I am not a huge fan of changing the price of a unit (RE: Tanks at $6). If the game is balanced, the $5 tank will become a non-factor
But you must admit that with the increased territories of AA50, a faster moving unit (tank) becomes more valuable. And compared to the artillery it has 1 more defense, 1 more move, and it doesn’t need to pair with infantry to have an effective 3 point attack power. Is all this only worth 1 point? I am not sure. But I think a 6 point tank should at least be tried.
Why don’t you come up with a better name than “tech” and stop complaining about it? The name that tech is called doesn’t matter. That’s aesthetics. We can deal with it later. Please, drop the issue.
On the other hand, the 6 point tank I could be willing to try. I am not saying its a good idea, but I haven’t tried it.
As for the Advanced artillery, I have already given 2 alternatives to the 3/3 that is “too close to tanks”: making them have a surprise strike first round of combat at 3 (AARe german 88s) or makiong them support infantry to attack and defend with 3. As to the comment about that making them the same as tanks, look at jet fighters. Jet fighters attack wit the same power as bombers but have less range. A 3/3 heavy artillery would attack with the same as tanks but have less range. Tanks power is their speed. A 6 point 3/3 unit with 1 move would be pointless.
Unless we have purchased AAP40 and AAE40, tac bombers and mech inf wouldn’t work since we DON’T HAVE ANY!
An 11 point cruiser could fly with me. Also @ CJ’s idea for ASW tech: consider adding AA and increased bombard power. - or - maybe a tech called Improved fleet Logistics (or whatever) - your cruisers can now detect subs, and fire 1 additional shot @1 at planes, your destroyers may transport 1 infantry unit in non combat.
Keep Advanced artillery. Just make it better. (Artillery become 3/3 units).
I wouldn’t mind dumping war bonds altogether though.
I don’t really like the air-sea-land cost ratios. It seems that the AA50 decreased the price of bombers to make them more viable on land, but increased the price of ships (slightly) to fit in a new ship and to even out ship battles. Even normal bombers with 12 IPCs and 4 attack make the cruisers look weak. Sure the cruisers can bombard, but the bombers can actually participate in the battle. Fighters are very much the same way. A 10 point unit with 3/4 combat values doesn’t fit too well in the sea. To even this out they made a virtually useless 14 point carrier needed to hold them. This is only normal planes. Now imagine a bomber throwing 2 dice. I realize your wish to not change the techs, but I really think that heavy bombers need to be modified. This isn’t AARe where bombers cost 14. They only cost 12. I think it is better to make heavy bombers more playable than to make them unobtainable (super expensive). Perhaps make heavy bombers increase the price of your bombers by 3 (existing bombers must pay 3 to upgrade). This is not necessarily the right choice, just another idea.
Subs being only $6 and the modifications to make they ‘ignorable’ really changes the whole dynamics of what subs had become in AARe. In this sense, making convoy rules for subs in AA50 is a lot more tricky, perhaps even unecessary.
I would have to disagree. Even if you take the AARe sub without convoy raids and compare it to the AA50 sub, they are very close. Here’s why:
1. Although the AA50 sub costs 1/4 less than the AARe sub, it has 1/4 less total punch. Obviously this is not totally even but this is not all that is different.
2. AARe sub can strike and submerge; AA50 one cannot.
3. AARe sub needed a detection roll from a 10 point destroyer; AA50 sub needs no roll from an 8 point destroyer.
4. The owner of the AARe sub could choose to take it as a hit in a battle vs aircraft; the AA50 sub cannot be hit by aircraft. (without destroyers)
5. AA50 transports can run right over subs, even alone; AARe transports cannot.
This list I would say is fairly even. AARe has convoy raids. Why not give them to AA50?
China definitely needs some changes. I do not necessarily like the change in order of play. There are alot of good ideas regarding fixing China.
Are you saying that my ideas were a lot of good ideas or that there are a whole bunch out there?
The reason I put the change in order of play is because I see it as the simplest way to save the flying tigers and giver China a little boost. It doesn’t seem too unprecedented since in OOB AA50 the Order of play changes from 1941 to 1942. There may be a better way though. Any other ideas?
I agree that getting people to agree on house rules will be hard, but I am glad it has made it this far.
Hi.
I am a huge fan of AARe and I like the ideas you are working with to create AA50: strategic
I agree that for a start at least we should work with 1941 and NOs.
I also agree that there is the problem with the KGF and the KRF strategies, but I think that you are missing a side of it.
From my somewhat limited experience in AA50, I have seen some other flaws:
1. Due to the AA50 rules subs seem to be ignored except as punch in attacking with fleets, and as such Germany building subs is out of the question.
2. Germany building any fleet seems pointless, especially since subs get ignored. Also because of Russia’s NO, Russia is reluctant to call for allied help. This makes it all the more important for Germany to forget UK and surge Russia.
3. China is weak, and moreover, the flying tigers almost always get killed J1
4. Techs are too random and unbalanced.
5. Victory city victory for axis seems revolved around Germany taking key Russian places.
Here are some of my proposed solutions for these:
1. Convoy raids as per AARe - The reason for this idea is that it makes the nations not be able to ignore subs anymore. I especially like this solution because it solves the problem without making subs too good for their price–It doesn’t increase their fighting power at all. This combined with improved techs would allow Germany to actually build a fleet.
Also, increasing the ability of Germany to build a fleet would help solve #5 since he has the chance to take East Canada.
2. Give subs a 1 shot roll @2 against unescorted transports trying to move into or through their seazone (as per AAP40). A transport shouldn’t be able to pass up a sub with impunity–that was the main use for subs in the war. Also perhaps make Super subs give subs the ability to strike and submerge (as per AARe)
3. Give Russia lend-lease in archangel–12 IPCs (number borrowed) of units per turn from allies. In addition slightly modify Russian 5-IPC NO to allow allied units in archangle only. This change would solve the problem of Russia getting quickly overrun by Germany and would allow the allies to give limited aid to Russia.
4. Change tank price to 6–This one I am mainly going on the word of others who insist that a 5 point tank is overpowered especially for Germany. Also common sense says that in a map with more territories (AA50 as opposed to AAR) units with more movement are worth more.
5. Give tank a blitz ability–If all of the opposing units are wiped out in one turn of combat, any attacking tanks in the territory may make a 1 move Combat move. The intent to do so and the target location must be given during the combat move phase. This move cannot be aborted (units may still retreat after 1 cycle of combat). Tanks can still only move 2 spaces per turn: This move cannot be done if the tank moved two spaces to participate in the combat.–I am kind of wary of this suggestion as it may be too powerful, but with the increased price of 6 for tanks I think it might deserve some looking into.
Note that the blitz does not allow a tank to do a non-combat move (as per panzerblitz in AARe)-- that would be too powerful.
6. China (as posted in other thread)
a. China plays as a separate power directly after Russia. This would save China fighter and increases the strength of China since Russia can take territories to give China more units
b. Create a Burma Road rule: If China controls the Burma road on his mobilize units phase, he may place 1 artillery unit as per China’s placement rules. This represents China’s dependence on
outsiders for artillery.
c. Instead of rounding up, make China count for his units in mobilize units phase. All the other nations get their resources at the end of their turn why not China.
All of these would increase the power of China and make it have a greater presence. Also a greater presence in China should bring down the pressure on India, helping to solve the problem of the unkeepable India.
d. I think China should have a VC in its farthest west territory to give Japan the incentive to take the more-powerful China.
7. I think a couple VC’s should be added to indicate the importance of certain areas. I suggest a VC in Cairo and one in Iwo Jima. The Cairo one makes it possible for the Axis to win without forcing Germany to take most of the VCs from Russia. The Iwo Jima one Counter the Cairo one as it is and axis one for an allied one and it is relatively easy for US to take compared to Cairo being relatively easy for Italy to take.
8. Give Germany and IC in Northwestern Europe–This would allow Germany to replenish his fleet once it has left the Baltic. The reason France was avoided was to stop Germany from building in the Mediterranean; that is Italy’s territory. Alternatively, decrease the price of industries.
Obviously after implementing any ideas, the game will have to be tested for fairness, but I think these ideas would improve the game.
Tell me what you think and hopefully some of these will make it into AA50: Strategic
BTW: Your link for AA50: Strategic in your signature is broken.
Do I also get a long time no see? :-)
The AARe 5.01 written by pagan in the Wizards (not avalon hill) forum is not the same as the AARe 5.01 on this site. Is this a mistake or a disagreement?
The changes I am referring to are in blue:
3. Radar -When declared, place 1 free AAGun in either [UK, ECan, Egy, SAfr, Ind, or Aus] if UK controls it, during the Mobilize Units phase of this turn only.
-UK owned AAGuns in tan territories have their AA-to-hit value increased by 1 (ie.to 2)
-UK Battleships have their AA-to-hit value increased to 1 (this increase is not cumulative with the CA-Tech)
-UK owned AAGuns in tan territories may attempt to shoot down Rockets at a roll of 2 or less, for zero damage.
-When declared, UK is given a free 8IPCs to spend towards Jet Fighters and/or Combined Arms Tech. IPCs not spent, or unable to be spent this TURN, may be carried over, but must still be used for JF and/or CA. - no auto tech @ 4 dice.
3. Yamato Class Battleships - Your BBs attack, defend, and bombard on a 5.
-Your 1st Battleship purchased costs 5IPC less.
-All additional BBs cost 1IPC less.
These are changes that are in the WOTC board AARe and not in this thread, even though the versions are labeled the same, 5.01.
I would prefer simply increasing the starting forces in India (and Australia if needed) and allowing UK to build his own IC. Also, If you are playing with the improved techs, UK has the opportunity to directly attempt improved factories. This would improve the defensive qualities of India.
Also just on the side. Has anyone effectively used Australia Industry for UK in AA50? I tried it once, and it helped me keep the rich islands around Australia.
Your AA50 Strategic link is broken.
Chill folks! IL, a “tech” can be whatever is needed to improve the strategy of the game; it does not necessarily have to be a technology developed during the war.
On the other hand, IL has a good point. Maybe instead of making a bunch of new techs, perhaps a system of NA’s would be in order.
Here are my thoughts on the suggested techs:
1. Escorts and Interceptors - these seem too specific to be put as a tech. Perhaps tack Interceptors onto radar and Escorts onto jets. This would allow radar to be the general tech to buy to counter SBR.
2. ASW-cruisers - Interesting, my take would be to make a general cruiser tech that also gave them ASW.
I don’t really like the idea of minor techs as shown here. They seem to be over-complicating the game without adding much flavor. I think you should remove the minor category from techs and don’t keep any that don’t make the moderate category. (for aesthetics, perhaps rename the moderate, minor; the major, moderate; and the ultimate, major)
Here are some alternatives:
a. Advanced cruisers - your cruisers bombard at 4 and can detect subs
b. Fleet coordination - Your Cruisers may detect subs and your battleships gain an AA gun
c. Give these abilities to radar
d. Make it an NA or part of one.
3. Air transport - seems too close to paratroops - consider combining?
4. Air bases - One that I like. :-D Perhaps make it the same as AAP40 by giving air units +1 move off of the islands. This would also improve it making it more more deserving of its position as a moderate tech IMO.
5. Atomic Bomb :roll: 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.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I am just not too keen on most of these new techs.
Edit: Yay!! I’m no longer a conscript. :-P
I really don’t like the errata for heavy bombers and improved factories. I think the HB one is too much of a bandaid fix (and not in lline with the ultimate tech price of HB). I didn’t like the factory one because I thought the whole point of the factory tech was to give more production to secondary factories. Many of these could be on 2 IPC territories. (I am not too against limiting 1 IPC territories to 1+ but I think it is unnecessary) Consider scrapping these errata for this ruleset?
Out of friggin control, too complicated
Ignore them. They seem to miss the point that the goal of AA50 strategic is not to fix the bugs but to improve upon the game. Imagine what would have happened if you had listened to this kind of talk when you started AARe. I know I for one would probably not be an Axis and Allies fan anymore.
Great work CJ. However, I think simply having heavy bombers as is, is a problem. Even at such an expensive price they still totally unbalance the sea. Compare a 12 point unit that attacks with 2@4 to a 12 point ship that attacks with 1@3. Wouldn’t it be better to make it slightly weaker and see more action. I advise changing this tech. A few ideas I came up with/like were:
1. Bombers used as heavy bombers have -2 movement for the duration of the turn - someone elses idea (this speed decrease would make them harder to use against sea units, and SBR would be harder to do)
2. Heavy bombers involved in sea battles get -1 attack, (SBR can be countered with radar)
IMO the 2@4 pick higher dice was the lamest excuse for a fix ever.
@Imperious:
Good that you showed up. I have been advocating that China be a addressed as opposed to a free UK factory.
Either China plays with Soviets ( to save the fighter)
China rounds up infantry 3 territories gets you 2 INF
China get X extra infantry at start and or Burma road gives them an extra INF per turn.
I agree with IL here. China needs a fix. As per current rules, china loses its fighter first turn and is a joke the rest of the game.
To fix, I would suggest these:
1. China plays as a separate power directly after Russia. This would save China fighter and increases the strength of China since Russia can take territories to give China more units
2. Create a Burma Road rule: If China controls the Burma road on his mobilize units phase, he may place 1 artillery unit as per China’s placement rules. This represents China’s dependence on outsiders for artillery.
3. Instead of rounding up, make China count for his units in mobilize units phase. All the other nations get their resources at the end of their turn why not China.
Anyway this is the wrong thread for China. This is the thread for Techs. China should be discussed in the main AA0 Strategic thread.
I would also advocate dumping the minor tech category by improving the ones in it.
War bonds can be improved to moderate or even major by simply making it a 2 dice roll
Advanced artillery can be improved a few ways
1. advanced artillery 3/3 unit
2. advanced artillery support infantry to 3/3 on a 1 to 1 basis
3. advanced artillery are exactly the same as AARe’s German 88’s
Why?
The main reason is the advanced artillery. On the surface, it looks ok, but if you think about it, it is pathetic. Advanced artillery only saves 1 IPC per 20 (21 down to 20). For example, with advanced artillery, you can buy 4 infanntry and 2 artillery for 20 IPCs. For the same punch anybody can buy 3 infantry and 3 artillery for 21 IPCs. This is a very sad payout for advanced artillery.
I also think that someone wanting to go heavy on artillery should have a better choice of tech. As it is. advanced artillery is much worse than war bonds.
I had other ideas for changes to techs (My idea was to try to make them all equal), but I think your idea of tiers is a good one–Without it, long range aircraft would be pretty hard to match.
Obviously this all needs playtesting, but I think its a great start. Keep it up CJ.
Oh no. I never intended a carrying over of the rules from AARe at all. I merely meant I liked the way AARe was done in that a lot of thought was put into it. (as opposed to every person making up what sounds best to him) In fact, most of the ideas I thought up are not from AARe. A few are: namely convoy raids. But anyway, thanks for the advice. I’ll try to find that thread and post my ideas there.
I am a huge fan of AARe. I think it revolutionized AAR: I don’t play AAR or LHTR anymore. I think AA50 could use something like that. I like AA50 as is, but I think it could use some touch up. For example, Germany fleet and air are impractical, China loses its fighter first turn either game mode, and heavy bombers @ 12! That’s messed up. I would also like to see the techs balanced and maybe less random techs. There are a lot of house rules floating around out there, but I would like something that has been tested. Anyway, I was wondering if the old team was interested in tackling this one.
Anyway, Ideas and criticism is welcome. Unless anyone else beats me to it, I will post some starting ideas tomorrow (need to shower and go to bed for church.
(For those who have never heard of AARe, just go up a few threads to the sticky ones. read it and play it. It is amazing)
Huh, maybe Ill try that and see how it works, and then see if the cost increase is needed.
I know at least that in AARe tanks are fine at 5 (probably because of the closer range)
I have played many axis and allies games and I have never noticed tanks being overpowered. However, in the AAP40 and some AA50 house rules I see people moving tanks price up to 6. Why is this? I haven’t noticed an unbalance in tank power. Would this change be beneficial to AARe?
I like most of your ideas, and am glad that someone decided to fix these up. I would like to suggest a few changes though.
War bonds: I like the idea but I think rolling 2 d6’s would make it simpler without changing it much.
paratroopers: I think 1 less movement is plenty (I’m not too hot on the movement decrease as an idea though, seems too strange)
Heavy bombers: interesting fix. I would prefer 2 @ 3 better though (as I said above: I’m not too hot on the decreased movement idea)
Increased factory production: I did not like this change. I believe that this tech if anything is slightly weak. Additionally, many of the uses of this tech are in 2 point territories (I am thinking of the Russian factories)
My 2 cents
