Introducing Axis & Allies: Enhanced, a new variant for A&A:R...

[cousin_joe]

Axis & Allies: Enhanced

BASE GAME:

1. 10/15 VC Games
-Caucasus (Rus), Australia (UK), and Hawaii (US) are added as Victory Cities for a total of 15
-Allies start with 9/15 VC, Axis starts with 6/15 VC
-The first side to hold 10/15 VC until the end of the ROUND (ie. US TURN) wins
2. Reduced Costs for IC
-Industrial Complexes now cost 12IPC
3. LHTR rules apply
-This variant uses LHTR rules (including Delayed Tech) unless otherwise stated
-The National Advantages listed here are the only ones available for gameplay

WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT:

1. Heavy Bombers
-Your bombers are now Heavy Bombers. They roll 2 dice in attack and SBR (as per original AH rules)
-the combined total of all economic attacks (SBR,Rockets,Subs) on a territory, are limited to that territory's IPC value per TURN
2. Jet Fighters
-Your fighters are now Jet Fighters. Their defense increases to 5, their SBR defense increases to 1, and they cannot be hit by antiaircraft gun fire.
-For EACH FTR in a territory undergoing SBR, you may roll a single die at 1, to "intercept" (ie. immediately destroy) an incoming bomber. This occurs in the Conduct Opening Fire phase, after any antiaircraft gun fire, if present.
3. Super Subs
-Your subs are now Super Subs. Their attack increases to 3, and they gain the Dive to Avoid Combat ability.
-During the Conduct Opening Fire phase, DEFENDING SUBs may elect to forego their sneak attack, and dive to avoid combat instead. The SUB submerges immediately and is out of the battle. An enemy destroyer in the attacking force negates this ability.
4. Major and Minor Techs
-Major Techs cost 5IPC/roll and include Jet Power, Rockets, and Heavy Bombers
-Minor Techs cost 3IPC/roll and include Super Subs, Long-Range Aircraft, and Combined Bombardment
5. New 4:2:1 Tech Rule
-The first time you roll for a particular Tech, you must purchase a minimum of 4 rolls that turn
-The second time you roll for that Tech, you must purchase a minimum of 2 rolls that turn
-The third time you roll for that Tech, you must purchase 1 roll, but you automatically succeed


NATIONAL ADVANTAGES:

1. Method of Deployment
-At the start of each country's first turn, they will select 1 NA to be used for the game
-This NA does not come into effect until it is declared at the start of that country's first turn
-Once declared, the NA comes into effect immediately.
-The Axis also get one additional NA, for either Germany or Japan, which they do not declare until the start of their second turn (this gives Axis 3, and Allies 3)

RUSSIA
1. Nonagression Treaty - as in LHTR
2. Lend-Lease - as in LHTR
3. Russian Winter - as in LHTR
4. Mobile Industry - as in LHTR

GERMANY
1. Panzerblitz - as in LHTR
2. Atlantic Wall - as in LHTR
3. Wolf Packs - as in LHTR
4. Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers - as in LHTR but modified to include Land Combat only. FTRs attack normally in Sea Combat.
5. Afrika Corps - Place 1 free INF in SEur, and 1 free TRN in SZ 14 during the Mobilize Units phase of this turn. This can only be used once per game. Note: you'll likely need a capital ship to protect the TRN.
6. Convoy Raids - On the Russia, UK, and US Collect Income Phases, for every German SUB within 1 SZ of (ie. directly adjacent to) an IC owned by that respective country (eg. Cau,UK,EUS), subtract 2IPC from their collected income. For every German SUB within 2 SZ of an IC, subtract 1IPC. One SUB may affect multiple IC's in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses)

UNITED KINGDOM
1. Radar - as in LHTR
2. Colonial Garrison - as in LHTR but the IC is placed Turn 1, not at game start. It cannot be used until Turn 2.
3. D-Day Invasion - Once during the game, at the start of UK's turn, you may declare a D-Day Invasion. D-Day invasion cannot be used until at least Round 4 (for 1944), and can only target Western Europe. Conduct your UK turn as normal, including combat and non-combat for any units you do not anticipate participating in the D-Day invasion. Keep in mind that any units that move this turn, be it combat or non-combat, cannot participate. Also, units purchased this turn cannot be used either. On the US turn, the US player uses your eligible units in his combat and non-combat moves together with his own units. UK units can only be used to attack Western Europe. You and the U.S. player must agree on attacking casualties, or the opposing player gets to choose them. Antiaircraft fire is rolled separately against each nationality of air units. Techs or NAs still only apply to the units of the power that has them. A joint strike may not be called off once it is declared.
4. The Commonwealth - Place 1 free INF/TURN during the Mobilize Units Phase in either ECan,Ind,Egy,SAfr,Aus (ie. territories worth 2+ IPC) if you control it.

JAPAN
1. Banzai Attacks - as in LHTR
2. Tokyo Express - as in LHTR
3. Most Powerful Battleships - as in LHTR
4. Kaiten Torpedoes - as in LHTR but limited to 1 Kaiten Torpedo per TURN
5. Kamikaze Attacks - as in LHTR but limited to 1 Kamikaze Attack per TURN
6. Convoy Raids - On the Russia, UK, and US Collect Income Phases, for every Japanese SUB within 1 SZ of (ie. directly adjacent to) an IC owned by that respective country (eg. Ind,Aus,WUS), subtract 2IPC from their collected income. For every Japanese SUB within 2 SZ of an IC, subtract 1IPC. One SUB may affect multiple IC's in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses)

UNITED STATES
1. Mechanized Infantry - as in LHTR
2. Industrial Technology - Units 6-15IPC cost 1IPC less. Units 16IPC+ cost 2IPC less.
3. Pacific Divisions - Place 1 free INF/TURN during the Mobilize Units Phase in either Sink,Chi,Kwa,Phi,Alsk,Haw if you control it.
4. Convoy Raids - On the Japanese Collect Income Phases, for every US SUB within 1 SZ of (ie. directly adjacent to) an IC owned by Japan (eg. ***,Man,Kwa,FIC), subtract 2IPC from their collected income. For every US SUB within 2 SZ of an IC, subtract 1IPC. One SUB may affect multiple IC's in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses). Note: this NA does not affect German IC's

[cousin_joe]

Rationale:

Axis & Allies: Revised is a great game, and is leaps and bounds ahead of Axis & Allies: Original. The Larry Harris Tournament Rules are also a great improvement, helping to clarify the manual, and remove some of the unbalanced elements in the game. However, there are still some issues that need to be adressed, particularly Historical Accuracy, Strategic Options, Variation of Playout, Weapons Development, and National Advantages. These have been mentioned time and time again on the various A&A message boards, and the Axis & Allies: Enhanced variant is an attempt to correct some of these. Hope you enjoy.

1. Historical Accuracy

Some of the more frequent complaints about A&A are the lack of a true D-Day invasion, the typical absence of a Pacific Theater, and the total Japanese dominance of Russia, China, India, and the Pacific. Enhanced adresses all of these by providing a balanced D-Day Invasion NA, providing strong incentives for both sides to stay in the Pacific (2VCs, potential to do economic damage), and a few helpful NAs for the Allies to help better deal with Japan. Also, Convoy Raids, represent the economic element of the War, while cheaper and better supported ICs, allow for a more global agme, particularly UK.

2. Strategic Options

With 12 NA's per side to choose from, the Strategic Options have been pumped up to the max. Declaring NAs in turn creates a lot of strategy / counterstrategy as you see what your opponent does, and choose how to respond.. With cheaper ICs, and some helpful NAs, opening up different fronts is also more viable. Some of the changes to Tech also make them more worthwhile, and more strategic in their implementation. I'll review some of the more specific strategies in the NA section, but just some examples made more viable in Enhanced are a German Atlantic Push, an Allied D-Day Buildup, a UK Double or even Triple IC Strategy, a Japanese Draw to the Pacific strategy, etc. Overall, there are a lot more strategies, a lot more counterstrategies, and in general, a lot more choices.

3. Variety of Playouts

Just looking at the number of strategic options, it's obvious there is going to be much more Variety in Playout. The main change that will contribute to this though is the 10/15 VC rule. Under 9VC, LHTR rules, the only real way for the Axis to win was to take Ind, Kar, Mos. That's it. Now, it's 4/6 from Kar,Cau,Mos,Ind,Haw,and Aus with the Axis dictating which ones they will go for. For the Allies, the most optimal playout in LHTR was KGF, and ignoring Japan. In Enhanced, ignoring Japan will give them 3/4 of their needed VCs with only Kar,Cau,or Mos to fall. Japan can no longer be ignored, and the Allies must now fight on an additional front, be it Southeast Asia, the Pacific, or both.

4. Weapons Development

LHTR managed to get rid of the gamebreakers like US HB, and Sealion, but in doing so, significantly weakened Tech. Delayed Tech is a good thing, and definitely needs to stay in, but some other changes were needed as well to make Tech both more viable and balanced. HB has been restored to 2 dice, but territory limits are still in place. To counter, players may now get Jet Fighters, which intercept at 1. Super Subs make subs much more viable, and in turn, make DD's more useful as well. Some of the Techs are just not worth 5IPC/roll and hence the introduction of Minor Techs so that people will still roll for them. The biggest change is the 4:2:1 rule. Nothing is worse than seeing your opponent get HB with a single die. Such a big advantage for such a small price. In Enhanced, players must pay bigger sums up front, thus taking bigger risks (in terms of early material), if they want to develop Tech. On the flip side, at least you won't have to pay 50 IPC before you get your rockets, and also a sure loss.

5. National Advantages

You will notice the Axis NAs are more combat-oriented and conquest-driven, compared to the Allied NAs which are more about logistics, and maintaining territory. These NAs serve to better define the battle of Axis Military Might vs. the Allied Economic Edge. More than ever, the Axis must be swift and agressive, before the Allied edge takes effect. With that, here are the NAs for each country and the rationale behind them:

RUSSIA - With the decline of the all-out Allied Triple Team, Russia has been provided with NA's that help it deal with a more powerful Germany, whether it be shifting troops West (Nonagression Treaty), getting reinforcements from the other Allies(Lend-Lease), holding out for one more turn (Russian Winter), or moving up the ICs for an agressive attack (Mobile Industry).

GERMANY - Germany's NAs provide several strategic options. Wolf Packs and Convoy Raids can be used for a Battle in the Atlantic, sinking Allied Ships and income, and slowing them down. Panzerblitz and Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers are ideally suited for exchanges on the Eastern Front. Afrika Corps can be used for a heavy Africa campaign but don't forget to cover your TRN. Finally, Atlantic Wall is available to prepare against possible D-Day Invasion.

UNITED KINGDOM - Radar, Colonial Garrison, and Commonwealth all help keep UK a global power by protecting outlying ICs. And D-Day Invasion recreates the tension of Normandy better than before. Germany knows where the attack is coming (WEur), and when the allies are capable of it (T4), but they don't know when it's coming. There is no warning, and Germany must decide how much they want to pull from the Eastern Front to protect Normandy's shores.

JAPAN - Convoy Raids and Kaitens help make a Pacific SUB strategy viable. Also, being able to take 10IPC/TURN by parking 5 SUBs on the US coast, makes them very hard to ignore (Draw to the Pacific). Powerful Battleships and Kamikazes give Japan some Military Might and can help even the odds against the richer Allies. Banzai attacks are helpful on the mainland and for amphibs, while Tokyo express improves the logistics and can make a J1 Hawaii take possible.

UNITED STATES - With Convoy raids, the US can strike back at Japan's economy making for a very territorial Pacific Theater. Pacific Divisions has multiple uses including reinforcing China, defending US Pacific territories, and shortening INF supply lines. Industrial Technology helps US fight a 2 front battle at reduced expense while Mechanized Infantry means quick mobilization of reinforcements to Africa and Asia.

Feedback

So there you have it, Axis & Allies: Enhanced. Now as I've said, a lot of this is based on suggestions from the A&A community and so I'm definitely open to any further ideas. Here's a few general guidelines though:
1. No map changes. It must be playable on the A&A:R Map
2. No set-up changes. Must use original set-up.
3. No major departures from the original rules. It must be recognizable as A&A.
4. Suggested NAs must be balanced and have a strategic purpose.
5. Convenience for PBEM and FTF play was kept in mind for all the changes.
6. Ability to use RichyJ's roller was also kept in mind.
7. There must be some general support for the idea.

Now, a lot of Enhanced is theory right now, and I'm desperately seeking more playtesters who want to try it out. Feel free to download the .doc or .txt, try it with your friends and let me know how it goes. If you're interested in PBEM play, then drop me an e-mail at cousin_joe777@hotmail.com If there's enough interest (4-8players), we can have a little tournament and really see who's the best strategist of them all. Okay, that's all for now.

cousin_joe

[sking500]

Way to go, cousin_joe! Now if I can just find some victims, er, opponents...

[DXfoxman]

Very nice. I'll try it out sometime and tell you how it goes. :)

P.S. Did you create/wright all of that?

[cousin_joe]

DX,

Yes, I've been posting the individual ideas for the last couple of months and finally decided to collect them all together.:)

If you guys are ever looking to get into PBEM, e-mail me and I'll send you a little info package (Links to map program with a tutorial, online dice roller). That goes for anyone else as well. :)

[Scott_WAR]

I like it all except 3 things.

1- Delayed tech. I'll never accept that. One of the benefits of tech is its surprise. We all know what techs there are, we all know what they can do. Play with that in mind. If you leave a few transports ungaurded, and your opponent goes for LR in order to get them, thats YOUR fault, not a flaw in the game. It doesnt need to be fixed.

2- Sub stalling. By letting subs submerge without firing a shot, you are seriously hindering fleet movements. Sub stalling is not a part of axis and allies. In A&A:Pacific, some players twisted a rule in the rule book to create sub stalling. AH, through Mike, stated it wasnt correct, and Larry stated it was not correct. I dont like it, I know for a fact a lot of people dont like it. It shouldnt be a part of a global scale game regardless.

3- NA's should be an option. Thats nitpicking though, because anyone could easily decide not to use them at all before the game.

Aside from those I would have to say it is a step closer to what is needed to unite all players under one rule set.

[cousin_joe]

Hey Scott,

1. I'll get back to this one later :)

2. There is no substalling. The Dive to Avoid Combat ability only applies to DEFENDING SUBS. An attacking SUB has to endure one round of combat just like a regular SUB.

As far as Mike's interpretation of TRN in a SZ with a submerged SUB being able to essentially make a NCM on combat, I was under the assumption that that's what was going to be the correct interpretation of the rule.

3. NAs are the core of this variant. Sure, you can play without them, but you're going to miss out on a lot of the increased strategy and other benefits I mentioned in the Rationale.

1. Instant Tech is fine for a game with friends, where who wins and who loses doesn't really matter. If someone gets LRA out of the blue and sinks your trannies, it's like "Oh, shucks. You got me you bugger!" and you keep on playing . Competitive Play is a whole different game. People rely on probabilities to decide what they do. If you always have to consider the possibility of HB, SS, LRA, what kind of game is that?!?! I can tell you it's very annoying (from playing AH rules) and forces you to be ultra-conservative. Instead of going on the attack, you stack, consolidate, and build up, and we're stuck with IPM-style nightmares going 20-30 rounds.

Secondly, there's the issue of luck. Getting Instant Techs is so dice dependant. If you roll a few dice, get your LRA fighters, and proceed to wipe out his transports, the game swings dramatically based on what? Based on strategy? Based on clever tactics? No, based on a dice roll. :rolleyes: You could have missed the roll, wasted 20-30 IPC and now the game swings dramatically in his favor. True, dice are part of the game, but they should not be the game.

Finally, there's the whole historical accuracy perspective. If you mean to tell me that right after you develop the Tech, you can instantaneously outfit all your aircraft/subs with the weapons, and then have them use that Tech immediately in battle, I would say that's ABSOLUTELY PREPOSTEROUS!!! :eek: You don't get to use your purchases immediately and likewise, you should not be able to use your Techs immediately.
Scott, I know you are against Delayed Tech, but you are definitely in the minority on this one. It's a good change for the reasons I mentioned above, and one that I would be very, very hesitant to change unless you can come up with some much, much much stronger arguments as to why Instant Tech would be better. I will say though, that I'm glad you like the rest of it :D

[DY]

Yeah Scott he even wrote "DEFENDING" subs in capitals!

[DY]

Personally I'd like to see 3/3 super subs with diving ability and I honestly consider it to be a major tech in a 10/15 VC game which will see a lot of Pacific action.

[Scott_WAR]

LOL, ok , I missed the defending. I will give on that one. I see your points about tech. I even have another argument why delaying tech is needed now, where it wasnt in the past versions. That is simply that you get to pick the tech now. In the past, I have seen opponents go for tech on USA 1 if I had 2 or 3 *** transports all alone. Trying for LR naturally. It was a much less likely thing to happen than it is now. So the fact that tech is chosen helps in your argument.

To be honest I very rarely roll for any tech, so the rule doesnt affect my game, but I still feel it is a dratic change. If others can accept it I can.

I guess all in all I could accept these rules.

[DY]

Scott, if you want to have a PBEM game to play test these, then I'd be keen also. We could ask cousin_joe to GM if we want to bid for the Axis. In fact if anyone other than C_J wants to playtest these rules, I am looking to take on another game atm since I just finished one.

[cousin_joe]

Hey DY,

At one point I was thinking of having a third category in between at 4IPC/roll. :) Now a couple things to ponder, especially with the 4:2:1 rule in place...

A Minor Tech will cost you only 12IPCs up front for a 51.8% chance of getting the Tech
The maximum cost to get it would be 21IPC

A Major Tech will cost you 20IPCs up front for a 51.8% chance of getting the Tech
The maximum cost to get it would be 35IPC

I assume that once you have rolled for the Tech once, you'd finish up your rolls, just to make sure the money has not gone to waste. I'd also assume you'd roll for Techs early, to get the maximum advantage. So the question is, as Germany, Japan, or USA, would you be willing to dump 20IPC on Turn 1 (for just a 50-50 shot), or possibly 35IPC by Turn 3(possibly too late), in order to get Super Subs?

My answer is no, I would not. I would be willing to risk 12-21IPCs though. :) This is for a 3/2 Sub that dives. The 3 on defense was left off so that it is not overpowered. The other reason though, is that I did not want it to be as powerful as a destroyer. The destroyer is already overpriced as is, and adding a unit that basically has the same strength, with additional abilities, and only 2/3 the price... well, you get the picture.

One final point in defense of this rule, is that I would definitely like to see the game feature a lot of Pacific action, and so I would like to encourage people to go for this Tech. What happened in LHTR is basically all the Techs were overpriced and asically not worth getting. If I had to err on the side of underpricing or overpricing this Tech, I would prefer to underprice it.

I hope this sort of explains things. By the way, thanks for your help in going over these rules earlier and helping me to clarify a few things. :)

[DY]

But who says you need to roll 4 dice on turn 1? You probably won't have enough subs to make it worth going for tech until turn 3.

[cousin_joe]

Good point DY
To me though, it still seems a bit too expensive

I'm wondering about maybe having the Minor techs at 4IPC/roll
This would mean 16IPC up front (the cost of a CV), with a maximum of 28
I'll need some playtests of Minor Techs at 3IPC/roll first before making such a decision though.

[nergal]

Whatabout a tactical bmb?
4/1/6 for a cost of 12. Unable to do sbr.

[DXfoxman]

C_J,

Alot of the changes look pretty good, and seem reasonable. But one thing i just noticed is the VC Change. Allies: 9/15, Axis: 6/15? Now the allies only have to hold 1 more VC for 1 turn and the games over, while axis have to take 4? I dunno, This sounds like it'll make victory for axis near imposible.

But I'm sure you've given this a whole lot more thought than I have. So could you, or someone else, uhh... fill me in. :)
thanks

[cousin_joe]

Sure DX, no problem

The Allies have a much harder time getting that 1st Axis VC, than it is for the Allies to grab maybe 1 or 2 allied VCs. This makes the true starting point Allies 7/8, Axis 8/7


If Allies go KGF, they should hold Karelia, but Japan should get India, Hawaii, and Australia making it Allies 6, Axis 9

If Allies Stall Japan, they should hold India, but Hawaii, Australia,and possibly Karelia making it Allies 7/6, Axis 8/9

If Allies go KJF, they should hold Hawaii,Australia, and India, but lose Karelia making it Allies 8,Axis 7

Now, the other situation is if Allies try to get WEurope on Turn 1 with UK. Well, Germany shouldn't have let this happen in the first place, but they should have Karelia on G1. If not, Japan should have either India, or go Tokyo Express and take Hawaii.

The one thing I was debating with this ruleset was about changing the win conditions such that once you hit your 10/15 VC, you would have to stay at 10/15 VC for an entire ROUND afterwards (5 TURNS), rather thanjust ending at the US TURN. Hmmm... I'm wasn't so sure as I worry that may extend games out too much. I'll look at this idea a bit more. I think it works fine as it is now though. Anyone else have thoughts on this? :)

[poague41stva]

Cousin Joe,

I particularly like your take on convoy raids. I’ve have always had the US and/or UK fork over one IPC per German sub in certain sea zones in the North Atlantic. Interesting take on allowing the Japanese and the US to also take part, historically accurate too. US subs put as much of a squeeze on Tokyo as the Kriesmarine did on London.

[cousin_joe]

Thanks paogue :) Subs in A&A:Revised really don't do much for what they cost. Your money is much better spent on a transport to ferry troops over. In this variant, SUBs are much more valuable. The 2IPC incentive for being adjacent to the IC was to encourage players to be agressive with them (rather than just hide them in a safe place :) ). It also makes for very territorial battles in the Atlantic and Pacific.

[DY]

I'd still like to see super subs at 3/3.

[DY]

4 IPcs per minor tech roll seem better to me. BTW if the Allies go KJF it is very hard to hold both Shanghai and Manilla (assuming Germany has Karelia). So the problem I'm having in my game is that even though I am doing very well across the board, every turn I am faced with losing the game because of the difficulty in taking Caucasus and holding 2/3 Japanese cities.

My opponent has Colonial Garrison (however we played that it was placed pre-game) and Industrial tech. I now see why your rules limit Colonial Garrison to become active at the end of UK1. This is probably enough of a fix to the game to avoid the situation I am in.

[cousin_joe]

Yes, Colonial Garrison is much too powerful if placed pre-game. UK can take a shot at taking FIC on UK 1, or an even stronger force UK2. This immediately puts Japan on the defensive, whereas they should actually be on the offensive.

Even though your predicament was because of the pre-game placement of the India IC, I wonder about adjusting the win conditions such that you must hold 10VC's for an entire round of play. That way, let's say Kwa falls to UK, then USA takes the Phillipines, that would mean game over. I think Japan should have a chance to take their territories back if they have the forces to do so.

I'd also add the condition that if Germany took Caucasus, dropping the VC's back down to 9 for the Allies, then UK took Caucasus back to get back to 10VC's, then the clock would start again for another round from UK's turn (rather than end on the US turn)

I can see potential for this to extend games out as VC's may become dead zones, but I do think it would create for more decisive victory conditions. I'll need some more feedback on this one...

Re: Minor Tech rolls at 4IPC/roll, I am thinking that this might be a better idea. Again, more feedback would be helpful...

By the way, I just finished a game recently, so if anyone is wanting to try a game of A&A:Enhanced, PM me or leave a post :) Don't worry if you're new to PBEM, I can help you out, all you need is a good head for strategy. :)

[cousin_joe]

I'd still like to see super subs at 3/3.
We'll see :) Probably not at 3IPC/roll, but maybe at 4 :)

[DY]

Definitely not at $3 per roll!

[V-2]

Cousin_Joe,

I have to say, overall, I really like these variant rules, and I look forward to trying them out (anyone who's up for a Mapview game, send me an e-mail). That said, here's some feedback/questions...

- I miss the flexibility of the Joint Strike. Part of the fun of A&A is the "alternative histories" that come about. Why couldn't D-Day have been into Norway, Karelia, or directly into Germany?

- I miss the American Marines and Fortress Europe.

- I'm not so sure I like having to purchase a number of rolls for tech. The chance of a lucky breakthrough seems more realistic.

- Why are NA's chosen once per turn? Why not have them all up front? It doesn't make sense to me that, for example, Germany can't use Panzerblitz in 1942 but suddenly they can in 1943.

- I really like the submarine convoy raiding rules. Personally, I think they should be dropped as NA's and made standard for each country.
Please clarify:
"One SUB may affect multiple IC's in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses)"

- Why restrict the number of Kamikaze's and Kaiten's for Japan? Sure, Japan could send it's whole airforce into a Kamikaze attack, but it loses its airforce at the same time.


Suggestions:

- All destroyers should bombard at 2 as in A&AE (drop the tech)

- Jet fighters should be immune to A&A (you could up the tech cost). I'd like to have them attack at 4, but it would probably be too powerful.

- I've always hated that a player could declare "Siberian Winter." Perhaps the Russian player could roll for it at the beginning his turn, every turn, getting it on a 1 out of 6. He would no longer be able to choose it, weakining it, but it would be possible to get it more than once.

- Please modify the Banzai attack! It's unrealistic and useless. Perhaps, for one battle per game, Japan could declare a Banzai attack. For that battle only its infantry would attack at 2, and other units could join at at their normal attack values.


On a side note, I read an excellent "War of Attrition" varianton on one of these posts once (I can't remember who it was) that I thought made the game more realistic. The "collect income" phase was moved to just before the "combat move" phase, so a country has to hold a territory for a turn to get any resources from it, and a territory cannot give up its resources twice in a turn. In addition, when a capital is taken that country's money is destroyed, not taken by the invader (though the invader does get that country's techs).

Again, anyone wanting to try out Cousin_Joe's variant, or the War of Attrition Variant (or both!) using Mapview, drop me a line.

[cousin_joe]

Hey V-2,

A lot of good questions there, and I'll post some responses a bit later on (on lunch break right now :) ). Since we have a game going already, I suggest you try DY, as he was looking for a game earlier. I'd be happy to GM as far as bids. I'll send you his e-mail.

[Drax Kramer]

Yes, Colonial Garrison is much too powerful if placed pre-game. UK can take a shot at taking FIC on UK 1, or an even stronger force UK2. This immediately puts Japan on the defensive, whereas they should actually be on the offensive.

Actually, Japanese should be the defensive part of the Axis coalition, desperately trying to survive until Germany wins the game for both of them.

Situations where Japanese "panzers" were overunning Siberia while their "Zeros" protected "Festung Europa" were the greatest travesty of the historical background this game loosely tries to recreate.

I'll put "Colonial Garrison" as mandatory NA for 8 VC games.


Drax

[Drax Kramer]

One SUB may affect multiple IC's in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses)

Why is the damage calculated per IC instead per sub? Isn't it logical that more subs should be able to inflict more damage regardless of the number of ICs in range?


Drax

[DY]

CJ I too agree with V-2 re submarine warfare -- this should come as standard in your advanced rules for Germany and the USA and possibly as standard for Japan.

I see Colonial Garisson as a little weak now, all it does is effectively pay the UK an additional 12 IPCs on UK1 (since you reduced the cost of ICs). Perhaps the Colonial Garrison should come with 1 infantry on UK1. This would be a good compromise with the NA as written in AH and LHTR rules and the highly restriced version in your rules. Basically as it stands I see "The Commonwealth" NA as being infinitely superior to Colonial Garrison.

I'll hold off on playing against V-2 until we resolve these issues.

Also V-2 Jet Fighters ARE IMMUNE to AA in cousin_joe's rules.

[cousin_joe]

- I miss the flexibility of the Joint Strike. Part of the fun of A&A is the "alternative histories" that come about. Why couldn't D-Day have been into Norway, Karelia, or directly into Germany? -Joint Strike, as per AH/LHTR is just too overpowered. Being able to threaten multiple territories really puts Germany on the defensive. I wanted to get away from this and give Germany more room to maneuver.
-Joint Strike as written, allowed for other joint attacks throughout the map, which again, can be a strong advantage for the Allies
-In terms of Gameplay Mechanics and Historical Accuracy, I wanted to replicate Germany having to choose how much to devote to defending France vs. how much to send to fight Russia.
-I also wanted to see the D-Day invasion replicated in a lot of games.

I miss the American Marines and Fortress Europe. -Fortress Europe is just way too overpowered. Basically you're making the 4IPC artillery into a 5IPC tank, minus the extra movement point.
-It was between Marines and Mechanized Infantry. The latter was seen as the more useful NA.

- Why are NA's chosen once per turn? Why not have them all up front? It doesn't make sense to me that, for example, Germany can't use Panzerblitz in 1942 but suddenly they can in 1943. -This was done to increase strategy. By alternating NA picks, Ger sees what Rus picks, UK sees what Ger picks, etc. Players would have to adjust their strategies on the fly based on what their opponent does
-I had originally intended to create another variant called Axis & Allies: Extreme which has all the same rules, but all 12NA's for Axis, and 12NA's for Allies would be used. All of a country's NA's would become available immediately starting from their first turn. This needs some further analysis for balance though.

- I really like the submarine convoy raiding rules. Personally, I think they should be dropped as NA's and made standard for each country.
Please clarify:
"One SUB may affect multiple IC's in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses)" -For example, say you had a German SUB in SZ 8. UK would lose 2IPC on it's TURN. US would lose 1IPC on it's TURN. You have affected Multiple IC's in a ROUND.
-Now say US has 1 SUB in SZ 61 and Japan has a IC in Manchuria. I didn't want the US SUB doing 2IPC damage each to the Man and *** IC, so I limited damage to a single IC/TURN.

- Why restrict the number of Kamikaze's and Kaiten's for Japan? Sure, Japan could send it's whole airforce into a Kamikaze attack, but it loses its airforce at the same time.
-I wanted there to be incentive for the US to go into the Pacific. Japan having the capability to suicide all their planes/subs to destroy a whole US task force was too much of a negative incentive to go into the Pacific, not to mention overpowered (They could suicide all the US transports and delay an invasion for 2-3 turns until the new ones come, US will always have to calculate for the possibility of Kamikazes.

- I'm not so sure I like having to purchase a number of rolls for tech. The chance of a lucky breakthrough seems more realistic. I wouldn't necessarily say the old way is more realistic. You shouldn't be able to score such a big discovery for such a tiny investment. The reason the 4:2:1 rule was added was to fix the prices of Tech a little more, rather than the hugely variable costs we see now. Someone shouldn't be able to invest just 5IPC, get the Tech, and just instantly turn the tide of the game. Techs need to come with a price and some up front investment. Now, Techs cost a minimum of 20IPC (for majors) and we won't have these huge swings based on a single dice roll.

Gotta go. More answers later. :)

[cousin_joe]

- All destroyers should bombard at 2 as in A&AE (drop the tech) At one point, I thought the same thing. CB isn't that bad though as long as there is a reduction in price. It still remains a good counter for fighting an infantry stacker. Might consider if A&A:Enhanced evolves into something more advanced.


- Jet fighters should be immune to A&A (you could up the tech cost). I'd like to have them attack at 4, but it would probably be too powerful.Too powerful at 4, plus Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers already covers that. They are already AA-immune


- I've always hated that a player could declare "Siberian Winter." Perhaps the Russian player could roll for it at the beginning his turn, every turn, getting it on a 1 out of 6. He would no longer be able to choose it, weakining it, but it would be possible to get it more than once.I like this as the "Ace in the Pocket" for Russia which buys them a turn aaginst an advancing Germany. One of A&A Enhanced's design philosophies is more focus on strategy, less focus on dice.



- Please modify the Banzai attack! It's unrealistic and useless. Perhaps, for one battle per game, Japan could declare a Banzai attack. For that battle only its infantry would attack at 2, and other units could join at at their normal attack values.I would like to change Banzai attack but I am limited by what the roller can do. If A&A:Enhanced became more widespread, and we could get our own little Wargamerclub roller for it, then this remains a possibility. This is what I was thinking for it:

Banzai Attack
Infantry that are unaccompanied by artillery or tanks attack at 2 for the first round of combat only. They may be accompanied by aircraft, or be aided by bombardment from naval vessels. If they are accompanied by artillery or armor, however, they attack as normal.

[cousin_joe]

CJ I too agree with V-2 re submarine warfare -- this should come as standard in your advanced rules for Germany and the USA and possibly as standard for Japan.

I see Colonial Garisson as a little weak now, all it does is effectively pay the UK an additional 12 IPCs on UK1 (since you reduced the cost of ICs). Perhaps the Colonial Garrison should come with 1 infantry on UK1. This would be a good compromise with the NA as written in AH and LHTR rules and the highly restriced version in your rules. Basically as it stands I see "The Commonwealth" NA as being infinitely superior to Colonial Garrison.

Re: Colonial Garrison. The primary purpose of this was to open up Double IC strategies from UK1 or to always allow UK to buy an IC turn 1, even if threatened by Germany or having to build a Navy. With Japan hopefully being distracted more in the Pacific, the India factory would be a little harder to take down. If with playtesting, it turns out the India factory falls quite easily, then yes, having a free INF with it might be an option.

Re: Convoy Raids as standard, I was thinking about this as well. If that was the case, then I would make Joint Strike standard as well. I am wondering about making everything standard and focusing as A&A:Extreme as my primary variant instead.

A&A: Extreme
Just like A&A: Enhanced, except all of a country's NA's become effective at the start of their first turn. This means 12 NA's for Axis (G6/J6), 12 NA's (R4/UK4/US4) for Allies.

There would be a little less strategy & counterstrategy, but all the strategic options are available making the game wide open. I'd have to play a few games to see how this would balance out.

By the way, I'm still looking for more playtesters, so if anyone wants to try a game of A&A: Enhanced or A&A: Extreme, post a message, PM me, or e-mail me. Thanks.

[DY]

Using all the NAs seems bad to me. But allowing Germany and the USA to conduct submarine warfare as standard and making joint strike standard would seem to advantage the Allies too much. Perhaps if Japanese submarine warefare were also made standard then it would be ok because you are effectively giving each side 2 free NAs.

[cousin_joe]

Yes, DY, I think making these changes standard would really help do the things I wanted to do with this game, ie. D-Day as standard, a Pacific Theater (becomes profitable now), ways to equalize income other than taking territory. So here's a quick summary of the changes:

1. D-Day Invasion as standard
2. Germany Convoy Raids as standard
3. Japanese Convoy Raids as standard
4. US Convoy Raids as standard (affects Japan only)

This should roughly balance out as early Germany SUB use takes down some of the Allied income and necessitates more of a Navy by the Allies, thus more resources spent. This should delay D-Day. If Germany goes too agressive with their naval campaign, then they'll have the Russians coming from the East.

Meanwhile, Japan can keep US from entirely focusing on Germany with their Convoy Raids. US must fight back (and can without hurting European campaign too much) or face big losses.

SUBs overall gain much greater utility because of their economic effect coupled with a decent attack. Destroyers in turn become more useful as well.

Thanks guys, good suggestions :)

Hmmm, now I'll probably need to come up with a new NA for each of these countries. For US I'd probably go with Marines. For the other 3, I'm going to need to put on my thinking cap :) Any ideas? Anybody?

[DY]

Bring back French Resistance but make it EVERY time the UK captures WEu. Bring back Fortress Europe for Germany (remember D-Day is now standard!) and invent something cool for Japan because their NAs still blow chunks.

[DY]

Oh yeah is it fair to allow U-boat raids on the Soviet Caucasus IC? I don't think any lend-lease or anything came via the Black Sea to Russia.

[cousin_joe]

Bring back French Resistance but make it EVERY time the UK captures WEu. Bring back Fortress Europe for Germany (remember D-Day is now standard!) and invent something cool for Japan because their NAs still blow chunks.
Oh yeah is it fair to allow U-boat raids on the Soviet Caucasus IC? I don't think any lend-lease or anything came via the Black Sea to Russia.
1. French Resistance is certainly possible now that it doesn't have to compete with Joint Strike.

Fortress Europe is just way too overpowered as is. Instead of a 3 on defense for the entire duration of combat, what I was thinking was maybe a first strike on defense for the 1st round of combat only. I had this idea earlier as a replacement Tech for CB(Advanced Artillery). The problem with this is roller issues though.

Yeah, Japan is a tough one to come up with another NA.

2. The other thing I was wondering about, was whether to give UK Convoy Raids as well, but to use on Japan only (like the US. What I can do to fix the problem, is make Germany and Russia exempt from Convoy Raids in general. The other 3 nations, due to their "island" locations, were much more dependant on trade via the seas.

I was thinking about making the NonAgression-Treaty Standard as well.

One last thing I was wondering was maybe not allowing the Western Allies on Russian soil. They can cooperate elsewhere, but no more allied landings into Karelia. May be a bit unbalancing, but Joint Strike and Nonagression Treaty might balance it out a bit. Might need to alter lend-lease a bit too. I'll think on this. :)

[DY]

Although realistic, I think disallowing USA and UK units on Russian soil would completely undermine the whole way AA is constructed. I would not want to play that at all sorry. The game is designed so that Russia can't beat Germany one-on-one without a little tricke through Nwy/Kar/Arch.

Yes, why not make sub warefare standard for all nations but make G and R ICs immune, since these nations didn't really rely on convoys (exception Archangel and Murmansk for the Arctic lend-lease etc).

Sorry but I think FE is a fair NA to allow as is especially with D-Day as standard. It is arguably the best of the German NA's, but then again you are including incredibly strong Allied NAs such as Industrial Tech for USA (I am discovering this NA to be "broken" in my play-test vs Jeremy)

[cousin_joe]

Ah yes, the ever-existing debate between Historical Accuracy and Gameplay Mechanics. I like Germany and Russia not being subject to Convoy Raids and will probably give Convoy Raids to UK vs. Japan only. While no Western allies on Russian soil would be nice, you are correct, it would make the game unrecognizable from A&A.

I'm playing against Fortress Europe vs V-2 and it is definitely "broken." He's purchasing INF,RTL in a 1:1 ratio, with No Tanks... because he doesn't need them. The Artillery in this game basically makes Tanks not worth buying. The 3-Def Artillery also make trading and taking territories more costly for the Allies (esp. paired with Atlantic Wall which he is also using).

I have a game against axis_roll which is delayed as he is on vacation, but I'm thinking of going Ind Tech with US. I'll have to see for myself. Any chance you can send me the Mapview file of yours and Jeremy's game?

[DeathLee]

These enhanced rules are very interesting. Obviously a lot of good thought went into these. Your tech development rule appears to be somewhat rigid. Consider this modification:

5. New Tech Modification Rule
-When you roll for a particular Tech, you add one (1) to the die roll for each roll purchased in previous turns for that particular Tech.
-For example, if you buy three rolls on the first turn for Jet Fighters, each roll is unmodified. However, if you buy two rolls in the second turn for Jet Fighters again, each roll is modified by + three (3).
-Tech modifications start over when rolling for a new Tech.

This rule allows for slower, cheaper research, or faster, but more expensive research. But the element of chance and variation still exists. And I don't think it is any more complicated than your proposal.

What do you think?

[DY]

Just a thought on FE, you'll have to improve it in some other way if you make the defend at "3" for the first combat cycle only. I suggest you make it attack and defend at "3" on the first combat cycle. Otherwise it is too weak compared with other NAs such as Atlantic wall.

Hopefully Richy may one day support your rules (when they are finalised), but until then we'd have to manually roll those attacking rtl separately and note any "3's" as a hit and in defense we'd have to un-check the FE box after the first combat cycle of each battle.

Re submarine warfare, why not make the rule that any IC in a Tan, Orange or Green territory can be subject to convoy raids, that way ICs that Germany or Russia capture in the far flung regions of the board can be targeted (for a max of the IPC value of the territory of course).

[cousin_joe]

Hey DeathLee,

Interesting suggestion. My biggest problem with it though is that a country can still get a Powerful Tech for a measly 5IPC. This is the situation I want to prevent as it creates a big swing in that country's favor.

It's hard to put exact dollar figures on a Tech, but let's take Rockets for example.
Say Germany invests 5IPC on G1, and gets Rockets (still possible under your proposed plan). They then move the AAGun from Ger to EEur, and SEur to Ger. They now have 3 AAGuns in range of London, Moscow, and Stalingrad.

On G2, these Rockets will do 3.5 + 3.5 + 2.5 = 9.5 IPC Damage on average. They've already DOUBLED Germany's initial investment! And it's only been one turn! The game essentially turns in the Axis' favor, as all Germany has lost from this is the equivalent of 1ARM, while the Allies will be losing the equivalent of 3INF... PER ROUND!

The point I am trying to make here is that the cost-benefit ratio, under AH rules (less so with LHTR), can potentially be very LOW. For a very small risk of 5IPC, the player rolling Tech can get a HUGE advantage. This can happen with any of the Techs. In fact 17% of the time, they'll get it with only 5IPC, and 31% of the time with only 10IPC (talking about Major Techs).

The 4:2:1 Rule was designed to fix this as all Major Techs, now cost a minimum of 20IPC (52% chance on first set of rolls). The player rolling Tech now takes a bigger risk, but also more appropriate risk, for the degree of benefit he is going to get. On the flip side though, he has a better guarantee that his risk will eventually pay off, rather than having to keep dumping money into a Tech he may never get, or only get after a 50IPC investment, making the cost-benefit ratio very HIGH. The 4:2:1 rule makes the cost of a Major Tech from 20-35 IPC, rather than from 5-50IPC. It significantly reduces variance, making for a more accurate cost-benefit ratio.

[cousin_joe]

Just a thought on FE, you'll have to improve it in some other way if you make the defend at "3" for the first combat cycle only. I suggest you make it attack and defend at "3" on the first combat cycle. Otherwise it is too weak compared with other NAs such as Atlantic wall.

Re submarine warfare, why not make the rule that any IC in a Tan, Orange or Green territory can be subject to convoy raids, that way ICs that Germany or Russia capture in the far flung regions of the board can be targeted (for a max of the IPC value of the territory of course).
Re: Submarine warfare, I'm not sure that I like any IC being subject to Convoy Raids. The only IC's Germany has a real chance of getting would be S.Africa... maybe India. For Russia, maybe a Japanese IC in Manchuria. In all these cases, I can't imagine the Germans or Russians having Convoys around these areas, so nothing really for the Allies to Raid. I think for simplicity's sake as well, that considering Germany and Russia non-dependant on Convoys , and thus not subject to Convoy Raids at any time, would be the better way to go. :)

I should be able to come up with something for Germany, either a modified FE, or something else. UK maybe a modified French resistance. US maybe Marines. Japan is still a tough one though. :)

[Drax Kramer]

Once upon a time my group played MB game under the set of rules we developed (they are still available on Trasher's site).

We forbade Allied units to END their non-combat movement in Soviet controlled territory (and vice versa). We did the same for Axis partners.

To compensate for this, we reduced armour combat movement to one (non combat was still two) and we introduced a Lend Lease rule.

Lend-Lease rule allowed for both Britain and US to give 5 IPCs (represented by appropriate national marker) to USSR. These counters had to be placed in either Karelia or Persia (British) or Karelia, Persia or Soviet Far East (US). No more than one could be placed in the same territory and these territories ought to be under allied control at the time of the placement. Soviet player would exchange these counters into IPCs on his turn.


I don't think that statements how these mechanisms turn this game into something that is no longer A&A have much merit.


Drax

[Drax Kramer]

Why aren't the damage caused by submarines calculated per submarine instead per complex?

If I have two submarines in range of single complex, I should be able to inflict twice as much damage than if I had only one.


Drax

[cousin_joe]

Drax,

It is calculated per submarine :) . If you have 5 submarines sitting off the US coast, then you do 10IPC damage.

One SUB may affect multiple IC's in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses) I think I'll reword this on the revision as I think you're interpreting it as only 1 SUB can do damage, when in fact multiple subs can do damage (up to the territories maximum). What the intent of this line was that a SUB could not "Raid" 2 of an enemy country's IC's simultaneously (eg. US SUB in SZ 51 would only be able to "Raid" Convoys coming into either Manchuria or Japan, but NOT both).

[cousin_joe]

After some feedback and playtesting, I'll be updating the rules for the A&A: Enhanced variant. Here are some of the expected changes:

Base Game:

4. Convoy Raids - now part of the base game, and can be used by any nation. These only affect UK,US and Japan due to their heavier dependance on overseas shipping. Russia and Germany are not affected by Convoy Raids.
5. D-Day Invasion - as the Allies are required to focus more resources on the Pacific, this allows them to keep some pressure on Germany, particularly WEur.
6. Nonagression Treaty - to allow Russia to better deal with Germany toe-to-toe and worry a bit less about Japan.

Weapons Development:

No Changes - Minor Techs were left at 3IPC/roll. Sea and Air units are already overpriced compared to Ground units, and keeping the Minor Techs easy to acquire increases the intrinsic value of these units (SUB,DD,Aircraft).

National Advantages:

RUSSIA
4. Trans-Siberian Railway - now replaces Nonagression Treaty. As in LHTR.

GERMANY
6. Advanced Artillery - now replaces Convoy Raids. All DEFENDING Artillery now fire in the Conduct Opening Fire phase of Combat (instead of the Defending Units fire phase). Casualties are immediately removed. The versatile German 88's were an attacking army's worse nightmare.

UNITED KINGDOM
4. French Resistance - now replaces D-Day Invasion. Place 2 free INF/TURN during the Mobilize Units Phase in Western Europe, if you control it.

JAPAN
1. Banzai Attacks - *now attack at 2 for the 1st round of combat only. However, they may now be accompanied by aircraft (as well as bombardment). Accompanying ARM or RTL negate this NA.
4. Kaiten Torpedoes - *limit changed to 2 Kaiten Torpedoes/TURN
5. Kamikaze Attacks - *limit changed to 2 Kamikaze Atacks/TURN
6. Naval Advantage - now replaces Convoy Raids. Japan is given 4 free Minor Tech Rolls to use this turn on one of CB, SS, or LRA. In Spring 1942, the IJN was dominating the Pacific, and far ahead of it's contemporaries.

UNITED STATES
4. Marines - now replaces Convoy Raids. As in LHTR.

Rationale:

The base changes were made so that historical accuracy and strategic variability would be increased in EVERY game, not just the ones that inclded these NAs. These changes should balance each other out.

Russia - quick mobilization of Siberian units to Eastern Front
Germany - should encourage RTL purchases, less focus on IPM, a defensive NA
UK - can maintain German campaign while still playing a global game
Japan - major upgrades to make NAs more useful. Strong naval options
US - useful for amphibs in Pacific and Atlantic

As always, I appreciate any comments or suggestions. As long as there are no glaring imbalances, or other major changes to be made, I'll give it a few days before I amend the first post along with the .doc and .txt files. Also, I'm still looking for more playtesters, and I myself am ready to start a new game. So if you're interested, send me a PM or e-mail. :)

[DY]

Hmmm I'd wager that artillery firing at "2" in opening fire (every combat cycle) is actually better than rolling at "3" normally. Is this meant to be in the first combat cycle only?

[cousin_joe]

DY,

Actually, defending at 3 is still much better, so yes, it's meant to be every combat cycle :) . Here's the numbers...

6 Regular Artillery @ 2
2 Hits on Def/cycle = 6IPC/cycle (assuming mostly INF attacking)

6 Fortress Europe Artillery @ 3
3 Hits on Def/cycle = 9IPC/cycle (a 50% increase in efficiency)

6 Advanced Artillery @ 2, with Opening Fire
2 Hits on Def/cycle
+2 INF Attacks @ 1 Prevented/cycle (equivalent to 2/6 or 1/3 of a hit)
= 7IPC/cycle (a 17% increase in efficiency)

Even when you start digging into the armor, the Fortress Europe Artillery still remain supreme. In fact, Fortress Europe RTL become the most overall (Off+Def) efficient unit in the game @ 3/3 for only 4IPC (6pips/4IPC) vs INF (3pips/3IPC) and ARM (6pips/5IPC). Fortress Europe essentially let's Germany be very agressive, with very little cost to them as they can fall back and defend just as strongly. Their pure efficiency would make pure INF+ RTL builds easily the most optimal choice for Germany. Advanced Artillery is a welcome compromise, as Artillery is strengthened, but certainly not overpowered.

[Final Attack]

I am very interested to hear how people think this game plays out. I just started learning A&A recently so I don't think my players will be too keen to learn any more rules till we play more REGULAR games, however I like the idea of Germans having 2 National advantages. It may even up the teams a bit.

[DY]

So if/until we get Advanced Artillery suportted by the roller, people will need to manually roll the defending arty first with "Roll Defender Only" selected, then manually remove the number of attackers hit. Then include all remaining attackers and all non-artillery defending units and roll for both attacker and defender manually. then do the whole process again every combat cycle. YUK!

We need to convince Richy to support this mod ASAP, because it's sure going to be easy to make a mistake trying to manually do the rolling for this NA.

[cousin_joe]

DY,

Yeah, I know :o The other option for now would be to just have Fortress Europe back but to only fire during the first cycle of combat.

There are a few other things I'd need to have the roller tweaked for:

1. Heavy Bombers - roll 2 dice (currently can just switch to AH rules, and remember to cap damage at territory value)
2. Jet Fighters - SBR defense roll at 1 (currently can roll seperately using AAGun, with number of attacking BMR's actually representing number of defending FTR's)
**3. Super Subs - 3/2 in this variant (untick on defense)
**4. Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers - to include Land-Combat only (untick on Sea combat)
**5. D-Day Invasion - in case of US having Marines, would need to roll these seperately (roll separately, LHTR Joint Strike needs this changed as well actually)
6. Banzai Attack - 1st cycle only, and can have aircraft accompanying (can roll INF separately for 1st cycle only)
7. Advanced Artillery - DEFENDING Artillery hits are removed in the opening fire phase, every cycle of combat

1,2,6,7 should be changed for the variant ruleset
**3-5 are not necessary, but would be nice

I tried making it so you could basically use the rollers as is without too much hassle, and you can with 1-5. 6 & 7 though are the new ones just added, which I feel are better NAs than their counterparts, but would need roller support. I will send this list to RichyJ once I have a more finalized product and see if he has the time and wilingness to support this ruleset on his roller. :)

[V-2]

cousin joe,

1. You're concerned that "Fortress Europe" makes Germany too powerfull, and have used our current game as an example. But in our game, it doesn't look as if the Axis are going to win.
You think that Germany would never buy tanks, but if Germany is going to put any pressure on Moscow, it needs to buy a wave of tanks to catch up with a 'slow' wave of infantry and artillery (you cleverly cut me off with a wall of Russian and British forces before I had a chance to do that).
I believe that Germany needs both Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europe to counter the combined force of Joint Strike and Marines. Also, it needs Fortress Europe to counter a stronger Russia, who will be having fighters fed to it by both Britain and America (Lend-Lease), and will have less pressure on the eastern front (railway, non-aggression treaty)

2. I'm not so sure that dive bombers shouldn't attack sea zones at 5. Dive bombers were a huge threat to battleships and carriers in the war. Also, it can be countered by a single fighter, and its rare that the allies leave a navy in range of Germany without at least one fighter on a carrier.

Basically, I think that Germany starts at a disadvantage in a no NA game, and if you are going to give the Allies strong NA's like Joint Strike, Marines, and Lend-Lease, then Germany's cannot afford to have its NA's weakened. I would suggest that we leave them as the are in LHTR until we actually play a few games, and then tweak them as issues come up.

On another note, have you thought about incorporating "scorched earth" for factories? A good scorched earth rule that I've come across is that a country can destroy any of its IC's just before its "place new units" phase.

Looking forward to starting a couple of games soon...

V-2

[cousin_joe]

V-2,

1. Fortress Europe makes Germany very tough to beat and I'd be happy to prove that to you :) The critical error you made in our game was ceding Eastern Europe. If you loaded up EEur with your INF,RTL,and FTR's It would take me forever to get in, despite a Triple Team.

Joint Strike as is, is incredibly powerful. You'll see in a turn or two. Allowing it's use on Germany really makes things difficult for the Axis. D-Day Invasion from the variant ruleset is much more fair.

The other thing you should realize from our game is the problems with the Triple Team, under LHTR rules. Germany is stuck having to play a boring, defensive game. Japan is in the unrealistic situation of building up to take Moscow (which they won't :) ). Allies, by ignoring Japan, and focusing everything on Germany, will soon cause Germany's downfall, and then can move on to Triple Team Japan. This strategy is very hard to beat.

Tell you what, we'll have another game after ours is finished but with the variant rules instead (where Joint Strike, Convoy Raids, and Non-agression come standard). I will play Axis with the same bid I gave you in our LHTR game. If you want, and if you still don't believe me, I will use Fortress Europe (as per LHTR) as one of my NAs, to show you how overpowered it can be. Or, if you'd rather, I can play with just Atlantic Wall, with no Fortress Europe, and show you how Germany can win without this NA. I'm flexible so either way is fine with me :) . If you like, you can select Lend-Lease and Marines as your NAs.

Re: Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers attacking SZ @5, is incredibly overpowered. On G1, you can sink a UK SUB,DD,BB with ease, and still have FTR's left over to do other things. I've played a lot of games now, and I will often split my Atlantic Navy so that one or two groups will not have carrier support. Furthermore, even if I have carriers, I'll often leave them without a FTR on it. Even Blackwatch, the creator of the rule, said it wasn't intended to be used for Sea Combat, but was misworded in the LHTR.

Re: Scorched Earth, this is actually a very good idea and one I will look into :) Does anyone else have any further input, or experience with this?

[cousin_joe]

A&A: Enhanced v1.1 Now available!
Check it out here (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?p=21906#post21906)