LHTR - Possible changes

Axis & Allies Revised by Avalon Hill. Released in 2004.
Axis & Allies is a classic game of war, economics, and global strategy. Victory goes not only to the team that conquers its opponents on the field of battle, but also to the individual player who seizes the most enemy territory.
Post Reply
User avatar
AxisRoll
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:56 pm

LHTR - Possible changes

Post by AxisRoll » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:55 am

AAR is great. AARe Enhanced is even better.

I feel there are a couple of tweaks to the AAR LHTR that would make it even Greater. It is also part of the Enhanced Rules and would help close the gap.

I know this would require effort from the clubs that are still running etc. But I would be willing to help make this happen.

Changes would be:
1. Destroyer cost - from 12 to 10
2. A/C cost - from 16 to 14
3. BB cost - from 24 to 20
4. Subs - You can not attack subs with planes only. You must have a naval ship.

These changes are simple to implement. They would help expand the naval side of the game and give subs a stategic part of the game.

Thoughts?

And Happy New Year!

If you are not familiar with Enhanced, it is an expansion of AAR developed by people on the Avalon Hill Boards.

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=15339
Team AR
Japan
Give Enhanced a try, It takes LHTR 2.0 to a higher level.

newpaintbrush
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:25 pm

Post by newpaintbrush » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:38 am

"Changes would be:
1. Destroyer cost - from 12 to 10
2. A/C cost - from 16 to 14
3. BB cost - from 24 to 20
4. Subs - You can not attack subs with planes only. You must have a naval ship.

These changes are simple to implement. They would help expand the naval side of the game and give subs a stategic part of the game.

Thoughts? "

My thought is that reduction in naval costs helps the Allies more than the Axis. As it is, the Axis have a large starting navy and air force and the Allies do not. To move cost-effective ground units to Europe, the Allies must first purchase a fleet. Reducing the cost of naval units allows the Allies to achieve this more quickly, and with the proposed changes, the Allies could use their fleet for naval bombardment with cheap teched destroyers or cheap battleships.

WWII era subs generally ran on the surface with diesels for better speed and range.

I am not in favor of any of the proposed changes. In fact, I am rather against them.

User avatar
axis_roll
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:57 am
Location: SW suburbs of Chicago

Post by axis_roll » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:32 pm

newpaintbrush wrote:"Changes would be:
1. Destroyer cost - from 12 to 10
2. A/C cost - from 16 to 14
3. BB cost - from 24 to 20
4. Subs - You can not attack subs with planes only. You must have a naval ship.

These changes are simple to implement. They would help expand the naval side of the game and give subs a stategic part of the game.

Thoughts? "

My thought is that reduction in naval costs helps the Allies more than the Axis. As it is, the Axis have a large starting navy and air force and the Allies do not. To move cost-effective ground units to Europe, the Allies must first purchase a fleet. Reducing the cost of naval units allows the Allies to achieve this more quickly, and with the proposed changes, the Allies could use their fleet for naval bombardment with cheap teched destroyers or cheap battleships.

WWII era subs generally ran on the surface with diesels for better speed and range.

I am not in favor of any of the proposed changes. In fact, I am rather against them.
Everybody has reasons they like/dislike certain rules in the game.

I am always FOR a rule if it makes the game better. Yes, historical realism is a good thing, but I do not think it is a great thing NOT to have a rule that would make the game better BECAUSE it is not historically based.

In other words, game play takes a priority over historical accuracy, IMHO.

I know, there are other/many players who would disagree <strongly> with this stance. Here is WHY I believe the way I do:

We are playing a game loosely based on a major historical event. However the WHOLE PREMISE of the game is to ask "WHAT IF?"

What if Germany did things differently? What if UK failed to save 300,000+ men from Dunkirk? What if the russians failed to make a stand at Stalingrad?.... and on and on.

Presently Revised STILL has a very standard playout of the three allies ganging up to Kill Germany First. Yes, sure, you CAN play other ways (i.e. going after Japan first or a balanced attack), however, if you were playing TO WIN (like in a tournament), you would almost always KGF.

BORING!

Been there, done that way too many times in Second edition and KGF quickly grew tiresome in Revised.

I like the game to have more options, more strategy. Removing the sub from 'bit-part' piece does this (as well as other changes).

I think my playing pard was putting in a plug for Enhanced, but he failed to fully convey that the game play can be greatly changed/improved with some new rules besides just piece changes.

I do not think you can incorporate the naval changes listed above alone. Additional rules need to be made to reach a game with many strategic options, and those are in the A&ARe (Enhanced) rules.
Team AR
Germany
Give Enhanced a try, Revised best variant rule set
http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=15339

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests