Posts made by Wilson2

What I like about these rules is that they should be usable in the 1942 scenario too. I actually like more planes starting on the board + a stronger China + Russia B4 Germany.

@axis_roll:

OK, so you think it’s pretty even.  and I can see that being probably true with these rules.

so what side do you want to play in a test game?

I have some time to try one, but don’t expect a turn a day, as in the summer months, usually I am not around on the weekends to be tied to a computer, I am out enjoying the weather.

So if you’re ok with that sort of game play pace, I will have a test game with you.  Interested?

Can I get back to you on that? I got to eat and have a couple things I have to consider. Funny you should mention nice weather since its been raining and thundering all morning here.
What program were you thinking about using?

@axis_roll:

so based on these rules… do the allies need a bid?

Any thoughts on how to decide who plays what side (via like a bid?)

Heck, I only play with bid for PBEM. When I play FTF we generally just pick whatever side we want to play.

The reason I put the IC in france was twofold: The main reason was to allow germany to more easily build a fleet and move it out into the atlantic while still reinforcing it. The second was to give germany a place to spend those extra IPCs to prevent the need to buy 8 tanks 2 infantry. Its far enough away from Russia that hopefully it wont unbalance the Russian front.

@Imperious:

Why make the player upgrade his bombers before he can get better fighters?

I think bombers are too viable at 12 IPC, The effect of this tech may prove too strong it it comes early because of this cost.

I assume most people own AAP40 and have these pieces and are eager to use them again. But alot of my ideas always try to introduce new units like Cruisers, which latter became standard. Sometimes you got to push the boundary outside the comfort zone. I could work on them.

How does making it easier to get a bomber tech solve the problem of too viable bombers?
Despite having read the AAP40 rules and implementing some of its rules, I do not own the game so this would exclude me. I may get it soon. Maybe not.
@Imperious:

IMHO, if you want to make house rules more accepted by other player, you should limit the range to the units in the game.

In other words, not ALL players WILL have AAP40 in their A&A collection.  You know what they say about what happens when you assume….

Thats why they are optional…

You don’t have a tree for those who don’t have the AAP40.

I actually might be fine with a broader type of tree. For example if you took all of the techs now and made a weaker (or greater for some tech) similar version of the tech to go for first. For example, before heavy bombers, you buy some kind of carpet bombing tech. before LRA +2 there is LRA +1. For jets there is weak jets - defend @5, and upgraded jets. Fight @ 4/5 you get the idea. Still some techs would have to cost more than others.

@axis_roll:

Based on AARe rules,
You fail to mention things like forcing a sub to dive (AARe requires a ship to attack subs).

If a sub is killed, or submerges it cannot convoy raid. You may still choose to ignore the sub (as per AA50 rules) but it doesn’t have to (and cannot) submerge.

@axis_roll:

OK, re-reading your rules, there are no detection rolls, it’s strictly a 1 to 1 ratio round one, 1 to 2 round two, 1 to 3 round three (etc).  Interesting.  What you have might work, but it complicates (perhaps unecessarily) battle for tracking detected/undetected subs.  Need to play test.

Actually most of the time the battles ended very quickly, the subs all get detected pretty much on round 2, or the undetected subs submerge. For us it was Japan attacks 4 subs with 2 destroyers and planes–2 destroyers dive, the rest die. Then UK attacked back with 3 SS 1 got surprise strike (and missed) and after that they were all detected. We really didn’t have much problems with this.

@axis_roll:

Can subs attack other subs like in Revised?

As per now, no. That is, if either player wants to submerge first they can. I figure since subs no longer attack and defend the same, an even battle wouldn’t be even. Maybe make a rule saying that subs fighting subs get 2 def or something.

@axis_roll:

Do subs regain zone of control like in Revised (besides the ‘unescorted’ shot rule)
Just what consititues an escorted transport?  ANY warship?  DD’s only?  Only ships with ASW?

Subs do not regain zone of control. Escort means that a surface warship moves their entire move with the transport (borrowed from AAP40)

@axis_roll:

I think 1 IPC damage is max by sub,  Perhaps something like 2 subs adjacent to an IC might give you 3 IPC Convoy raid damage to encourage subs to be closer to an IC?

Interesting idea. I would like to test 2 IPC a little more.

@axis_roll:

@Wilson2:

NEW, BETA: UK starts with minor factories in India and Australia. Germany starts with a minor factory in France. Minor factories may only build Infantry units and may be upgraded to factories for 8 IPCs. Upgraded minor factories may be used at full capacity the turn they are upgraded.

I like this idea, although you said you thought it didn’t work in your own game plan simulation.
Question:  are these minor UK IC’s subject to convoy raids?  Only if upgraded?

I’d say no for now. Not sure. Actually the simulation was without the ICs. It was why I decided on that idea. With India +3 inf and australia +2 inf Japan’s odds went down below 50%. (assuming US fighter lands in AUS)

@axis_roll:

Thoughts:
Not a huge fan of instant tech.  In fact, they ruin a tech system, IMHO.

you make no mention of a counter to heavy bombers (like the optional escorts rule)
I think mech inf might be a Major tech (germany could use this VERY effectively, perhaps way too much so)

Generally, tech is bought at 2 or 3 dice (in our game) and the opposing player can assume that on turn 2 of rolling you got pretty good odds of getting the tech, so it kind of takes the edge off instant tech. I could change it to make it delayed if got the first round, but that would take the edge off buying 4 dice. Also I generally think that if you pay for a tech you should get ot use it as soon as possible. As for Mechanized inf, I changed it to moderate because I thought it was too expensive. Simply to pay 20 for it Germany would have to forgo upgrading 10 inf to tanks. (which already move 2) Additionally, Germany is not guaranteed to get it very soon with only 2 researchers. (In our game Germany did not get the tech till he rolled the 16 dice - that’s 3 turns after buying the researchers)

There are three ways to counter heavy’s. In the sea, get the cruiser tech. See if the opponent is willing to spam your fleet with heavies when you are rolling AA @2 vs each bomber. For Land get radar and build some AA; again AA @2 is a pretty good deterrent. In SBR, radar and/or Improved factories. Healing your factories @ 1/2 price totally nullifies the double dice of Heavy bomber SBR.

@axis_roll:

@Wilson2:

China changes
China now has IPCs, It collects IPCs as other nations and starts with 7 IPCs.
If the Burma Road (Yunnan, Burma India) is owned by the allies, China receives 1 Infantry for free during its mobilize units phase.
Flying Tigers start in Sikang instead of Yunnan.

Do China inf cost $2 or $3?
I assume they can save any unspent IPCs, correct?
Are chinese unit placement limits still active?
So the allies have to control all three (Yunnan, Burma and India) for the extra inf, right?

China inf cost $2. I can’t believe I left that out!  :-o Yes they can save IPCs. You must have all three. (I am thinking about removing India from that list) Chinese movement restrictions are still active. I originally had a different approach that was way overpowered when tested, which allowed china to move more places. I like this method, because it removes the round up/round down problem. Every territory they take is worth something. Additionally, manchuria and that territory with shanghai in it become more valuable. Additionally, no matter what China gets to place 3 inf the first turn. So unless japan goes all out and kills all 4 chinese inf the first turn, china has a chance.
Also thinking about implementing ILs rule about US replacing flying tigers.

@axis_roll:

@Wilson2:

NATIONAL ADVANTAGES
Scrapping NAs

Glad to see that you scrapped these.  NA’s are NOT part of AA50.  There is no need to introduce them.  
K.I.S.S.!

I said I was thinking about it, but if you’re in agreement Ill do it. I did like my china and British NAs though :(

@Imperious:

HUH? you can develop what you want, except you cant get really impossible techs right away. Also, my system keeps the costs at 5 like OOB. The idea i am seeing from this new concept is charging more money for some techs, which makes it impossible for poor nations to develop.

Upon looking at your tech system again, I like it a lot better, and to a degree what you say is true. Your land tree looks good. Your production tree looks ok, but with that in play, you couldn’t get to naval production till turn 4-6, kind of rough for a production tech which gets best use at the beginning of the game. I like the air, except I think Heavies should be replaced with rockets. Why make the player upgrade his bombers before he can get better fighters? In theory, it looks good, but have you really ever used jet fighters? To get to level 5, the game would have to have gone on for roughly 10 turns. The sea tech tree is what I really cannot stand. Why should you have to upgrade your cruisers and your battleships before you can get super subs? All of the techs in the sea tech tree have nothing to do with the others, except the 2 cruiser techs which are on the same level. Also, your tech system assumes that one is playing with tactical bombers and mechanized infantry, both of which are not in AA50.

@Imperious:

If you just play the China rules as i have outlined everything is perfect. Why not try them once?

I probably will. Please note that since posting on this thread I have only played the game once, with the rules I stated earlier. I like the idea of US being able to replace Chinese fighter. I also ran a J1 simulation using a version of no luck and found that with normal odds, Japan is set up to take easily either India or Australia J2.

I got my brother to play with the rules I put down. In a nutshell, Japan got bad rolls first round allowing UK to build an industry in both Australia and India first round. UK went for SS and build subs our of Australia. US got Naval industry and focused on Germany but built 4 subs to keep Japan occupied (and possible cannon fodder for HBs) Japan got overwhelmed by both UK industries and the overpowering china (that part needs changing). Germany went for Mech inf (we played with mech inf as moderate tech, @10 ipc/die) and due to excess money, built an industry in france (It was built in France because he decided that since Germany’s units would move fast thanks to his tech, more units was better than closer, i.e. poland IC) Germany was likely going to overpower russia except for US. NAs were not used since they are not finished.

Here are my thoughts on the rules I suggested:

Battleship AA - Good, made battleships a little tougher and made ships less vulnerable to planes.

Cruiser @ 11 - good, this unit got built in this game. (5 times 3 by US with his naval industry, 1 by Italy with enhanced cruisers, and 1 by UK in his India industry to protect a transport). It never seemed right for a cruiser with naval industry to still be even with a fighter.

Destroyer @7 - good, My worst fear (that this would make for too many destroyers didn’t come true) This did make it easier for Japan to counter US and UK’s subs
Subs get convoy raid -good. It didn’t overpower the subs, but it forced Japan to take notice of the subs and attack them rather than ignoring them.

China rules: too powerful. China swamped Japan even though it lost its fighter on a first round attack due to bad luck. Possible change: Scrap all the rules I wrote for china. Replace with these: China turn order and movement restrictions are back to OOB. China now has IPCs but may still only build infantry. China starts the game with 7 IPCs and collects IPCs like any other nation. Chinese infantry cost 2 IPCs and are placed as per OOB rules. If the burma road is owned by the allies on China’s mobilize units phase, china places 1 additional infantry for free. China fighter starts in Sikang instead of Yunnan.

Sub detection change - good, It made it so that subs could be dealt with, but not flippantly. Went well with destroyer price change.
Sub transport rule never came into play because the conditions never occurred. (The conditions might have occured once, but US decided on a different move instead)

Artillery tech - Felt just right, maybe slightly too powerful - needs more testing.

Mechanized infantry @ 10 (instead of 15) - good, Even at 20 IPC minimum, simply researching this tech is forgoing turning 10 infantry into tanks which can already move 2. Making it 15 (minimum 30) would never pay off. As it was I thought it was slightly weak.

Super subs having strike submerge ability - bad, will remove, This didn’t get much use even with UK having SS. It seemed too hodgepodge.

Cruiser tech - good, This tech worked well. Italy got it and it protected his fleet from US attack by deterring US bombers. It also kept the Russian sub from sneaking in and being a pest. (This was important since Russia had a large production one turn with low industries and was able to get a bomber). By stopping that it allowed Italy’s fleet to split once it got another transport. It will need more testing to tell whether it is too weak.

I really don’t like that method. I prefer developing what you want rather than researching a bunch of stuff before you get where you want. Some nations can’t afford to research all that much.

I said I would check out your tech system, but I can’t find it.

@Imperious:

Also, your convoy disruption procedure is a bit like mine except i allow thew sub to soak only 1 IPC for each sub up to the limit of any enemy controlled land territory up to the IPC limit. Otherwise you make it too easy to protect areas adjacent to factories. For example, Germany can post a sub off south Africa and with 2 subs can soak off it’s two ipc. A factory should not be a prerequisite because goods flow into and from all controlled areas, even if a factory does not exist.  i also allow German BB, and CA to act as surface raiders.

I considered and am still considering making subs do only 1 IPC dmg and to non factories. (BTW, what I posted was not MY idea for convoy disruption. It is copy and paste from AARe) As to surface ships, I figured that convoys can avoid surface ships since they can detect them. plus I thought that it might get out of hand with all those types of ships convoying every territory on the map.
@Imperious:

I hope you can look into my tiered approach to tech researchers, rather than start charging different prices. To reflect the ability to obtain tech, i feel it is a mistake to model it by making it more expensive, rather with my tiered approach you need a framework of lower techs achieved in order to get more major ones. It models the progression of invention from comparable ideas to more complex ones. Under my proposal all the techs are the same, but you must have successfully researched the lower tiers first. Under your system from not having any technology, it may be possible to get Atomic Bombs ( for example) from nothing or from not even have successfully gotten any techs if you paid the price.

I don’t really like the tiered approach, since I wanted techs to be something that you research pretty much the tech you want for your strategy and not spend money on others, but I will look at yours and see its quality. As to atomic bomb, all I can say is that if it is at all my decision, it wont be in there. I know you think it is a great idea, but I think it is a horrible idea.

here it is. All typed up and official - my ideas for AA50 strategic.
Blue = new clarifications
Red = new/beta stuff

Paul’s AA50 Strategic

All rules are AA50 OOB 1941 + NOs unless stated here.

BETA: The Dardanelles strait is closed to sea movement: ships in SZ 16 may only unload/bombard in Bulgaria/romania. Caucasus and Ukraine ICs may not build ships in SZ 16.  Planes may fly over the strait unrestricted.

Changes to unit costs
Destroyers now cost 7
Cruisers now cost 11

Changes to unit attributes

All battleships are equipped with AA guns (radar does not increase this)

Each Unit with ASW capabilities can only detect 1 submarine the first round of combat. Every subsequent round this number goes up one. (In other words 2 destroyers would detect 2 subs first round, 4 next etc.)  Undetected subs are treated as if there were no destroyer in the territory (for submerging, surprise strike, and plane possible targets.) Example: 3 subs attack a cruiser and a destroyer. One sub is detected the first round. The two undetected subs get surprise strike and the detected one does not. Say all of the units miss. The second round a second sub is detected. Now, only one sub gets surprise strike.

-Due to their heavier dependence on convoys for shipping, UK,US, Italy, and Japan are subject to Convoy Raids (CR). These are economic attacks, conducted by SUBs, close to enemy shipping lanes (ie. near an IC). Russian and German ICs are not subject to such attacks.
-On the UK, US, Italian, and Japan Collect Income Phases, for every Enemy SUB within 1 SZ of (ie. directly adjacent to) an IC owned by that respective country, subtract 1IPC from their collected income. For every 2 subs raiding the same IC, subtract 1 additional IPC from the player’s income (up to territory max). If a SUB became submerged during this TURN’s Conduct Combat Phase, it does not do ANY economic damage.
-Multiple SUBs may affect a single IC, with damage capped at the Territory’s IPC value. Any individual SUB, can only affect one IC/TURN, but may affect multiple ICs/ROUND. (i.e. A sub could affect a UK IC on UK’s turn and then a US IC on US’s turn)
Subs can only be forced to submerge by combat. Note that fighters alone cannot force a sub to submerge, since if fighters and subs are the last in a seazone, the battle simply ends.

BETA: UK starts with minor factories in India. Germany starts with a minor factory in France. Minor factories may only build Infantry units and may be upgraded to factories for 8 IPCs. Upgraded minor factories may be used at full capacity the turn they are upgraded.

The tech system is reworked. Here is the new tech process

Step 1: Buy Researcher Tokens

-Each Research Token costs 7 (Minor), 10 (Moderate), 15 (Major) IPCs.
-You must declare which specific technology you are rolling for
-You must buy a minimum of 2 (but no more than 4) researchers for that specific technology
-Once you have purchased a set number of researchers for a specific technology, you cannot purchase any more.

Step 2: Roll Research Dice

-If this is the first time you are rolling for a specific technology, roll one die for each researcher you have
-Success: If you roll at least one “6”, you have achieved that technology.  Discard your remaining research tokens for that technology.
-Failure: If you do not roll a “6”, your research has failed.  Keep all your researcher tokens and continue to the Purchase Units phase of the turn.

Double-Double Rule
-If you have TWO researchers, and this is the second time you are rolling for a specific technology, roll TWO dice for each researcher you have (ie. 4 dice total, this increases to 8 dice next turn, then 16, etc.)
-If you have 3 researchers, the sequence would be 3, 9, 27…
-If you have 4 researchers, the sequence would be 4, 16, 64…

Step 3: Mark Developments

-If your research was successful, place one of your national control markers over the appropriate advancement box.  Your development becomes effective immediately.
-You can initiate research on only one new technology each turn.  You can however, be rolling for more than one technology in a turn (roll newest one first), and more than one technology can come into play on a single turn.

MINOR TECHS (7IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 14IPC)
-Increased Factory Production – Errata is ignored – all factories gain 2+ production
-Super Submarines
-Improved Shipyards
-Enhanced cruisers – Your cruisers are equipped with ASW capabilities
– Your cruisers are equipped with an AA gun. This AA may be stacked with the battleship AA gun. If defending battleship and cruiser are present, roll 1 dice @2 per attacking plane instead of 2@1.

MODERATE TECHS (10IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 20IPC)
-Rockets
-Paratroopers
-Jet Fighters
-Radar
-Mechanized Infantry
-Long range mortars (Advanced Artillery) – Your artillery attack and defend @3 first cycle of combat.
                                – Your artillery have a surprise strike first cycle of combat

MAJOR TECHS (15IPC/researcher, ie. minimum 30IPC)
-Long Range Aircraft
-Heavy Bombers

China changes
China now has IPCs, It collects IPCs as other nations and starts with 7 IPCs.
China’s turn is still with US. (not combat move and combat though)
Changed: China may purchase infantry at the cost of 2 IPC each. All other units are normal price.
Changed: China NO: If the Burma Road (Yunnan, Burma) is owned by the allies, China receives 2 extra IPCs
Flying Tigers start in Sikang instead of Yunnan.

I have a new idea for ASW cruisers, but first I would like to propose a couple other changes. The first is a change to sub detection. I am not a fan of 1 8 point destroyer stopping a fleet of subs from surprise strike. Here is the suggestion: each destroyer (and perhaps ASW cruiser) can only detect 1 sub at a time. (or per round if liked better) This way unless the destroyers outnumber the subs, some of the subs get surprise attack. Now before you say that there is a problem because subs cost less than destroyers, think of it this way: If one player builds 4 subs with 24 IPCs and his opponent counters with 3 destroyers for the same price, the subs will only get 1 surprise strike. That won’t cause much damage. Besides, the subs lose in defense anyway and can’t stop the opponents fleet. This is especially critical since a large fleet of subs cannot put one sub between them and the opposing force to prevent and attack. Whereas, a surface fleet can do that to the subs with the cheapest surface ship out there. Perhaps a 7 point destroyer would be in order, but probably not. Too many changes are not cool.

These second suggestion is the 11 point cruiser. This is to make it more in line with other ships and aircraft. Lets face it who besides Italy (and that even rarely) really buys cruisers.

The third is Battleship AA gun as standard. Even with an 11 point cruiser, planes outmatch ships in AA50. To demonstrate simply compare 2 FTRs to a battleship. 2@3 or 1@4, same number of hits. Bombers are 12 points to attack at 4 whereas cruiser is same price (1 less with my proposed change) and only attack with 3. Also with either of the aircraft techs, planes become even more dangerous toward ships.

Finally to the tech. My suggestion is a tech for cruisers called enhanced cruisers - your cruisers are equipped with ASW technology and an AA gun - Cruisers have ASW capabilities and can fire and AA gun stackable with the BB one to fire @2. This tech would increase the utility of cruisers and would provide a counter tech to protect fleets against jets or heavies. Fleets are expensive to build and should be protectable. Especially with the change of Jets from defense to offense, every tech there is (including super subs) seems to make fleets weaker. Obviously with this improvement it couldn’t be a minor tech, but hey, I didn’t like the minor tech idea anyway.

I would love to try all my ideas out and tell how they went but I might have to wait a few weeks for school to end. (Then my brother will have no escuse not to play with me.  :evil: )

I think you are still reading it wrong. According to the proposed system you get to pick the exact tech you want to roll for. Once you buy the researchers, it is only a matter of time before you get the tech (and only that tech). Due to the escalating nature of it, it should only take roughly 2-3 turns to get it. (1-2 for 3 or 4 dice) I honestly don’t mind playing with house rules. I am an avid fan of AARe and am not interested in competitive play using OOB rules or LHTR. I still like to play good people (I’d love to play AARe with axis roll or replay pagan sometime) I hope we can develop this rule set to get enough recognition to be generally accepted as more than one players house rule.

BTW anyone know what happened to pagan haven’t seen him since the WOTC board died?

@gamerman01:

@Wilson2:

So are you saying that LRA is better than HB?

Yes I am - I think it is better in most cases.  If I’m Japan or USA, long range air is the best, in my opinion.  For Germany HB is probably better.

You seem to be saying that depending on what nation you are one tech is better than the other, right? If that’s true wouldn’t that make them roughly the same?
Also are you saying that LRA is bad because it is too good for its price or just too good. Because if it is too good for its price, in this version (at least for now) LRA is an ultimate tech meaning that it costs a minimum of 30 IPCs to research. (If you only buy 2 (30 IPCs) dice, it may take 2-3 rounds to get) What is your take on CJs tech system?

So are you saying that LRA is better than HB? I can believe that. In AARe, I take LRA more often than HB and they are same price, but then in AARe bombers are 14 not 12. However, I think I will test out this current tech system (heavies and LRA minimun 30 IPC cost) and see how it goes.

@gamerman01:

@cousin_joe:

With AA50 OOTB rules, any donkey of a player can roll 5 IPC for Tech, score Heavy Bombers, and proceed to win the game.  Did he outstrategize his opponent?  No. He just got lucky.  This is why most tournaments don’t even use Tech, as it just kills the whole competitive nature of the game.

Back to the topic of the OP.

First, trying to establish a bit of credibility, as you can see I have over 10,000 posts to this site as I have played a number of games PBF.  By my count, in playing 1v1 AA50 with a wide variety of players, I have played 38 games, winning 30 of them.  I have seen a lot of A&A action, and have played many games of Classic and Revised in years gone by.

Just my opinion, but I disagree whole-heartedly with the original premise that techs are not viable for competitive play.  Tech is a default in league play on this site, although no tech is permissable as well.  Any donkey of a player can roll 5 IPC for tech and score heavy bombers, yes, but after that part, I disagree.  The other donkey of a player will also be rolling tech, and with the token rule where researchers are never lost almost ensures techs on both sides.  Several techs help take away the sting of your opponent’s heavy bombers, even before the latest FAQ nerf, which was totally unnecessary, in my opinion.  Tech doesn’t “kill the whole competitive nature of the game” by any stretch of my imagination.  It enhances it.  I never cease to be amazed at how everyone always picks on heavy bombers as the end all be all tech.  Many techs are situational, and depend on the timing, country who acquired it, country’s income, and country’s units already in play.  Isn’t it obvious?  Russia starts with 3 AA guns, so if she gets Rockets in the first turn, look out.  Tech is prolific in AA50 with the researcher rules and increased income.  It is common to have about 15-20 techs in play at round 10.  So what if America gets heavy bombers in round 1?  Japan may get improved shipyards early, and Germany get mech infantry at a key time, and it pretty much balances out.  Improved shipyards, increased production, and radar all serve to deaden the sting of heavy bombers.  Not to mention interceptor rules, which I normally play with.

I have played several games both ways, but mostly play with OOB tech.  When not in league play, I play with some slightly altered OOB tech.  My current preferences that I play with my closest A&A friend:

1)  Increased production is +1 on 1 and 2 IPC value territories (not + 0 as per errata - why should India be 5 and Burma and FIC 2 with the tech?)
2)  War bonds - best of 2 dice
3)  LRA - +1 (not +2)  LRA is the most powerful tech even when Heavy bombers are 2 hit heavies, in most situations.  LRA coupled with 2 hit heavies is over-the-top, I’m sure most would agree.  +1 LRA helps a lot with this.  +1 LRA is still very powerful.
4)  Heavy bombers - 2-hit heavies.  I find it funny that the OOB rulebook is totally ambiguous about whether heavy bombers can score 2 hits or not.  I had to ask Krieg in the FAQ and errata thread.  This was before the latest errata.  Krieg said they were 2-hit heavies.  Then the errata came out, and made heavy bombers weak, weak, weak.  Jeez, in the original game they were THREE dice and 3-hit heavies.  Of course, with the right tech, infantry could be built for 2 IPC’s each, and there was no limit to production on any original complexes!

That said, I like your idea of improving the game with more realistic techs.  Speaking of which, I would like IL to describe how Godzilla could be implemented into the game, or German flying saucers.  For Godzilla, maybe after getting the tech, you build him for 15 IPC’s, and he’s a 6-6-1 unit that attacks twice each round.  So automatically scores 2 hits each round.  Only one can be built at a time - when he’s destroyed, you can build him again.  My point is, house rules or modifications can be very fun, whether realistic or not.  You just have to find someone to agree to play you with them.

IL, since you like mech infantry and tacs and stuff, you just need to get going on the 1940 game once Europe is available!  Then house rule it all you want, and you’ll have the most fun WWII themed board game yet!

As to the increased production change to +0 I must have missed this errata (probably will continue to ignore it).

I generally don’t mind heavy bombers. If one person gets heavy bombers, the other person can go for radar and build more AA. This is for the land.

Unfortunately, there is no AA guns in the sea (maybe radar should give BBs/cruisers AA guns)
However, the problem comes in the sea. Already in the sea, bombers are slightly superior to ships. 12 point unit with 4 attack and nice range. Add two dice and no once with a fleet stands a chance. However, with them being an ultimate tech, I am willing to try them as are.

You can’t say that LRA is too powerful because it can be combined with HB. Isn’t it then HB that is too powerful?
Also if you look at CJs proposed tech system, LRA and HB are 2 of the 3 ultimate techs, requiring a minimum of 30 IPCs each. To get both one must invest 60 IPCs thats 5 bombers worth.

Also, I changed my mind. I would be willing to let advanced artillery go. might cry though.  :cry:

Sorry, I guess I am just a bit impatient. I really would like to know what your ideas are. Otherwise I am stuck with my ideas and having them shot down and thinking now what. That last thing I want is for this to die.

As to my idea for convoy raiding:
What I meant was that destroyers automatically detect (detection roll could be added) other convoy rules stay the same–zones of influence submerge etc.

We use better artillery pieces now than we did back then. The technology of artillery has improved. You seem to be saying that artillery technology can be improved. More advanced artillery guns would fight better. Advanced artillery qualifies as a tech just as much as heavy tanks. Any nation could have improved their artillery. It had nothing to do with NA. I agree that When I first saw the ide for 3/3 artillery I thought why build infantry. This suggestion was just one of my ideas. I actually prefer this idea. Artillery get surprise fire first round of combat @3 (offense, maybe defense if too weak) (This is to represent artillery guns that can shoot farther and hit the enemies before they can shoot back).
Just because it didn’t exist, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been developed. Axis and Allies is not a game about recreating World War II. It is an opportunity to try to change history and win as the axis, or stop the axis more quickly. Remember the original name for technology? It was weapons development. More developed weapons fight better.

@Krieghund:

An IC in a Chinese territory doesn’t count as a “Chinese unit” for purposes of restricting Chinese reinforcement placement.  While China does control the IC, it can’t use it, so it’s not a “unit” as far as China is concerned.

@Veqryn:

I believe Manchuria would go to Germany if Germany liberates it from the Chinese.

Correct, though actually Germany would be capturing it, not liberating it.

I actually has something like this happen. Russia had been overrun and an italian tank took manchuria. I asked and the territory went to italy.