Mike & Larry - Advanced Rules: Topic by DY

Apparently The Axis & Allies site over at Avalon Hill is going to be phased out soon. A new one will replace it. If you have something over there that you don’t want to be evaporated into thin air then cut and paste it, and bring it over here so that it is not lost forever.
User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:50 pm

03-15-2004, 12:39 AM #81
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by onslaught:
Currently, if the Germans had 10 subs in the Black Sea they would cripple the Allied economies with the present Interdiction rules..LOL

Then again, if the Germany could afford to build a fleet of 10 subs in the Black Sea, then the Allies are going to lose anyway


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 12:43 AM #82
onslaught
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: OC, Ca.
Posts: 51

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL DY, true, true.....Just one of those hypothetical examples. = )

[ March 15, 2004, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: onslaught ]
__________________
"Sleep is for lazy people"


onslaught
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by onslaught
Add onslaught to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 09:15 AM #83
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Einstein43:

Balancing a game flaw + offering more options sounds like a good thing to have. I vote to allow ftr interceptions of SBR.

Einstein

Wow! I actually agree with Einstein 100% on this one

[ March 15, 2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 09:21 AM #84
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by The Fool:
Dear all,

Will the entrance of Med sea closed if Gilbrator and Algeria is control by one side?

I think we could visit this in an advanced rules edition on AA revised. I know many have played with a house rule long the same lines as The Fool's suggestion in the MB AA.

I may have even broken my "no house rules" rule to try this variation, saying the Med is only closed if one side controls both Algeria and Gibraltar (it is open if each side owns one-a-piece, unlike the Suez Canal rule).

[ March 15, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 06:48 PM #85
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry and Mike, may I suggest you guys also keep tabs on ideas posted on the thread entitled Submarines Underpowered.

[ March 15, 2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-15-2004, 07:14 PM #86
holywolfman
{M}-Club Member




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,367


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to put my $ .02 worth in: (about Strat. bombing raids and Sub rules...)

I am going to propose a minor 'variant' and also agree with DY as well!

Agree with DY:

1) Possibly: bring back fighter escorts : I, too, liked that rule very much and made Strategic bombing- very strategic! (and more realistic)....

a) (attacker) choose bombers and fighters that will go on Strat. Bomb. Raid

b) (defender) chooses fighters to intercept raiding planes.

c) (defender) rolls AA gun as normal

d) remaining fighters dogfight

e) each '2' rolled for defender= 1 casualty

f) each '1' rolled for attacker= 1 casualty

g) owner removes casualty (attacker may sacrifice bomber or fighter as causalty)

h) remaining bombers drop payload (normal rules apply)

[Note] any fighters involved: MAY NOT participate in land battles for that turn! (mark these planes on the board with plane-movement chit, etc.)

Heavy bombers variant:

When applying hits, instead of normal rule (2d6)...I propose this simple variant:

1) roll 2d6/2 ....basically take an average of the 2 dice (2 dice rolled divide by 2... round down )= new result!*

* This is only done in Strat Bomb Raids...also helps 'lessen' the effects of HVY Bombers instead of doing away with them all together!

(ie 4 HVY bombers attack an I.C. worth 3 pts..... They each roll 2d6 accordingly: 1,4 6,4 3,3 2,6....... the end result would be= 2 , 5 , 3 , and 4 (instead of 5, 10, 6, and 8) --This way: out of 4 HVY bombers, chances are 3 out of 4 bombers may not hit target for the max IPC's taken (allowing for a more chance against them!)

*This would also help raids against bigger targets such as H.Q.'s! Instead of paying out 29 IPC's (from above example and providing the H.Q. was worth 10 pts)....one would only lose 11 IPC's!... especially against USA's Superfortresses!

*This 'variant' will lessen the effects of HVY bombers against smaller IPC producing I.C. but still have potency enough to do damage against bigger ones!

_________________________________________________

2) Also: bring back 'ASW' Destroyer rule:

a) in order to have ANY plane/ships to attack a sub piece, that player must have a destroyer present in that sea zone with enemy sub!

b) any sub can attack any enemy sub (regardless of destroyer present)

c) destoyers present with enemy subs negates all special abilities for that sub (normal rules apply)- subs may not use 'first'-shot option, may not submerge, etc.

__________________________________________________

(Let me know what you think!)

....Just curious Mike: "Why did they do away with these rules from Pacific/Europe editions !?!?"

-Nick- [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
-Nick-


"...G-r-o-o-v-y!"
-Ash (Army of Darkness)


holywolfman
View Public Profile
Send a private message to holywolfman
Send email to holywolfman
Find More Posts by holywolfman
Add holywolfman to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 12:49 AM #87
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure about your HB variant Nick. It almost makes them worse than non-heavies (if you consider the order in which you roll the dice and the first was a "6" and the second a "1", then you have done less damge than the non-heavy version).

I would imagine rolling two dice and choosing only one of them to be the damge rolled would be superior (oviously you would choose the "6" in my example).


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 01:24 AM #88
Einstein43
Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: washington dc
Posts: 97

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another (simple & easy) way to reduce SBR effects of bmrs is to limit them to their value in combat: 1 through 4 hits, 5 or 6 misses.

Einstein


Einstein43
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Einstein43
Add Einstein43 to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 01:40 AM #89
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Einstein43:
Another (simple & easy) way to reduce SBR effects of bmrs is to limit them to their value in combat: 1 through 4 hits, 5 or 6 misses.

Einstein

So each dice does a maximum of 4 IPCs damage?
If not, please clarify.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 04:23 AM #90
holywolfman
{M}-Club Member




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,367


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...ok- how about that then: HVY Bombers.... roll 2d6- choose highest roll (that would make sense too!_) hmmmm...?

Or just bring back fighter escorts and keep HVY bombers the same (2d6)...that alone should be enough incentive to guard your I.C.[Not to mention fighters are now even cheaper!]

-Nick- [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ March 16, 2004, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]
__________________
-Nick-


"...G-r-o-o-v-y!"
-Ash (Army of Darkness)

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:51 pm

03-16-2004, 06:27 AM #91
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by holywolfman:
...ok- how about that then: HVY Bombers.... roll 2d6- choose highest roll (that would make sense too!_) hmmmm...?

Or just bring back fighter escorts and keep HVY bombers the same (2d6)...that alone should be enough incentive to guard your I.C.[Not to mention fighters are now even cheaper!]

-Nick- [img]smile.gif[/img]

Agreed. I think bringing back fighter escorts is the best plan (that way HB is still just as powerful in battle, but you can try to defend against its economic threat).


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 09:36 AM #92
holywolfman
{M}-Club Member




Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,367


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bring back fighter escorts....check"
"Bring back ASW Destroyers.....check"
"Bring back........................."

(As Holywolfman checks his A&A "Wish list" off....)

-Nick- [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ March 16, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]
__________________
-Nick-


"...G-r-o-o-v-y!"
-Ash (Army of Darkness)


holywolfman
View Public Profile
Send a private message to holywolfman
Send email to holywolfman
Find More Posts by holywolfman
Add holywolfman to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 12:37 PM #93
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike/Larry et al.

If you haven't been keeping an eye on this thread please check it out. It's similar in nature to thread on Sea Lion on AH Board, but my post there addresses a "set-up revision" post to it I'm curious on thoughts about it. (I think it veers to this thread in direction so posting it here).

http://pub6.ezboard.com/faxisandalliese ... .showMessa geRange?topicID=105.topic&start=61&stop=79

C2

[ March 16, 2004, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Carico67 ]
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67
Add Carico67 to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 01:08 PM #94
tactical
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 284

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike and Larry say that they don't feel that their are any starting game imbalances. I completely disagree with this. Britian should not start out with such a naval force by India. I feel this puts too much pressure on Japan(naval wise) with the USA. Example, if Britian moves it's naval force from sea zone 35 to sea zone 59(attacking Japans transport)with Carrier,plane,and destroyer; it forces Japan to destroy the British fleet instead of the US. It also leaves Japan starting out with one transport at the beginning of the game. Japan absolutly!needs two transports on turn 1 unless your playing less experinced Allied players.
In addition, it frees up on USA's turn to bring another fighter and it's battleship to sea zone 52,(not including any ships the US builds on it's turn) Yes, the UK sacrifices it's fleet,
but the US now has an almost unstoppable naval force(japan 30 IPcs/ USA 42 IPC's) Long Naval War? You do the math.
I know I'm ramblin, but if it wasn't for operation Sea Lion, if the Soviets don't move their sub, Allies should win over the Axis more times than not. Again, with equal players.
__________________
" Allow nothing to be in your life that you cannot walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner"


tactical
View Public Profile
Send a private message to tactical
Send email to tactical
Find More Posts by tactical
Add tactical to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 04:51 PM #95
BloodyJack
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me add my voice to say that I do not like the Destroyer/Sub interaction in this game. It just feels... inelegant.

Wouldn't it just be easier to say that subs are just like any other sea unit when an enemy destroyer is present? (Can be shot at with planes, loses 1st strike, etc.) Seems more, well, elegant. [img]tongue.gif[/img]


BloodyJack
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BloodyJack
Add BloodyJack to Your Buddy List

03-16-2004, 06:35 PM #96
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the UK sacrificed its Indian Ocean fleet to save the Pearl Harbour fleet versus me, it would be a pointless sacrifice.

I would choose to kill both fleets, crushing many IPCs worth of units cheaply and instead delay my mainland campaign by a turn (letting the Chinese fighter off the hook, but still worth it IMHO).

You can easily kill both fleets if the UK moves everything to Kwantung (remember the UK must choose the fighter as a casualty before the CV as it has nowhere to land).


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-17-2004, 02:21 AM #97
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike and Larry, this is my opinion on all these requests that the initial setup be altered, since it is supposedly "broken", because Germany an invade Britain before the UK player has his first turn:

Is forcing the USSR into a sub-optimal opening really that bad?

OK, sure, maybe slightly changing the initial setup is better all round, but it will require effort to get AH to do this.

The fact is, if you kill the fgt in Norway and land 1 Soviet fgt in the UK, then Sealion has an unacceptably low probability of success (from the German perspective).

I recommend forgoing the second Soviet fgt in the UK, instead suring up the attack on Norway by comitting both fgts. This also leaves you with 1 well placed fgt at the start of R2.

Obviously you smash WRU also on R1. While possibly not the best opening for the USSR, I think it is sound enough that people should stop al this constant whining.

[ March 17, 2004, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-17-2004, 02:33 AM #98
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, okay, my argument is flawed, since there is nowhere safe to land the fighter that started in Russia. I still understand there is a 59% chance of clearing the fgt in Norway when attacking with 3 inf 1 tank 1 fgt. And if it goes badly and you end up with your fgt vs his fgt, then withdraw and land both your fgts in the UK. This means not using the Russian fgt in WRU, which probably doesn't hurt you too much.

That being said, maybe there is a need to consider slightly tweaking the initial placements. I know Ciarco had a good idea involving giving the UK, Germany and Russia a handful of additional troops.


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-17-2004, 08:39 AM #99
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...And the next person to post gets the honour of posting message #100 on this thread...


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-17-2004, 08:50 AM #100
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DY,
Thanks for agreeing on set-up change being possible solution. My hugest concern is that if things stay as is this "Sea Lion" route will be a huge turn off for possible first-time players (but long time A&A 2nd or 3r edition guys...). Also, this point coupled with the VC issue, IND/AUS issue, and game lopsidedness in regards to one side or the other if playing 8 or 10/12 VC's creates some real concerns. I want this game to take off!!! These guys (AH and the testers) worked long and hard on this...but we need to begin fixing the mechanism before too many are turned away. As often happens in our fast world, you get 1 impression rather than a second chance nowadays, and that first impression must really leave a mark IMO.

Anways, I guess that's post 100!

Hope everyone is enjoying the newgame! Please keep posting results! Us **** PBEM guys are trying like heck to see which diretion to go with things!

C2

[ March 17, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Carico67 ]
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:51 pm

Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics."


Krieghund
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Krieghund
Send email to Krieghund
Find More Posts by Krieghund
Add Krieghund to Your Buddy List

03-18-2004, 10:30 AM #109
Juggernaut
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure why limiting tech development is a "good" idea. Not only does it smack of "legislating bad behavior", it certainly takes away one's options during play.

I see no reason why its inherently bad for Germany to spend 15$ on tech the first turn (such as on LRAC), and the rest on infantry or whatever.

Players should be allowed to take whatever gamble they want, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences.


Juggernaut
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Juggernaut
Add Juggernaut to Your Buddy List

03-18-2004, 12:16 PM #110
Drax Kramer
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 616

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally posted by Juggernaut:

I'm not sure why limiting tech development is a "good" idea. Not only does it smack of "legislating bad behavior", it certainly takes away one's options during play.

Einstein has a point that no country ever had an ability to order all of its workers from arms industry into scientist centres to invent new weapons. This is not "Sid Meyer's Civilisation" for PC.

If something is both, ahistorical and bad for the regular flow of the game it should be abolished or limited.


Quote:
Players should be allowed to take whatever gamble they want, so long as they are willing to live with the consequences.

The problem is that such players usually aren't willing to play with the consequences. They gamble, they fail and then they concede immediatelly proposing to start the next game when they will attempt another silly idea.

Anyone who vastes entire turn's production into failed research should be forced to play the game until the opposing side score the total victory.

It might teach them a lesson how not to spoil anyone else's time during the game session.

Drax


Drax Kramer
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Drax Kramer
Send email to Drax Kramer
Find More Posts by Drax Kramer
Add Drax Kramer to Your Buddy List

User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

Post by elbowmaster » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:52 pm

03-18-2004, 01:26 PM #111
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said Drax
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67
Add Carico67 to Your Buddy List

03-18-2004, 02:15 PM #112
Red Shirt Ensign
Senior Member


Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 191

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testify Brother


Red Shirt Ensign
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Red Shirt Ensign
Add Red Shirt Ensign to Your Buddy List

03-18-2004, 03:06 PM #113
Juggernaut
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Einstein has a point that no country ever had an ability to order all of its workers from arms industry into scientist centres to invent new weapons.

This is a silly assertion.

Of course they did: you simply stop funding in one area, and put it to another. Governments do this all the time.

Aside from money to upkeep the current army -- which is assumed doesn't make up your IPC "money" -- nations certainly could spend all their remaining revenue on supporting universities, securing foreign scientists, spying, or whatever.

The fact they thought it wasn't an efficient use of their money, and thus did not do it, is beside the point. One of the goals of the game should allow for players to think differently than the historical leaders they are assumed to represent.


Quote:
This is not "Sid Meyer's Civilisation" for PC. If something is both, ahistorical and bad for the regular flow of the game it should be abolished or limited.

First I question your original assertion that it is "bad". That's your opinion, based on a few games, based on the "threat" of immature play.

Morever, probably the majority of the game isn't historically accurate. To wit: just look at the entire combat mechanism. Who cares, its a game. The idea is not that we necessarily want to recreate what happened but to do things differently to see if we can do better!

Lastly, who's to say that if Hitler spent more resources pursuing nuclear technology instead of invading USSR, the Germans wouldn't be running all of Europe right now?

In essence, you want to impose a rule on others in order to ensure that they play out turns in line with historical accounts. I'm not sure that's a perception shared by many players. I'd argue that Japan landing troops in Africa is as much or more far-fetched than Hitler committing more funds to a nuclear arms program.

Shall we impose limitations on troop movement too?


Quote:
The problem is that such players usually aren't willing to play with the consequences. They gamble, they fail and then they concede immediatelly proposing to start the next game when they will attempt another silly idea.

Thus because a small minority wish to be childish, then new rules must be implemented to hurt everyone else?


Quote:
Anyone who vastes entire turn's production into failed research should be forced to play the game until the opposing side score the total victory.

I agree. That's my point. There is no special rule required. You simply play with honorable players. They aren't hard to find.

Overall, it seems this discussion is merely an exercise at limiting playing styles, personal ingenuity, and game dynamics with what appears to be little or no payoff among your average gaming group. Is that what we want?

As such, any such rule change is a lose lose proposition.


Juggernaut
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Juggernaut
Add Juggernaut to Your Buddy List

03-18-2004, 08:45 PM #114
DY
Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Einstein has sugested something similar to this idea, although his goes way too far IMHO (his is for an entire game turn, rather than each nation's turn).

During each nation's turn, Rocket and SBR attacks may inflict no more damage on an IC than the IPC value of the territory in which it is located.

[ March 18, 2004, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: DY ]


DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List

03-19-2004, 03:46 AM #115
Talonz
Member


Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Juggernaut:

Quote:
Einstein has a point that no country ever had an ability to order all of its workers from arms industry into scientist centres to invent new weapons.

Quote:
This is a silly assertion.
Of course they did: you simply stop funding in one area, and put it to another. Governments do this all the time.

Please think this through. You are falling into the same 'throw money at it' solution that so many of our governments fall into. It is ineffecient and unrealistic.

This isn't just about money. Its about infrastructure, training, staffing, materials, location, etc etc. You cannot just take X dollars from one budgeted item and expect to get X dollars worth of investment from another. This is what the game is not accounting for currently in wide open tech/unit production switches. Add to this that many of us feel this is counter-productive to a good game and it simply makes good sense to limit this. Not eliminate, but limit.

Your insinuation that such a limit removes all player choice is wrong.

[ March 19, 2004, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Talonz ]


Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List

03-19-2004, 07:42 AM #116
Carico67
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to agree, though not sure the philosophy would be accepted by the masses or AH guys. Einstein is right on, as is TalonZ IMO. To me limited tech ability was 1 good thing about the CD-Rom (programer error limited to 6 rolls, I don't believe it was intentional), and is a standard for many of the rulesets used by the CD and PBEM communities (try Kremlin on for size for a kick-A low-tech game sometime... Originted and designed by Kurt3852 at Spring1942 several years ago, and played throughout the A&A online community at all clubs).

Anyways, just an IMO
C2

[ March 19, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Carico67 ]
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @ Carico67@hotmail.com


Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67
Add Carico67 to Your Buddy List

03-19-2004, 08:16 AM #117
seer
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 50


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out this Previous thread on limiting tech.

I think it has some merit.


seer
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by seer
Add seer to Your Buddy List

03-19-2004, 10:37 AM #118
colonelkraken
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Battle of the Atlantic

The absence of an elegant/interesting variant for strategic naval warfare has always bugged me about all the A&A games (even the new ones with Convoy Boxes).

It seems there are quite a few people who are bothered by how "un-useful" submarines are in the new AH A&A game. Even given the Wolfpacks optional rule, many have complained about how Germany merely needs to keep subs in the Med to siphon off IPCs . . . and rightfully so.

With a game as grand strategic as A&A, it is difficult to come up with a rule/variant that is simple, elegant, and easy to implement. What you don't want are extra charts, the need for pen and paper, and complicated rules that create more hassle than it's worth for casual players.

Quite some time ago I made a contribution to Don Rae's forums about how to use the Convoy Boxes in A&A:Europe/Pacific to simulate strategic warfare. Unfortunately, those rules would be a little too "tactical", complicated, and unworkable for the new A&A, especially with the absence of convoy boxes.

So, I sat here thinking about what could be done to simulate the Battle of the Atlantic and also the US' strangulation of Japan given the grand strategic scale of A&A.

Here's what I came up with:


Quote:
Submarines can be used tactically or strategically. Tactically, you use them on the board as normal per AH rules. Strategically, you do the following:

Germany may, during Combat Movement, place subs currently on the map in the Purchase New Units box. (Notice Germany will not be able to use these subs for one turn. This simulates the "redeployment" necessary for this type of operation.) During Place New Units, Germany may elect to put any subs in the Purchase New Units box (including subs he purchased this turn) into the Strategic Warfare box. Since there is no such box, I would suggest using the sea zone labeled "South Atlantic" (I'm basing this off the map shown to us in article 13(?). I do not currently have the game.), as it seems this sea zone will not be regularly used in A&A games.

The US and UK may, during their Combat Movement phase, place Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers, currently on the map, into the Purchase New Units box. During Place New Units, these Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers (with or without Fighters: the CVs are considered to have a small compliment of aircraft. If a CV has aircraft on it, place those in the Purchase New Units box which can then be deployed on the map as normal), including those purchased this turn, may be placed into the Strategic Warfare box. These units are now considered escorts. For CVs to be considered escorts, at least one Destroyer must be present in the Strategic Warfare box.

During Germany's Combat Resolution phase, for every German sub in the "Strategic Warfare box", the UK surrenders 1 IPC to the bank. If any escorts are present, Germany must roll a die for each sub present (the dice may be rolled all at once)(without escorts, all those precious merchant ships are sitting ducks and are easy targets, thus no dice are needed). For each escort present (CVs count as TWO escorts), Germany subtracts 1 from every die. For every modified die roll of "1", Germany loses a sub. For every "6" rolled (regardless of how many escorts are present), the Allies lose one escort. For every surviving sub, the UK surrenders 1 IPC to the bank.

To spice it up, the new German Wolfpack optional rule could be: For every German sub present, the UK surrenders 2! IPCs to the bank. Believe me, the Allies will quickly want to provide escorts to their precious convoys.

Units may also be redeployed from the Strategic Warfare box. During the Combat Movement phase, the owning player places his or her units in the Purchase New Units box. They are placed on the board as new units during Place New Units.

The same strategic warfare can take place in the Pacific. The US/UK players may place subs in the box labeled "Axis & Allies" to use as the Strategic Warfare box for the Pacific. Japan may also place escorts in that box. The Strategic Warfare occurs in the same manner as in the Atlantic, except on the USA's turn for resolution.

This, to me, seems relatively simple, fun, and requires no extra book-keeping. It provides a way to make sub purchases for Germany pay off. "Normal" combat does not take place in the Strategic Warfare box because the submarines are not all really congregated in one sea zone. They are spread out across the Atlantic sea lanes. It takes time and effort to hunt down the subs in such a vast area. This also alleviates the fact that the subs are normally cannon fodder against the Allied naval presence (as has been complained about ad infinitum).

[ March 19, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Colonel Kraken ]


colonelkraken
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by colonelkraken
Add colonelkraken to Your Buddy List

03-19-2004, 11:00 AM #119
Juggernaut
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Please think this through. You are falling into the same 'throw money at it' solution that so many of our governments fall into. It is ineffecient and unrealistic.

I am hardly a believer in "spending money solves problem" -- in fact its the other way around.

However, the issue was whether governments could do this or have done this. I'm stating that they have.


Quote:
This isn't just about money. Its about infrastructure, training, staffing, materials, location, etc etc. You cannot just take X dollars from one budgeted item and expect to get X dollars worth of investment from another. This is what the game is not accounting for currently in wide open tech/unit production switches.

I don't recall saying there wouldn't be diminishing returns in your investment. However, that phenomenon shouldn't be a problem because everything else works that way too.. not just in technology.

If you want to make spending, in some ways, more "realistic", then you should at least be consistant:

Spending all your money on infantry, all on ships, all on armor, or (even saving money!!) should be prevented.

Alternatively, I'm sure you could put in some fancy mechanism to factor in diminishing returns.

But as we all know this is nonsense -- and applying it to technology is equally so.


Quote:
Add to this that many of us feel this is counter-productive to a good game and it simply makes good sense to limit this. Not eliminate, but limit. Your insinuation that such a limit removes all player choice is wrong.

I never recalled saying it removes all player choice -- but its safe to say it rules out many options.

For no payoff, that seems like a bad bargain.


Juggernaut
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Juggernaut
Add Juggernaut to Your Buddy List

03-19-2004, 11:06 AM #120
seer
Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 50


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Option house rule:

You can only roll upto one more die on weapons development than you did on the previous turn. (I.e. On the first turn you can only roll once. If you roll once on the first turn, then you can roll twice on the second turn. If you didn't roll on the first turn, you are limited to one roll on the second turn. It would be atleast turn four before you could roll four dice, assuming you rolled 1, 2, and 3 respectively on those turns.) You can at any time cut back spending to zero, but then you'd have to start back at one to build up again.

Counting how many you spent on research last turn is not difficult. Just place the correct number of your control markers under the industrial complex in your capital.

I also like limiting this to 6 dice in any given turn though.

results:
1. Makes German invasion of the UK harder on turn one.
2. Prevents someone from gambling an all or nothing on one turn by throwing their whole income into weapons development, and turning the tide of the game one way or the other. Either they get what they want, or they lose too much development to remain competive.

I find that number two above can most often ruin games, when one player goes "all in".

Sometimes we'll have an evenly matched game going after a few hours, and then one player who hasn't spent any money in weapons research all game will dump all his cash into weapons development. Then usually the game ends one way or the other. It's not a very fun ending to an evenly matched game.

03-19-2004, 03:49 PM #121
Juggernaut
Junior Member


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So for example, if getting heavy bombers would likely be the only way for a player to "come back" and win the game, you want to deprive him of the right to put most -if not all - of his resources towards it?

That doesn't seem like a very good rule -- not the like the previous "new rules" were any better.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest