balance of national advantages

[baron]

A question for Mike,

I was wondering, are the national advantages intended to be balanced? In other words, if each side has the same number of advantages, is the game still expected to be balanced? Or is it just expected that people will learn the relative strengths of each, and balance accordingly?

Scott

[Mike Selinker]

The latter, in my opinion, though you could argue the former case as well. I believe each country suite of national advantages is close to balanced, so you can do it randomly. The optional rules were places where we wanted to put some of the more flavorful rules that had no other place in the game, so we didn't gut a rule just because it was a little more powerful than the others.

Experiment with them, and see how you like them. Also, if you make up your own, you now have a framework by which to balance them against those in the game. I hope the net-based list of options for this game gets as long as the one for the MB edition.

Mike

[ March 05, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Mike Selinker ]

[TrimChris]

I think we've cranked out a few alternatives.

[pagan]

the NAs in the rulebook are NOT balanced ; not even close

if you don't play the game very well MIKE (which is likely based on your comment), then don't make ignorant assumptions.

[Nuclear]

One could agrue that the NAs in the rulebook are balanced. Maybe Pagan, you are not playing them in the right way. Maybe you look at some NAs and see them as not balanced, because you guys do not know how to use them to help you out to a great extent. I have always found them as balanced. And by the way, it is possible to give the allies all of the NAs, and have no bid for the Axis and still win with the Axis. A great player can win even under the greatest odds. Like in chess, you can lose your queen in the beginning of the game, and still win or at least get a draw.

[admiral_yamoto]

Like in chess, you can lose your queen in the beginning of the game, and still win or at least get a draw.

hes right, and remember, A&A is pretty much based on luck. though not totally based on luck (like risk) is based on luck. pretty much all wargames are based on luck of the roll

[pagan]

stop the Literal--idiocy

one could argue that the NAs in the rulebook are balanced...if that person didn't study strategy of A&A and know what she was talking about.

lets continue the arguement analogy....
A blind man with 1 leg COULD BE a soccer star! Any arguement to the contrary is invalid for the possibility exists.

It is possible to win with UK against all 4 of the other countries if your opponent is a monkey. And at those odds...I MUST BE a great player.

.

[Old French Admiral]

Hmm, this discussion seems to be heading in a rather unproductive direction.

Rather than argue about whether the enitre set is balanced as a whole, let's discuss some ideas for groups of relatively balanced NAs (with the assumption that all nations are controlled by players of equal skill).

I propose the following (keep in mind, these are just "on-paper" ideas, as I haven't been able to playtest them several times apiece):

USSR: Nonaggression Treaty
Germany: Atlantic Wall
UK: French Resistance
Japan: Kamikaze Attacks
USA: Mechanized Infantry

USSR: Salvage, Mobile Industry
Germany: Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers, Fortress Europe
UK: Colonial Garrison, Joint Strike
Japan: Banzai Attacks, Lightning Assualts
USA: Chinese Divisions, Superfortresses

USSR: Lend-Lease, Nonaggression Treaty, Trans-Siberian Railroad
Germany: U-Boat Interdiction, Wolf Packs, Fortress Europe
UK: Joint Strike, Colonial Garrison, French Resistance
Japan: Dug-In Defenders, Banzai Attacks, Tokyo Express
USA: Island Bases, Superfortresses, Marines

Like I said, assuming the players are of equal skill, I think these match-ups would be fairly balanced. Please, critique these or present some of your own. If you take issue with my quickies or can come up with better variations, present your argument.

I personally find the National Advantages to be the most interesting and enjoyable part of the new edition. They have tremendous influence on the course the war will take. For instance, in my 3-NA set, I deliberately chose a grouping that would encourage Germany to take an active role in the Atlantic, England to Western Europe, USSR to the Far East, and Japan and the USA to the Pacific Islands.

I, for one, would greatly enjoy seeing more discussion of this topic.

-Old French Admiral

[admiral_yamoto]

well im an old japanese admiral...

[Old French Admiral]

Yeah, I didn't realize there'd be more Admirals over here when I decided to use my old Wizards SN. Meh.

[admiral_yamoto]

oops, i forgot to mention, welcome to the boards :)

it alright, i was just pulling your leg ;) :D

[newpaintbrush]

The Allied national advantages are significantly better than the Axis national advantages. I believe this to be not a statement of opinion, but of fact.

USSR: Lend-lease is ridiculously good. Everyone probably knows the "3 Karelian infantry plus Karelian fighter plus Russian fighter to Belorussia". With lend-lease, UK flies fighters in to Russia, then UK does really annoying hit and run attacks.

Mobile industry is another game-changing amazing NA. Lose the Caucasus? No problem.

Non-aggression treaty's four free infantry is not bad either.

So - for the USSR, there's one pretty-good NA, and two *game-altering* NAs. The rest - well, leave them for the time being.

Germany: U-boat interdiction makes for an interesting game, as does Wolf packs. However, almost nothing can prevent the Allies from taking Western Europe on the second turn. The only thing that can stop that is a stack of German infantry on Western Europe, which will, of course, leave German's eastern front open to USSR attack. Of course, if USSR has lend-lease going on, the USSR attack will be ridiculously powerful.

So - for Germany, there's one NA that isn't wretched. Wolf packs are really only decent if combined with U-boat interdiction. (Try keeping three subs alive as Germany; you have to buy an AC first turn in Baltic and probably a sub too, since the sub in "8" will probably get bombed. Things like "Atlantic Wall" and "Fortress Europe" are great if Germany is already being crushed. Then Germany has a better defense (but Germany loses anyways).

UK: Colonial Garrison allows three infantry mobilized in India on UK first turn, meaning UK can not only hold India first turn, it has a very real chance of weakening Japan's push on Russia.

Radar massively slows down Germany's threat on UK itself, and massively slows down Japan's attack on India.

French resistance: Stronger hold on Western Europe once taken. Now Germany has a vastly tougher time taking Western Europe back the turn following the Allied takeover.

Joint strike: Any time forces can move together, that's bad news. UK and U.S. transports working in tandem can offload a huge force right in Germany by the third turn.

So the UK has four *game-altering* NAs.

And it goes on. Japan's Dug-In Defenders is not bad; helps fight off the U.S. However, the U.S. will certainly bring fodder, and there isn't that much infantry on the islands to begin with, so this NA isn't great either. Banzai isn't bad at all, but considering how slow infantry move, it's not that good either; infantry should almost certainly be supplemented by fighter and bomber support, which means that Banzai won't do a speck of good. Kamikaze and Kaiten aren't bad either, but they're not nearly good either. Same thing for Lightning Assaults and Tokyo Express - not bad, but not great.

US - Superfortresses break the bombing barrier. Now, US has nothing to worry about; just build bombers and bomb Germany. The bombers will never die. This is definitely an amazing NA and is certainly game-altering.

Island bases is also horrific. The U.S. has a far easier time attacking Japan's islands. Worse, those islands are springboards to the USSR. Another game-altering NA.

Keeping in mind that when I say "game-altering", I mean something that significantly changes the way that the game has to be played -

So UK has four game-altering NAs, US two, and USSR two. Total of eight.

Germany and Japan combined have no game-altering NAs. Total of zero.

Anybody that watches soccer will know that a score of eight to zero certainly means that one of the teams is either more skilled or insanely luckier than the other.

Of course, here, we're not talking about skill or luck. This is more on the lines of one team having goalposts spaced at the entire width of the field, and the other having goalposts spaced at the width of a small box of Kleenex.

[Old French Admiral]

Hmm...

Newpaintbrush, I agree for the most part with your assessment of the Allied NAs. However, I think you've "mis"underestimated the potential of the Axis NAs, especially Japan's.

The strength of U-Boat only come into play if you keep your subs alive. Building them in Baltic allows for a quick strike on English shipping, but I typically use my air units for that. Instead, I'd recommend building a few (not a budget-breaking amount) subs over a number of turns in the Mediterranean. From there I'd sail them to the Indian or S. Atlantic, just to keep them safe from Allied strikes. Even having just three subs for a few turns really adds up. If they only stay alive for 4 turns, that's a total of 24 IPCs that you've deprived the UK and USA! And all that at no risk to your oh-so-valuable bombers.

Japan has three NAs that are decent alone but when used in conjunction are pretty damn sexy. I don't know what you're talking about with Banzai. Most of the territory that Japan can invade/reconquer is within reach of transports (India, Pacific Islands, Soviet Far East, Australia, Western US). The slow speed of infantry really only comes into play once you get deep into the USSR (and if you run into stiff resistance there, that hopefully means you're dragging troops away from the German front. Anyway, if you have Banzai, Lightning Assualts, and Tokyo Express, you'll pretty much have a Pacific-ruling force. The three of them allow you to create a large, fast landing force that can easily defend itself (especially against subs) and land a powerful force. Even just two transports and two destroyers can land a force of six infantry that hit on a 2-or-less. I anticipate that a similar attack could easily take any territory within Japan's reach (with the probable exception of the Western US).

In the end, however, this all depends on the style of the group you play with. My group for example rarely lands at Normandy. Rather, Germany typically destroys the English fleet in the first round, leaving the USA with an extremely risky prospect of invasion (the Americans usually send their Atlantic force south to Africa, for us).

[newpaintbrush]

" . . . Building them in Baltic allows for a quick strike on English shipping, but I typically use my air units for that. Instead, I'd recommend building a few (not a budget-breaking amount) subs over a number of turns in the Mediterranean. From there I'd sail them to the Indian or S. Atlantic, just to keep them safe from Allied strikes. Even having just three subs for a few turns really adds up. If they only stay alive for 4 turns, that's a total of 24 IPCs that you've deprived the UK and USA! And all that at no risk to your oh-so-valuable bombers."

If you spend IPCs on subs, that's less to fight off USSR, meaning a defensive battle against USSR. That means Japan has to try to take on the offensvie against the USSR while fighting off the U.S. Say you send your subs to Indian to help the Japanese fleet fight off the U.S. That leaves US and UK free to attack Western Europe. On the other hand, if you left your subs in the Atlantic, the US is free to attack Japan.

All in all, it's feasible that economic interdiction does give the Axis a slight advantage.

But assuming the Allies also take national advantages, you have to worry about Lend-lease act which gives USSR an air force that can either attack Germany's territories, or blow up subs. USSR gets four fighters and a bomber second turn. UK with Colonial Garrison fights off Japan, making the Japan-attack-USSR take considerably longer. Finally, US counterattacks economy with superfortresses. Combined, the Allies have a *tremendous* advantage from NAs that easily offsets Germany's NAs.

" Japan has three NAs that are decent alone but when used in conjunction are pretty damn sexy. I don't know what you're talking about with Banzai. Most of the territory that Japan can invade/reconquer is within reach of transports (India, Pacific Islands, Soviet Far East, Australia, Western US). The slow speed of infantry really only comes into play once you get deep into the USSR (and if you run into stiff resistance there, that hopefully means you're dragging troops away from the German front. Anyway, if you have Banzai, Lightning Assualts, and Tokyo Express, you'll pretty much have a Pacific-ruling force. The three of them allow you to create a large, fast landing force that can easily defend itself (especially against subs) and land a powerful force. Even just two transports and two destroyers can land a force of six infantry that hit on a 2-or-less. I anticipate that a similar attack could easily take any territory within Japan's reach (with the probable exception of the Western US)."

Typically, I use Japan's six fighters and bomber in conjunction with Japanese infantry to attack US and USSR territories in Asia. So I don't use Banzai (because planes attack with infantry). Lightning Assault is handy for invading south Asia and Africa, but I don't use those either (since I attack through China and Ssinkiang). Tokyo Express is handy for attacking and defending against US and UK territories, as well as south Asia and Africa, but I don't use that either (since I use IPCs for transports, ground units, and fighters). In brief, all of Japan's NAs are practically useless for me playing as Japan because of the KUSSRF strategy I prefer.

I will say that I think the plan you outline for using Japan's NA is good. However, I still think Japan's NAs don't measure up to the Allied NAs. Colonial Garrison, Radar, Lend-Lease, Non-aggression Pact, Superfortresses, Island Bases either halt Japan's attack on Asia, or boost the Allied attack on Germany (leaving Japan with more pressure to perform).

"In the end, however, this all depends on the style of the group you play with. My group for example rarely lands at Normandy. Rather, Germany typically destroys the English fleet in the first round, leaving the USA with an extremely risky prospect of invasion (the Americans usually send their Atlantic force south to Africa, for us)."

I think I disagree with the strategy the Allied strat your group uses. Tell them to try this (assuming you're playing Revised edition!)

1. USSR sub to UK battleship/transport

2. If UK transport in Eastern Canada destroyed by Germ sub, destroy sub with fighter snipe. Move all sea units to sea zone 8. Build two transports in sea zone 8. If German navy is in Baltic, leave it alone. Otherwise blow it up with fighters and bomber.

3. US navy moves to sea zone 8 (moves 2 inf, art, tank to UK too)

4. USSR sub moves to sea zone 8

Now you have a battleship, destroyer, sub, and a lot of transports in one sea zone. Germany's air force is decimated if it tries to take this out. Germany's navy can't do anything - if it moved out, UK planes blew it up. If it didn't move out, it's not in position to attack sea zone 8.

Next turn, if Germany stuck some sort of strong navy in sea zone 7, allied fleet moves south and takes Western Europe anyways. If Germany didn't build something in sea zone 7, Allied fleet moves in, and UK sends ground units into Western Europe every turn, threatening Germany and Southern Europe.

US can invade Africa all it wants, but Western Europe is for the game.

[Old French Admiral]

Hmm... My statement regarding the early destruction of England's navy was incorrect. I was actually confusing memories of old games with the MB Gamemaster version with those of the new revision. Under the old system it was rather easier to eliminate the Atlantic fleets (both Germany and England usually experienced a total or near-total loss of their fleets in the Atlantic during the opening round of play).

I examined the opening set up for the revised game just now, and I must say, it is rather more difficult to destroy the English fleet. I believe that the Allied aspirations for an early landing in Western Europe can be crushed or at least severely crippled in Germany's first round. Such an action would be accomplished with the sub in SZ 8, the Norwegian fighter, and the bomber (which will be forced to land in Norway). The ensuing battle would a big gamble on Germany's part, I concede. The German player faces losing all three units (if not in the battle, then almost certainly from a strike by the RAF), but is this worth delaying a catastrophic invasion of Western Europe? Therein lies the key, I believe.

Of course, this is now way off topic, so I'll attempt to bring it around. Assuming I were Germany and I had good reason to suspect an early landing in Western Europe, I would anticipate going ahead with the above plan (I like to take big risks) and would therefore choose the following NAs (assuming 1-, 2-, or 3-NA sets):

Panzerblitz;
Panzerblitz, Fortress Europe;
Panzerblitz, Fortress Europe, Atlantic Wall (or Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers if USSR has chosen Mobile Industry)

As you can see, Panzerblitz figures rather prominently into my would-be plans. I'd anticipate using my tanks to clear out lightly-held Soviet territories, with an infantry or two left behind to block a land strike into my own lands. I have found that, with my group, the IC in the Caucasus has oriented the land war rather to the south (instead of a focus on Karelia like in the MB edition), as such, after a turn or two, the north will be held so lightly it will fall to quick armor strikes (while the main drive will be to capture the IC in the Caucasus). This strategy gets into big trouble if the USSR has chosen Lend-Lease.

One wonders, however, what Germany's strategy should be if USSR has chosen Lend-Lease and the UK has chosen Colonial Garrison.

In my experience with my own rather selfish and competitive group, the Lend-Lease NA would rarely be used, but assuming it was, the RAF would quickly become Russian (probably basing itself in Karelia or the Caucasus). This would compound with a the forced expenditure of English IPCs in defense of India (a Japanese-held IC in India would be disastrous). At the risk of turning this into a strawman argument (assuming that this already hasn't), I would wager that England proper will have been left blessedly free of any serious defense (especially if Norway was sacrificed as easy pickings for a landing). What would then be required is perhaps a total of three transports and any available air units.

This whole plan, however is contingent on three main things: 1- LUCK; 2- a successful campaign in Africa (or even a campaign that succeeds in drawing Allied attention south); 3- Japan bearing the brunt of American forces.

Wow! I have drifted pretty far off topic (I don't believe I made any remark regarding balance), and I've begun to delve into hypothetical situations whose outcomes rely primarily on chance. I guess that's what two hours of sleep gets you. I'll endeavor to play out some of these ideas when I play next with my group (although playing with other groups might perhaps be more instructive -- I have yet to find any).

I suppose I'd have to concede that the Allied NAs are individually more potent than those of the Axis (Superfortresses and Radar in particular). I think though, that the Allied NAs also have more of a strategy-altering effect as well -- an effect that could potentially shift the balance in favor of one of the Axis powers (depending on the combination of Allied NAs), as the Allies begin to focus on the other theater. If this isn't considered a large enough factor, then I suppose the solution is to give the Axis more NAs, if the need is felt.

As one last curiosity, I was pondering the effects of the Nonaggression Treaty. I think that this NA might be the best thing that can happen to Japan. By giving up the possibility of gaining 3 IPCs, the Japanese player can then use the assets otherwise dedicated to the conquest of the Soviet Far East to other areas. These assets are not inconsiderable as they must be able to overcome at least six Infantry. The Russian player, on the other hand, should have little interest in invading Manchuria. Such an attack would void the treaty and leave a near-unreinforceable, offensively-weak army only one sea zone from the Japanese IC.

Fun stuff and I'm dead tired,

-Old French Admiral

[Warmonger05]

Can anyone say GRAND ESSAY'S?

[newpaintbrush]

Can anyone say GRAND ESSAY'S?

"A M00se once bit my sister ..." :D

[Chaon]

I know this is an old thread, but I just saw it and this is driving me nuts:

Like in chess, you can lose your queen in the beginning of the game, and still win or at least get a draw.

That's just dumb. In chess there are things called 'won games'. Even if your last name is Anand or Kasparov, lose a queen in the opening and you have lost the game, unless you are playing a total novice. And total novices have no business in discussions of tactics, strategies and game balance.

[pagan]

You should give AARe (enhanced) a try.

many NA balances and lots of actual game testing...

[Chaon]

We're playing this afternoon, with a bastardized version of AARe. I like all of the changes, but I think there are too many for me to try and convert the other four players all at once. So I'm trying to do a slow transition, holding off on most of the new NA's and the sub detection stuff.

[Lt M Cotten]

For the US does the Chinese Divisions NA mean that just on the round it is declared the US gets 1 inf, or each round thereafter?

[zooooma]

Each round.

This is nice and powerfull

[Lt M Cotten]

That is what I thought, but I wasn't totally sure. Not a bad freebie at all!

[Gentoxic]

This is the right place for my comment.
We played with NA twice or three time now. And all the times the Allies won. (Okay, one time the German player - not me - picked wolfpack and sub-interdiction and stopped building subs the second turn.)
But anyway I figured the NAs are way too much in favor of the Allies.
As stated before there are many game altering NA for the Allies and basically none for the Axis.
Here are my thoughts:

USSR: Non-Agression Treaty: Very good, because you don't have to worry about Japanese attacks for a few rounds. (also gives the *** the advantage of not having to worry about soviet attacks, which they barrely to anyway)
L&L: As in the European Edition this gives the USSR the much needed suply of Aircraft to win against the German).
Russian Winter: We haven't used yet, but I can imagine it will make a tough fight, if the German tries to assault the masses of Russian units.

UK: Collonial Garrison: Basically makes India inconquerable, if the UK player keeps producing units there and doesn't waste them on risky attacks.
Radar: Reduces the threat of SBRs drastically. As well as Japanese Attacks on India.

USA: Flying Fortress: Bomb the helll out of your enemies, why care about building anything else (not seriously)
China-Dev.: One free Unit every round to fend off the Japanese.

We figured the Japanese NAs are pretty useless, if you take "dug in defences" the US (and UK) simply won't do island hopping. "Banzai" is reduced, because you usually want to take aircraft into battle and use the inf. as cannon fodder, now you have to take more inf and build more transports to to so. "TkyExp" The *** has one destroyer in the beginning, he might build a few more, but since he has to push towards the US, he can't really use them as transport. The 2 Kamikaze things are useless as the FTR can inflict more damage if you just keep it. Subs to the job as cannon fodder.

Germany is off a little better. Atlantic Wall is pretty decent.
I used Fortress Europe once, but it put me in a way too defensive possition. The Sub advantages don't do any good as Germany has to concentrate its purchasing power into crushing the USSR. StuKas are nice, but usually you need the airporce for attacks rather than bombing runs. Panzerblitz is in my oppinion very useless. Usually you want to hold the space you just conquered. I only had one turn in the whole game where I wished to have it (as opposed to the US's Flying Fortress, which I was happy to have every turn I had it).

So I decided to boycott the NAs next time we play, this sunday.

I read there are "fan-NAs" any link?

[Chaon]

Our N.A.'s are here (http://www.geocities.com/chaonk/national_advantages.htm) .

[Sihr_Togg]

I think the NAs in AAR Enhanced ('AARe' in short or 'Enhanced') are the best balanced ones. It has been playtested many times. This variant comes with some other extra rules, like 15 VicCities in stead of 12, and I'm not sure if the game is as good with the NAs only, because I always play with all the rules. ;)

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=6749

[Chaon]

Yep, I ran the Enhanced rules by our group. They were rejected with howls of outrage on: 1. Victory Cities. That's a no-go for us, as we insist on playing to the point of miserable, teeth-gnashing, teary-eyed surrender on the part of our opponents. Since whatever we do, we're not playing real 'Enhanced', we were pretty free to throw out whatever else we didn't like.

And we didn't like the 'declaring' of N.A.'s. A national advantage is not a secret, and while declaring them may or may not be more 'balanced', it's an unnecessary complication. Same for the whole free units aspect of the Enhanced rules. The enhanced N.A.'s are 'balanced' by throwing more material on to the board for a bunch of them when they are declared. I guess that's one way to do it... I can well believe that playing with ninja-guy phantom units makes for some great games. But being old and cranky, my group holds to the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" school. Hell, a couple of our guys are so old I think they might have founded that school.

So for a player like Gentoxic, I think our system is a good bridge between out-of-box rules and the full enhanced suite. N.A.'s are not fixed at any number per side. Sometimes we do 6:6, sometimes 4:4. Sometimes give the Axis 2 and the Allies none. There is always a bid for Axis, so the balance is always there. Someday we're gonna do a game where evry country gets all six N.A.'s, but that day will have to be after we've all quit drinking.

[Sihr_Togg]

quote=Chaon
They were rejected with howls of outrage on: 1. Victory Cities. That's a no-go for us, as we insist on playing to the point of miserable, teeth-gnashing, teary-eyed surrender on the part of our opponents.
10VC(axis) or 11VC(allies) is the point of (miserable, teeth-gnashing, teary-eyed) surrender in Enhanced, because you've just lost! I don't see the difference; it's a matter of agreement.

And we didn't like the 'declaring' of N.A.'s. A national advantage is not a secret, and while declaring them may or may not be more 'balanced', it's an unnecessary complication
Unnecessary perhaps, but a lot more fun! You can pick the NA that fits your strategy, in stead of going with the strategy that the NA decided by a dice roll. There's also more skill in picking the right NA than getting it by a dice roll. It adds to the strategic ellement of the game.

The enhanced N.A.'s are 'balanced' by throwing more material on to the board for a bunch of them when they are declared.
This is a needed thing. The values of NAs are not the same by themselves. You have to make them all equal in value. You can increase/decrease the effect of the NA, but you'll always end up with a rough equalization. Free stuff is most accurate (apart from cash). It's use is simular to that of a bid for the Axis.
I can well believe that playing with ninja-guy phantom units makes for some great games.
How can you compare this to free units? :confused:

I think our system is a good bridge between out-of-box rules and the full enhanced suite.
Your system is indeed better than OOB and LHTR IMO.
I think that the balance of the Enhanced NAs fades away in your system though, because of NAs like these:
4. Salvage- If you win a combat against tanks or artillery in a red territory and at least one enemy tank or artillery is destroyed, you may place one free tank or artillery in that territory accordingly.
5. Fast Carriers- Your aircraft carriers have a move of 3.
Or the increadible decrease in value of these:
4. Afrika Corps- During your mobilize new units phase, you may place one of your infantry for free in Libya or Algeria if you control it.
(side note: German = Afrika Korps, English = Africa Corps)
1. Radar- Your antiaircraft guns in tan territories hit air units on a roll of 2.

Enhanced has balanced the techs too, but it appears to me that you've used some of that as well: Jets taking down SBR bombers, 4:2 tech rule (it's not on the NA page though. Could you give me a link to the complete rule set?)
Enhanced has a viable Pacific theatre (something that is lost if the Axis need to take Russia in order to win). Let me tell you: the Pacific is a lot of fun :D Give 15VCs a try. I became adicted to it :p
Enhanced gives subs the abbility to be stand-alone naval units.

Note that Enhanced has been updated:
The Allies have 6 more NAs now! (+2 for each)
http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=9960

[CrazyStraw]

Well shoot, if we're talking alternate rules, we should certainly mention the simplest and best alternate rules around:

Caspian Sub

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/

Read paper #3 on the rules and paper #6 on National Advantages and you'll be informed, or even better, enlightened.

Here's a snippet from #7:

Ok, now that I’ve made my point on strategy games, I have to admit that the rules-dork in me was excited by the potential of the new rules. Heck, maybe the new rules would change the character of the game away from what I originally loved about it, but maybe it would become a really good rules-game.

Sadly, after looking at the various National Advantages I realized they were essentially unusable. The Allies had been given MIRV tipped ICBMs while the Axis got sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads.

[axis_roll]

Funny, some like the imbalanced NAs as a way to even out players of differing capabilities, some dislike the NAs because of this imbalance or historical inaccurancies they create, and others decide that the game totally changes when NAs are used (do these people also dislike Tech?) and outlaw their use.

Still some others like the "Enhancers" tried to balance the NAs and allow sides to pick them as an extention of the strategy intrinsically built into A&A Revised.

Also funny is how all perspectives can be argued to be 'correct' :)

[Yoper]

All except the Caspian Sub perspective! :p ;)

CS- See you Saturday?

Craig

[Chaon]

Sihr_Togg said: The values of NAs are not the same by themselves. You have to make them all equal in value.

I disagree. The game itself is still not balanced, which is why there is still a bid for the Axis. So it doesn't matter if some N.A.'s are stonger than others- the bid system automatically adjusts for it. The only time the difference in N.A. strength comes up is if we choose our N.A.'s instead of assigning them randomly. In that case sure, nobody will choose fast carriers. But we're cool with that.

For our rules, take the AARE rules that you linked to. Remove Victory cities, D-day invasion, price changes, sub detection and air/sub interaction. No shared tech. All techs are 5 IPCS (major) and they are here (http://www.geocities.com/chaonk/weapons_development.htm) . (I keep arguing that we should use shared tech, but I am voted down each time I bring it up).

To addess what Axis_Roll said, I don't think that this system is inherently any 'better' than the AARE or the Caspian Sub approach. It is very good for our situation: we have about seven active players, and most games have 4 or more participants. Our ruleset would probably not be good for tournament play- the way we do N.A.'s means that our bids range from 3 to 12 IPCS. Tourneys and ladders need something more standardized, with less variety. And I don't doubt that AARE is fun to play- someday I'll fly to the U.S. and try it.

CrazyStraw, I have read every Caspian Sub policy paper, and I think it's great stuff. You are of course right about the OOB N.A.'s. But you guys chose to chuck N.A.'s entirely, we just tweaked 'em until they worked. I like to to think that our ruleset embodies the Minimalist, Market & Expertise principles for rule changes. Take a look at how we do it and let me know where you think I'm wrong- I have a ton of respect for your opinions.

[Sihr_Togg]

The game itself is still not balanced, which is why there is still a bid for the Axis. So it doesn't matter if some N.A.'s are stonger than others- the bid system automatically adjusts for it.
So you first roll for NAs and then bid for the Axis right?

[CrazyStraw]

Hey Chaon.

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

The main thing with the optional rules is that they are optional ;) So the minimalist thing to do is not to exercise that option. The goal of least-necessary-rule-changes is to avoid the Balkanization of the playing community. Any time groups get together with different rules you have to recallibrate your game to the rules at hand. Having a set of 30 new rules, even if they are good rules, is a pretty big change.

That being said, I thought you had a couple of fun rules, such as the first-strike German artillery. That's a wicked strong NA, and may counter the original Joint Strike. Perhaps you should lobby to get some of those changes in AA5. When it comes to tournament games I'm definitely anti-house rules, but I'm not opposed to new games.

Yope: can't make Saturday; the house needs some work. But don't take no guff from those blasted buckeyes.

Peace

[Sihr_Togg]

That being said, I thought you had a couple of fun rules, such as the first-strike German artillery. That's a wicked strong NA, and may counter the original Joint Strike.
There have been recent discussions about the opening fire 88-rtl in the Enhanced rules in the house rules section. It isn't as strong as you might think, because it's only the first cycle. You don't score any more hits; on offense you save just 1 hit/9 rtl pieces (considering inf in defense; 9 88's = 3 OF hits on average = 1 hit saved compared to regular rtl) and 18rtl/hit on defense (considering inf in offense). Germany loses speed, which is very important (especially in Enhanced) That's why there already was 2 free rtl with the NA, but now 1 rtl is a pre-placement rtl in EEu: it can be used for combat the turn chosen. 88's are now @3 + OF on the first cycle, but there are no defensive benefits anymore.

Here's the topic:
http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=9783

[Yoper]

CS-
Yope: can't make Saturday; the house needs some work. But don't take no guff from those blasted buckeyes.

The house will still be there when you get back. You have the rest of the year to work on that. This event is only this Saturday!:mad: :rolleyes:

I never take any guff off anyone!!!!!!! :eek: ;)

Craig

[Chaon]

So you first roll for NAs and then bid for the Axis right?

Yes. If the Allies have Lend lease, Colonial Garrison and Mech infantry, it's going to be a very high axis bid, no matter what N.A.'s the axis got.

Crazystraw- I see your point. The minimalist principle says “Make the least changes necessary to fix actual flaws in the game.”, and I interpreted the elimination of N.A.'s as a larger change than tweaking them. But since they are optional to begin with... well, yeah. And I do admit that doing what we do with the N.A.'s could be the first step on the slippery slope to Visigoth Catapulting the game. Still, the benefit of our system is that it results in a lot more variation in game play, with literally millions of N.A. combinations. Sometimes we play with zero N.A.'s, usually to settle some argument about a strategy:
Me: "Dude, if you buy 5 transports on G1, you are going to get stomped"
Friend: "No, it'll work. You see, blah blah blah blah blah."
Me: Set'em up. No N.A.'s. I'll prove it.

The Balkanization of the game rules is an important concern, but since we are 6000 miles from the nearest U.S. gamers, it's not going to affect us much.

On the German 88's: As best I can tell, they are most effective in small battles, so Germany will try to keep a couple of them in Africa, where that first shot can really make a difference. As part of a large stack battle, they don't help much.

[CrazyStraw]

On the German 88's: As best I can tell, they are most effective in small battlesAh yes, I had skimmed the rules quickly and I thought the first-strike was every round. If it's first round only, it's not such a big deal. Handy, but not Death to All Allies.

Peace