $3 each or $9. You could charge an extra $1 for the 1st sz if you want. I would still purchase chips in beginning of your turn and mob them at the end, at least as the enemy you would see it coming. It would be like a supply token you don’t get to keep it forever, your paying for fuel. I also think you should have to develop PT or use one of the new inf molds at a higher cost (training) if not playing with tech. Just my 2 cents.

I like slowing down Japan with some kind of pact. I have tinkered with Japan has to completely conquer China before it can attack Russia. I think it was one of its main goals that started before WWII. That way the allies could help stall the Orange Monster. Makes sense Japan never got total control of China and didn’t attack Russia. Of coarse waking that Green Monster across to ocean had something to do with that.