Improved Axis and Allies by DocS

[Doctor Strategy]

I debated whether I should submit my ideas or not. I debated whether I should stand at the firing squad of criticism or not. In the end, I feel if even one person( that's you Series) enjoys this or uses anything in it will be worth it.

This is by no means complete but a work in progress. With that said let the slaughter commence. Oh wait I meant debate. :D

[elbowmaster]

nice job! though i may not agree with some of these, i think its great that youve taken the time to share...mind if i add these to my website???


-cheers

-elbowmaster

[DocD]

Interesting to say the least....I like some of the ideas...but some others should be shelved.

Overall, Nice to see the effort. But hey have you played with these rules yet young man?
If so, how did they work out?

[series]

Ok, first let me get the negatives out of the way:

1. Why does japan get weak infantry but not russia?

2. I think the first document needs more detail.

3. I actually think a lot of it needs more explanations or examples, some things were more than a bit confusing (blockades for example)

4. Your tech system is a bit confusing... and also, it reduces luck to 0, which isn't always very good.

5. With so many techs, there are bound to be unbalances. I would like to see a Recruitment and Reliable Weapons combo... it would be Hell.

6. With your NAs, I see a few flaws. I think lend lease is actually not too shabby... and I love spies... but a lot of the other stuff is very confusing or unrealistic I have to say.

7. In general, there should be a bit more playtesting and/or detail. That is my main complaint.

Now, for the good things:

1. I can see this becoming much better in the future after some testing.

2. After said testing, I think it may become one of the better and/or best variants here.

Also, you do have quite a few good ideas. However, just make sure everything there is actually balanced, because I see a few cheap moves (such as the Recruit/Reliable combo). And clear some stuff up. But otherwise, good try for making a ruleset. Like I said, I predict it will be much better after playtests.

Out of 10 Stars: ***

The only reason I gave you such a low score, however, was because many of your ideas confused me. A tiny bit more detail could easily raise you up to at least *****

[DocD]

Who is this masked kid called Series?

[Doctor Strategy]

nice job! though i may not agree with some of these, i think its great that youve taken the time to share...mind if i add these to my website???


-cheers

-elbowmaster

Sure. I don't mind at all.

[series]

Who is this masked kid called Series?
Why what do you mean...?

[DocD]

You sound like me series when I argue my points. Just alittle surprised is all.
Weep, weep, my little series is all grown up now...weep, weep;)

[Doctor Strategy]

Ok, first let me get the negatives out of the way:

1. Why does japan get weak infantry but not russia?

2. I think the first document needs more detail.

3. I actually think a lot of it needs more explanations or examples, some things were more than a bit confusing (blockades for example)

4. Your tech system is a bit confusing... and also, it reduces luck to 0, which isn't always very good.

5. With so many techs, there are bound to be unbalances. I would like to see a Recruitment and Reliable Weapons combo... it would be Hell.

6. With your NAs, I see a few flaws. I think lend lease is actually not too shabby... and I love spies... but a lot of the other stuff is very confusing or unrealistic I have to say.

7. In general, there should be a bit more playtesting and/or detail. That is my main complaint.

Now, for the good things:

1. I can see this becoming much better in the future after some testing.

2. After said testing, I think it may become one of the better and/or best variants here.

Also, you do have quite a few good ideas. However, just make sure everything there is actually balanced, because I see a few cheap moves (such as the Recruit/Reliable combo). And clear some stuff up. But otherwise, good try for making a ruleset. Like I said, I predict it will be much better after playtests.

Out of 10 Stars: ***

The only reason I gave you such a low score, however, was because many of your ideas confused me. A tiny bit more detail could easily raise you up to at least *****

1) Japan's weapons were notorious for jamming during the war. This is partly the reason the US had low casualty rates for Infantry. Basically, the Russians lost a lot of men because they were outmatched by the German field leaders. If Russian infantry were weakened Germany would just waltz in to Moscow. I don't know how reliable the Russians weapons were.

2) More detail as far as what. If a rule is not mentioned it still goes by the standard revised rules. For example, you still choose the tech you are rolling for and if you roll the right number you get the tech. Basically, the only different thing is to choose what category you are trying for before you roll.

3) What was confusing about the blockades? Any battleship, destroyer, or aircraft carrier can park in the sea zone corresponding to the land territory. For example the US player has a destroyer and Aircraft carrier in sea zone 49. The Phillipines are worth 3 IPCs. The blockade prevents 2 of the IPCs from getting to Japan's income. In other words, they would return 2 IPCs to the bank at the start of their turn. This blockade represents them shooting down supply planes and preventing or destroying cargo ships trying to get to and from the Phillipines. The IPC drain continues until the blockade is destroyed or it moves away. I forgot to add that if the blockade is involved in a combat it cannot sap the IPCs that turn. Clear as mud right.

4) The rules for the tech gain is the same. You pay your 5 IPCs to try to obtain it. I should have mentioned that obtaining the techs is the same as in revised.

5) Yes, there are combos there on purpose. However remember this is balanced by a new tech unit costs 1 more IPC to produce per tech advancement. Also, other units on the board are stuck at original stats until the upgrade fee is paid. So this system is by no means a free lunch.

6) Which ones do you think are unrealistic? Why? Maybe I can explain them better.

7) I plan to add more detail in future revisions as I have time. I don't get to play very often sadly. Being married and having two children sort of saps my time.

[Doctor Strategy]

Interesting to say the least....I like some of the ideas...but some others should be shelved.

Overall, Nice to see the effort. But hey have you played with these rules yet young man?
If so, how did they work out?

Sadly DocD, I don't get to play very often being married and having two young children. I just like to try and come up with things to make the game more interesting. I am trying to get some of my friends to try the game out but everyone is always so busy. My regular opponent is a newcomer to the game and these would probably confuse him. These rules are meant for advanced players.

[DocD]

Hey docs...docd here...don't take anything I say that may offend you to heart ok...That goes for everyone on this board.
I consider myself a fair honest man and I don't want anyone to take offense to what I say.
I have opinions like all of you guys and mine is not necessarily better. I'm just for healthy debate which I believe is good for the game and the board. (otherwise, all sorts of crazy ideas would go unabated).

Anyway, docS's advanced rules have been dutifully noted.

[series]

Yes, and DocS, I will get into details when I have more time (I have to memorize the periodic table of elements tonight), but don't get me wrong, these rules are awesome.

I completely misunderstood your tech thingy because I thought you ONLY payed the 2 IPC per unit... anyway, now that I get it it sounds better. Like you said, stating that the original rules still were in place could have helped.

As for the Russians, in my variant at least, the russians defend at 1 but they can get more easily and they start with more... however, with all of your techs, I don't think that idea would work. It's fine with Japan only, but let's just think a second...

First of all, can artillery support on defense?

Secondly, if tanks are 2/2 and artillery is 2/2 and infantry is 1/1, wouldn't it be fair to say that Japan is screwed...?

[Doctor Strategy]

Yes, and DocS, I will get into details when I have more time (I have to memorize the periodic table of elements tonight), but don't get me wrong, these rules are awesome.

I completely misunderstood your tech thingy because I thought you ONLY payed the 2 IPC per unit... anyway, now that I get it it sounds better. Like you said, stating that the original rules still were in place could have helped.

As for the Russians, in my variant at least, the russians defend at 1 but they can get more easily and they start with more... however, with all of your techs, I don't think that idea would work. It's fine with Japan only, but let's just think a second...

First of all, can artillery support on defense?

Secondly, if tanks are 2/2 and artillery is 2/2 and infantry is 1/1, wouldn't it be fair to say that Japan is screwed...?

1)No, the artillery doesn't raise the infantry's attack on defense.

2)Japan pretty much was an air and naval power. Land battles weren't their bread and butter. This is a little more realistic as their technology was relatively antiquated. Japan only built mostly light and medium tanks so I felt that they deserved a downgrade to their armor strength as all tanks were not created equal. Plus on the plus side it may help deter JTDTM as their armor is slightly weaker. :)

By the way I clarified some things in the original posting so check it out.

[series]

yes, I had a 2/2 armor in Axis and Allies Advanced too, I agree completely there. I didn't have 1/1 infantry though, it just seems a bit scary. Perhaps advancing their sea/air units a bit...?

I think it might be fun if you revert to random techs, but you get to choose the catagory...?

[Doctor Strategy]

yes, I had a 2/2 armor in Axis and Allies Advanced too, I agree completely there. I didn't have 1/1 infantry though, it just seems a bit scary. Perhaps advancing their sea/air units a bit...?

I think it might be fun if you revert to random techs, but you get to choose the catagory...?

Well, I kinda gave them better NA to compensate for this. I see your point if you don't choose to play with NAs. These rules were meant to be for advanced players also.

Maybe we will have to look into maybe giving them an additional AC with a fighter on it for defense of mainland Japan. After all at the time of Pearl Harbor the Japanese had 3X the carriers that the US had. I think the US had 4-5 and that meant Japan had about 15. Maybe another fighter in Japan to start.

Maybe it could be fun. But if I was Japan I would sure want those reliable weapons. I believe you should know what you are trying for as the atom bomb didn't get developed by accident.

[Doctor Strategy]

I thinking about reducing aircraft movement during combat movement. The planes can ll have more movement during non-combat move. But the problem would be that SBRs could not be done very well.

A possible solution would be to put and airbase in every capital except Moscow. The Soviet's air base would be in Archangel. This would allow the SBRs between Britain and Germany to continue.

Discussion anyone?

[series]

Maybe we will have to look into maybe giving them an additional AC with a fighter on it for defense of mainland Japan.
Dude... in Advanced, theres an extra AC in Japan's sea zone too! However, no extra fighter, and it works good like that HOWEVER one must remember that in standard rules, the AC would be able to go to hawaii on J1, and West US on J2... pretty scary. That's why I have USA go first in Advanced, but then again, advanced has Italy...

Anyway, I think a carrier maybe in the interior sea zone of japan and the mainland could work...

[Doctor Strategy]

Dude... in Advanced, theres an extra AC in Japan's sea zone too! However, no extra fighter, and it works good like that HOWEVER one must remember that in standard rules, the AC would be able to go to hawaii on J1, and West US on J2... pretty scary. That's why I have USA go first in Advanced, but then again, advanced has Italy...

Anyway, I think a carrier maybe in the interior sea zone of japan and the mainland could work...

That's the general idea. If the US ignores Japan to go KGF look out Western USA. A couple of transports on J1 and look for a J3 invasion of the US.

[series]

That's the general idea. If the US ignores Japan to go KGF look out Western USA. A couple of transports on J1 and look for a J3 invasion of the US.

Yeah, too bad west USA can instantly get all those little men to appear! That's why I was thinking of creating a revised turn order...

[MasterHawk]

I don't like these rule changes... sorry. The technology is just too complicated for me... but I'm sure other people like it.

[Doctor Strategy]

Yeah, too bad west USA can instantly get all those little men to appear! That's why I was thinking of creating a revised turn order...

Yeah, that is true but if they do spend all their dough on men in Western USA then that takes some pressure off of Germany for a turn or two. Then maybe think about taking Alaska to further split his troops or cause more spending. Make enough of a nuisance of yourself and the USA may decide to attack. There it becomes all historical via a little harassment from Japan.

[Doctor Strategy]

Yeah, too bad west USA can instantly get all those little men to appear! That's why I was thinking of creating a revised turn order...

I wonder if the game would be adversly affected if when a round of play is over you reverse the order. Basically USA goes last on turn 1. The USA would go first on turn 2, Japan would go second and so on.... Repeat.

This seems to be fair when picking sides in any athletic competition. It helps to balance the sides a little more. Why not try it with A&A?

[series]

I wonder if the game would be adversly affected if when a round of play is over you reverse the order. Basically USA goes last on turn 1. The USA would go first on turn 2, Japan would go second and so on.... Repeat.

This seems to be fair when picking sides in any athletic competition. It helps to balance the sides a little more. Why not try it with A&A?

Or how about nations bid IPCs to choose their position in the round, sort of like Risk?

Your idea is okay, but I think giving America, out of anybody, 2 shots in a row, would be devestating.

[Doctor Strategy]

Or how about nations bid IPCs to choose their position in the round, sort of like Risk?

Your idea is okay, but I think giving America, out of anybody, 2 shots in a row, would be devestating.

Yes, they might be. They were in the real war. I just don't think its fair that they always go last. Plus if they go first, a few times, Japan can launch a surprise attack on Western USA that cannot be defended as the US already built for the turn.

Bids can make it more strategical but Russia would often go last because they have the least IPCs to spend. That would practically put a nail in their coffin.

Maybe if determined by rolling a die, you determine your order. Maybe modified a little giving a +1 or +2 to the roll for certain powers. The plus would only be used in the event of ties.

What do you think?

[series]

Yes, they might be. They were in the real war. I just don't think its fair that they always go last. Plus if they go first, a few times, Japan can launch a surprise attack on Western USA that cannot be defended as the US already built for the turn.

Bids can make it more strategical but Russia would often go last because they have the least IPCs to spend. That would practically put a nail in their coffin.

Maybe if determined by rolling a die, you determine your order. Maybe modified a little giving a +1 or +2 to the roll for certain powers. The plus would only be used in the event of ties.

What do you think?

Well, here's a little thing I was never planning on unveiling...

I pretty much worked out a "real-time" turn movement, in which everyone pretty much does everything at once. It was still turn based, but the turns were interweaved with eachother so to speak. Anyway, I thought it was an awesome idea. Maybe I should post it sometime...

Actually, the reason I never unveiled it was because I would be ripping it off from Arms Race: The Invasion of Earth, which is written by me (not released yet however), however, the "series real-time combat" system worked out wonderful in that game. I actually originally thought of it for A&A, but it worked so great in Arms Race.

[Doctor Strategy]

I have been working on Improved a little and started clarifying and changing some things. I should have new documents up soon for perusal if anyone cares to see or not.

[series]

I have been working on Improved a little and started clarifying and changing some things. I should have new documents up soon for perusal if anyone cares to see or not.

I'd like to see that.

[Doctor Strategy]

Well, here is the new and improved Improved A&A. :)

[DocD]

Interesting to say the least doc. alittle on the wild side and many changes I don't agree with, but overall not bad. I like some of the tech ideas.
I think you have germany V-2 rockets and rockets as a tech. alittle redundant?

[Doctor Strategy]

Interesting to say the least doc. alittle on the wild side and many changes I don't agree with, but overall not bad. I like some of the tech ideas.
I think you have germany V-2 rockets and rockets as a tech. alittle redundant?

One is used militarily and the other economically. Different purposes wouldn't you say. Maybe I will do away with generic rockets as there are already enough ways to do economic damage. I just have to think of a suitable general tech to replace it with.

[Doctor Strategy]

I am bumping this as there may be a few new members who haven't had the pleasure of viewing this. There is a fix for nearly everything and a little extra to boot. Any ideas on what you would improve in Improved? Likes or dislikes?

[series]

What does a blockade do? And also, why did you lower aircraft combat movement?

And I still dont get how to acquire techs...

Whoo! My 1,500th post!

[Doctor Strategy]

I lowered aircraft movement during combat only to negate bombers and fighters from striking subs and lone transports way out at sea and to be more realistic. The airbases added to the capitals and Archangel allows SBRs to happen still. I felt the ranges were to excessive and was simpler than partitioning off the board into more territories.

A blockade is when an enemy navy doesn't allow any ships to leave a territory and sink supply ships, warships, even aircraft that attempt to get by. Blockades were done throughout history and was the best advantage of having a powerful navy. It is a way to get a use out of your valuable navy once you decimate your enemy's navy in the game. It gets all units involved not just subs. :)

You aquire techs the same way as Revised. You choose a category. You pay your money for dice. And you roll and see if you hit the number you went for.

Hope I answered your questions.

[series]

I lowered aircraft movement during combat only to negate bombers and fighters from striking subs and lone transports way out at sea and to be more realistic. The airbases added to the capitals and Archangel allows SBRs to happen still. I felt the ranges were to excessive and was simpler than partitioning off the board into more territories.

A blockade is when an enemy navy doesn't allow any ships to leave a territory and sink supply ships, warships, even aircraft that attempt to get by. Blockades were done throughout history and was the best advantage of having a powerful navy. It is a way to get a use out of your valuable navy once you decimate your enemy's navy in the game. It gets all units involved not just subs. :)

You aquire techs the same way as Revised. You choose a category. You pay your money for dice. And you roll and see if you hit the number you went for.

Hope I answered your questions.


I dont get the "2 IPC per unit" thingy... (with techs)

And can you give me an example of a blockade in the game? I mean, if you are adjacent to the territory, doesnt that imply that the enemy has no ships in that sea zone? Or is a blockade the same exact thing as just moving your ships into a sea zone? Sorry for my confusion, but it seems that blockades in this game is adding something which is already there, but making a new name for it? Or is it really something new... please give an example....

[Doctor Strategy]

The 2 IPCs per unit is to upgrade your units on the board to the new technology. As new units would undoubtedly be produced with the new technology, the older units that are in existence will not have this technology without being upgraded. This is more realistic than all your subs now becoming super subs instantly if you get the tech or bombers in existence becoming heavy bombers without being refitted and excetera. This is a rule to inject a little realism into tech. Maybe I should consider leaving upgrading out if it is too confusing and say that existing units cannot be upgraded as they are now obsolete.

That is correct that the enemy would have no ships in the sea zone. Say the UK had a AC with one fighter on it and a destroyer in sea zone 36. That is French Indochina and has a production of 3 IPCs. So until Japan forcefully attacks or destroys the blockade they will only make 1 IPC production from the territory.

It is not the same thing as convoy raids. Any naval unit except unenhanced subs and transports can blockade any territory on the board. Not just near ICs. The only thing is that it must be in a sea zone directly adjacent to a land territory (see example above) or in the same sea zone as an island to blockade it (see example below).

Another example is the US player moves a battleship and a destroyer into sea zone 37. This contains the East Indies islands worth 4 IPCs. The blockade would cut the production in half to 2 IPCs per turn until it is removed via the ways outlined in the rules. If mainland Japan is somehow blockaded, they would only gain 4 IPCs from the mainland until the blockade is removed. Hope these examples help.

[series]

The 2 IPCs per unit is to upgrade your units on the board to the new technology. As new units would undoubtedly be produced with the new technology, the older units that are in existence will not have this technology without being upgraded. This is more realistic than all your subs now becoming super subs instantly if you get the tech or bombers in existence becoming heavy bombers without being refitted and excetera. This is a rule to inject a little realism into tech. Maybe I should consider leaving upgrading out if it is too confusing and say that existing units cannot be upgraded as they are now obsolete.

That is correct that the enemy would have no ships in the sea zone. Say the UK had a AC with one fighter on it and a destroyer in sea zone 36. That is French Indochina and has a production of 3 IPCs. So until Japan forcefully attacks or destroys the blockade they will only make 1 IPC production from the territory.

It is not the same thing as convoy raids. Any naval unit except unenhanced subs and transports can blockade any territory on the board. Not just near ICs. The only thing is that it must be in a sea zone directly adjacent to a land territory (see example above) or in the same sea zone as an island to blockade it (see example below).

Another example is the US player moves a battleship and a destroyer into sea zone 37. This contains the East Indies islands worth 4 IPCs. The blockade would cut the production in half to 2 IPCs per turn until it is removed via the ways outlined in the rules. If mainland Japan is somehow blockaded, they would only gain 4 IPCs from the mainland until the blockade is removed. Hope these examples help.


...my bad, I kept reading over the rule that said "The territory loses 1/2 of the IPC", so naturally it made no sense to me to blockade something if it gave you no benifit :confused: but now I get it. heh heh

Well, the 2 IPC thing I think is a waste. When do you pay this- before you get the tech? After? What if you spend all your IPC to get the tech? What if you just don't have enough IPC?

And as for blockades, I don't think Industrial Complexes should be blockadable, and I think a blockaded island should not be allowed to produce any IPC. Just my opinion :D

[Doctor Strategy]

Well, the 2 IPC thing I think is a waste. When do you pay this- before you get the tech? After? What if you spend all your IPC to get the tech? What if you just don't have enough IPC?

And as for blockades, I don't think Industrial Complexes should be blockadable, and I think a blockaded island should not be allowed to produce any IPC. Just my opinion :D

I guess you should maybe save money to upgrade your units if you are planning on getting a tech. You would pay after you get the tech. You can also upgrade a unit at an IC if it physically moves there and one IPC is spent to upgrade it and it cannot move for one turn to represent upgrading.

Why shouldn't an IC be blockadeable? It's where the most supply ships and planes will be coming in.

As far as islands go. Every net has holes and some smaller ones can slip through. Therefore eliminating all income is not realistic. Some supplies would still make it out or in no matter how tight the blockade is.

[Doctor Strategy]

I think in response to subs vs. planes warfare. I am going to remove the undetectable by all unless DD present. Instead when a sub is attacked by aircraft only it will need to roll a die. On a roll of 1 or 2 the sub can dive to avoid combat with the planes. This is more historical as the majority of subs spent most of their time on the surface and dove to try to avoid the aircraft. What do you think? Would this be a reasonable solution?

[Doctor Strategy]

Here is the latest changes made to Improved Axis and Allies. The documents are available for downloading.

[Doctor Strategy]

Here is a synopsis of changes that were made.

1. All carrier based aircraft are now just that. They cannot leave the carrier and become land based fighters. Also if the carrier is destroyed, and there isn't a carrier within range, the fighters are lost.

2. Subs can only be attacked the following without a destroyer being present: Carrier based aircraft and land based bombers.

3. Subs can make a roll to avoid combat with aircraft only. The subs must be solo or with other subs for this to work. On a roll of 1 or 2 on a D6, the sub may dive and avoid being attacked. I forgot to add that 1 die may be rolled per sub that is attacked.

4. Replaced Portable Radar with Improved targeting in Air Technology. This allows bombers to choose a target but their attack drops to a 3 or less.

5. Replaced Rockets with Shore batteries in General Technology. This allows the territory containing an IC and shorelines to fire one shot at passing naval units at 2 or less. The units may be moving during combat or non-combat movement. One shot may be directed per adjacent sea zone to the land territory.

This sums up changes which I think may make Improved better. Let me know what you guys think.

[Doctor Strategy]

Is this variant too complex?

What don't you like about it?

What do you like about Improved?

Some feedback would be helpful. Comments anyone. I'd even welcome a post from Cousin Joe? :eek:

[Doctor Strategy]

I just had an idea about changing tech acquisition. It seems to me that IPCs are too limited in the game. One could always increase the IPCs given to countries but balancing it would be tricky. It seems not many players are going to spend a lot of money on a chance breakthrough. Here is my proposal that I may incorporate into Improved.

Each Industrial Complex that you own provides one development point. The IC must not be SBR'ed or just captured to provide its point. When you get a set number of points such as eight, you may choose a tech that you want.

This may cause a lot of ICs to be bought but may get tech into a game finally. Based upon a ten turn game, a side may get up to three techs to use during the game.

Or : I may assign point values to all of the techs instead of reaching a set number. Lesser techs would cost less and hence be less useful but you could use them sooner.

Both ideas allow tech to be developed over a series of turns and does not cost any valuable IPCs to anyone other than purchasing additional ICs.

Maybe a cap limiting production should be used (this assumes that additional ICs are purchased): 4 pts for the US and Germany per turn, 3 pts for the UK, and 2 pts for Russia and Japan.

I will have to revise my techs if someone thinks this is a good idea.

[DocD]

Ok, Doc S, I looked over Improved and I must say, not bad.

Unfortunately, I am one of the Evil Emperor's foot soldiers and he has a very good hold of me with his "Darkside-force". So, unfortunately I won't be playtesting Improved anytime soon. But hey, you got some good stuff there and I would encourage you to continue to "market it". Good luck and let me know how things are going.

[Doctor Strategy]

Thanks for checking it out DocD. I may have to streamline it a little more as there may be too much stuff in it. On the lines of obtaining tech, I had another idea that maybe tech points should be gained on the ratio of 1/10 of the nations current IPC total. All fractional remainders are discarded. This rewards capturing territories but I may have to set the scale a little higher or tech could be a little hard to keep track of.

[Nuclear]

The idea sounds good.

[Doctor Strategy]

Since polls on changing tech aquisition is still pending, I cannot implement any changes as of yet. However, I have now formatted Improved in MS Word Doc format. It is a lot easier to read than the txt versions. Enjoy.

[luke swensen]

Doc., these are really about the same ones that our group plays with only with some minor changes. We don't always allow everything to be up greated with some things. Example: planes into fighters, regular tanks into heavey armored tanks. If you wanted these things you had to buy them after you get the tech. they would be different from existing units.

[Doctor Strategy]

Luke,

I'm glad you gave Improved a look. What are some things you like about Improved? What do you think needs some tweaking? What about some things you just don't like or understand?

I can see where the exceptions of not allowing upgrading tanks or plane to jets can be utilized effectively. I was thinking of instituting an obsolete technology effect but in the end decided it may have been too complex for people to understand. Most people don't want to be bogged down in a long game unfortunately. I say if you're going to spend a half an hour setting up A+A, you might as well play awhile to get your money's worth.

[Doctor Strategy]

I changed Improved to allow for technology to enter into the game more easily. Some other errors and clarifications were made as well. Enjoy.