aare n/a deployment

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

would you be in favour of having the option to delay your national advantages?

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

i believe this allows for a more fluid strategy that is allowed to progress with the game. some critics believe that it causes conservative game play and like the idea of picking a strategy at the beginning and stick with it no matter what.

there is a trade off of having the option to get to wait to choose your advantage, with a draw back of one less turn with a national advantage.

i think most will agree that this gives the axis a very minor advantage. any advantage to the axis would help balance the game.

if you like the idea of delaying the the national advantage but think there should be a cost associated please post ideas.

[DocD]

I'm against it love. Here's why....so many of the NA's are only useful over time. What sense does it make to pull Pacific Divisions out of your hat in round 5 or 6? The earlier the NA comes into play the better. I think this off sets any would be "strategy change" the player may gain by waiting.

Also CJ brought this out before. Is it fair to the other player to have to try and defend against every possiblity that could be thrown their way?
If Germany waits until after the Allies have reconquered Africa to bring out their Afrika Corps, is this really fair to the Allied player? I guess one could argue that the fewer IPCs Germany would surely reap would be its own internal balancer, but I'm not sold on that either.

Options are good, but not in this form.

Now, if someone wants to increase the # of NAs....I'm all for it. :)

[pagan]

I am against delaying the NAs.

[cousin_joe]

Sorry guys, goota say no on this one. Here's why:

In the AH version, when a player rolled for Tech and was successful, the Tech would come into effect IMMEDIATELY! This was a bad situation, especially for competitive play, because one lucky LRA tech roll, and a player could instantly sink a fleet of transports you thought was safe (not to mention Sealion).

Furthermore, players would constantly have to be thinking through what-if scenarios, like what if my opponent gets HB, or what if they get LRA? How can this change the odds of a battle? The end result is people playing a more CONSERVATIVE game, as there are so many more POSSIBILITIES to defend against.

Of course, this was all fixed in LHTR, with Delayed Tech, but now with Enhanced, we've reintroduced the NAs, and rather than just having them randomly assigned, or picked pregame, we wanted to maximize their strategic impact which is done by allowing players to choose them as the game goes along, thus being able to make the best informed decisions possible based on the current game environment. Also, by having each player decide in turn, they will have the previous nation's NA to consider into their decision. This makes for a lot of strategy and counterstrategy.

The problem with NAs in Enhanced though, like Tech in AH, is that they have an IMMEDIATE effect, and once again, you FORCE opponents to start defending against POSSIBILITIES. Not only is it ANNOYING and TIME-CONSUMING to have to consider ALL of the NAs your opponent MIGHT use, but it also results in a more CONSERVATIVE game, with greater tendency to INF purchases, stacking, slower advances, and playing it safe... all things that we're trying to get away from in Enhanced. :(

For example, let's say it's US 2, and Japan has decided to hold it's 2nd NA. US wants to add to it's Pacific fleet it purchased in Round 1, but is also thinking of moving it's US1 fleet forward to take an island. Well, Japan could use it's held NA on J3, which would have an IMMEDIATE effect, and could be any of Kamis, Kaitens, SS, JP, LRA, CA, Yamato BBs, TE, Kaitens. That's a LOT OF POSSIBILITIES the US would have to consider Japan coming back at them with, and for all intents and purposes, it's like Japan has ALL OF THESE NAs when the US is considering it's move on US2. :eek: So what's USA going to do, probably just sit back on the WUS SZ and stack up their Navy (ie. play conservatively), maybe wait to see if Japan will deploy their NA on J3 and thus have a better idea of what to do.

Bottom Line: Having Delayed Deployment of NAs results in players needing to defend against so many more POSSIBILITIES, which in turn results in a more CONSERVATIVE game. :(

[axis_roll]

I am surprised, CJ as Enhanced is all about CHOICES!

Yet you vehemently shoot down another choice, all in the name of 'restricting' conservative game play.

It's already known that the axis almost HAVE to strike hard and fast while the iron is hot. Allied economic advantage will win in the long game.... so WHY would ANYONE in their right mind delay deployment of their NA? CRAZY thoughts, I know...

The only reason would be to gain a small bit of tatical advantage. I still maintain this should be an option, but at a cost (I propose a DY suggested payment schedule of $1 for the first turn of delay, $2 for the second round of delay, $3 for the third round, etc)

It;s a close poll at the moment....

[DY]

Just to be clear, my idea was based on triangular numbers, so for example if you delay 3 turns you would pay 1+2+3=6 IPCs to delay your NA.

Now the question is whether this $6 should be paid immediately upon NA deployment, or if you should pay a $1 penalty the first turn you choose not to deploy, followed by a $2 penalty the next time you delay, etc...

[pagan]

I am against the delay.
These things seem an unecessary thing. The counting & the tracking....


If there are charges then it would be upon the round involved.
SUMmed factorial (!) of rounds {this is what DY is talking about}

If I choose not to use my NA on round 1, then that is a $1 charge
If I do the same on round 2, then that is a $2 charge

on round 5 I decide to use my round 1 NA: 1rnd+2rnd+3rnd+4rnd = $10

[DocD]

Factorial concept....naw.

Still too much of an advantage to Axis and not needed.

[pagan]

Try as I might, I don't see the advantage.....

I think the advantage lies in the presumtion that there might be one.

[axis_roll]

Try as I might, I don't see the advantage.....

I think the advantage lies in the presumtion that there might be one.
That's funny ccause CJ think's it's TOO much of an advantage :)

Anyways... you too maybe right Pagan as for the most part, I would NOT delay my NA deployment, ESPECIALLY if it costs me money to wait.

A major reason I might use this is for Naval combat advantage, specifically in the Pacific. I can hold either Kamis or Kaitens (or the threat of them) in my back pocket to help keep the US fleet at bay. Of course 1 turn of waiting would cost me $1 (turn 3 choice), if I made a choice on turn 4, that would cost me $3 (1+2), if I waited until turn 5 it would cost me $6 (1+2+3), turn 6 would cost me $10 (1+2+3+4)... until I've most likely priced myself right out of an NA.

BTW, this is how DY suggested a cost structure would work, and I like it. You should have to pay more to delay more, on an increasing cost scale. I believe the cost should be incurred WHEN you make your choice... so if I wanted to, I could decide the second NA is too costly and never use it, no $ penalty, I just lost an NA.

The question is more about strategic choices. I've read CJ's arguements, and I respect them, but it's funny how he preaches about Enhanced being about strategic choices but dislikes THIS idea :eek: which is merely meant to add another option.

[cousin_joe]

Two more reasons why I'm against Delayed NA Deployment:


2. I want players to lay all their cards on the table when they play Enhanced. They have to pick a strategy and go with it. There should be enough "tells" in the early game to figure out what your opponent is up to. If your opponent minimizes the power of your NA choice via a change in strategy, then all the power to him... he's made a smart move. I don't want players coming around and minimizing the impact of that. Players have every opportunity to anticipate what their opponent might do, and should be responsible for the decisions they make... they shouldn't have an "Ace in the Hole" so to speak, that saves them from a poor decision. :(


3. They're called National Advantages, not National Techs :) They are attributes or abilities posessed by that nation, and thus they should start with those attributes or abilities (or at least have them early on ;) ). The whole implementation mechanic seems kinda screwy when you are saying you have to pay IPCs to keep a National Advantage from NOT kicking in??? :confused: HUH?!? For all these reasons, I think NA deployment should stay as is.

[cousin_joe]

The question is more about strategic choices. I've read CJ's arguements, and I respect them, but it's funny how he preaches about Enhanced being about strategic choices but dislikes THIS idea :eek: which is merely meant to add another option.

I do like options, but not if they are in direct contradiction to some of the major themes in Enhanced, one of which is to get away from the conservative, stacking style of play we see in AH/LHTR, or as I say it... Less Stacking, More Attacking!!! :)

Here's the deal. Let's say Japan takes Banzais as it's first NA. Now on J2, it decides to wait a turn. On US2, USA wants to advance it's Navy in the Pacific, and add to it, but has no idea what to buy, as Japan has an NA in it's back pocket, that could severely hurt the US plan.

eg. If US goes SUB heavy... Japan will get Tokyo Express or Combined Arms
If US goes AC heavy... Japan will go Kamikaze or Kaitens
If US goes DD heavy... Japan will go Yamatos or Jet Power

Anything the US does will be easily countered by Japan with it's free NA in hand. So instead of going heavy with SUBs, ACs, or DDs, US will be forced to play it conservative, and either wait and see what Japan does, OR, play it conservative and go for a mixed Navy... either way, the variation in strategy is killed OR the US is forced to play too Conservative.

A similar argument can be made for Germany delaying NAs on the Eastern Front. Delaying an NA is a HUGE advantage as the Allies have to be prepared to suddenly respond to a change in strategy. Imagine if the Allies go heavy Pacific against Japan, and light in the Atlantic. Then on G3, the Germans pull out Wolfpack and Super Subs, and suddenly the Allies are screwed :eek:

Delayed NAs is a big advantage for the Axis. I think it would pretty much eliminate the need for a bid, sort of like the Russia Restricted Rule for 2nd Edition.

[DocD]

Wait....did you say "eliminate the bid?".

LOL:D Change my vote to YES!! DELAY NA!!!

[pagan]

Its not an advantage.

0. Japan needs transports (An IC is a free one for the allies! but if youbuy one it needs units which means no/little navy)
1. Purchases must be bought and placed.
2. If you want TE, then you need to buy them
3. if you want Kaitans, then you need to buy/save for them + J2 could select it after US1 purchase
4. if you want Kamis - US1 purchase doesn't matter if Japan selects it on J2 anyway
5. if you want Yamatos.. US should think 'so what' its still a BB with 2 hits
6. if you want Jet Power.. pertty good defensively, but otherwise a waste to killing anything US naval wise , and as a tech could be bought actually but that is a waste of IPCs for Japan
7. German super subs would be a precursor from a Japan NA? In any case, they could buy the tech whenever they want on any round they want
8. German wolfpacks only works with multiple sub purchases. doesn't germany have to buy subs? Where's the devastating strategy destroying surprise at?
9. German Wolfpack + Super Subs is a waste. better for the allies.

[TomJag3]

I wouldn't mind having the option to wait before calling my sna. In one of my games, I'd planned on getting Russian Lend Lease on turn 2. However, I'd forgotten to post it so I ended up taking Commonwealth instead. Being able to wait a turn might influence an opponent's strategy, in this case, Germany.

On the other hand, it's nice to get the sna's out of the way and get the game underway.

[axis_roll]

I wouldn't mind having the option to wait before calling my sna. In one of my games, I'd planned on getting Russian Lend Lease on turn 2. However, I'd forgotten to post it so I ended up taking Commonwealth instead. Being able to wait a turn might influence an opponent's strategy, in this case, Germany.

On the other hand, it's nice to get the sna's out of the way and get the game underway.
I can argree with both arguements. I just feel that with the appropriate cost attached to delaying an NA, we'd be just adding another option to an already excellent rule set.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

a cost to delay nas is an option. however i think it would be best to have delayed nas at no cost.

i believe that delaying an na selection can help the axis more often than it can the allies. anything to help the axis without map or set up changes is a good thing.

delaying the na selection is not complicated and changes no original rules. it only alters a rule that aare has already altered.

the main reason to delay tech is to add more decisions but a very good side effect is helping to bring down the bid. can you imagine a game so balanced where by you have to specify which side you are bidding for? this is one step in the right direction

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

6:12pm on feb 1.

hmm pretty close poll. with doc changing his vote it is 7 votes in favour of allowing delayed na's with 6 against. too bad one of the 6 is joe(as his is the only vote that really matters)

[Vollick1979]

Well I don't really see how joe's vote counts for more than any other vote. I mean if the voting was 12-1 with joe being the only dissenter it wouldn't be hard to simply change the rules despite joe's protests! ;) Of course for the sake of convention there needs to be a common ruleset.

[cousin_joe]

With their Powerful Military Might NAs, it is the Axis, more than ever, who will Dictate where and how the war will be fought. The Allies have a more Reactionary Role, and will have to Counter or React to what Germany and Japan show them.

If Germany shows Heavy SUBs, the Allies need to counter in the Atlantic. If they show Heavy Africa, the Allies need to get Operation Torch running quickly. If they show Heavy Russia, the Allies need to take the pressure off by threatening WEur. Likewise, if Japan shows Kamis, US knows ACs are vulnerable. If Japan shows super Subs, the US knows they'll need some DDs, etc.

What if Germany and Japan show nothing? How are the Allies supposed to react then??? The Allies have to be prepared for ALL possibilities, knowing the Axis can spring anything on them. This is a HUGE advantage for Axis :eek:

I had the NAs declared one at a time for a reason. So that one can base their move on their opponent's previous move, as it does have a bearing on what you might do. It's all about strategy and counterstrategy, but how are you supposed to counterstrategizing, when you don't even know how your opponent is strategizing.

One last comment from the other thread:


They're called National Advantages, not National Techs :) They are attributes or abilities posessed by that nation, and thus they should start with those attributes or abilities (or at least have them early on ;) ). The whole implementation mechanic seems kinda screwy when you are saying you have to pay IPCs to keep a National Advantage from NOT kicking in??? HUH?!? For all these reasons, I think NA deployment should stay as is.

[cousin_joe]

Wait....did you say "eliminate the bid?".

LOL:D Change my vote to YES!! DELAY NA!!!

DocD, you're what they call one of them flip-floppers :D .

Don't worry, with the original setup as is, there's no way the bid can be eliminated. Germany desperately needs an extra 1-2 units in Libya so that they have decent odds of taking Egypt with 3-4 ground units after G2, thus being more likely to hold off the UK counter on UK2.

[DocD]

Hey CJ! I did vote against the Delay NA option before I voted for it!

As far as the bid thingy, you haven't convinced me it is really fair for the Axis to get one.

But I have decided that for OUR game I will take a 1 or two unit bid for the Axis.
It will make my victory all the more filling when I pistol-whip you with your own pistol!

Hey how soon before you finish up some of those games of yours?

[Stephen]

Well I don't really see how joe's vote counts for more than any other vote. I mean if the voting was 12-1 with joe being the only dissenter it wouldn't be hard to simply change the rules despite joe's protests! ;)
You're right Vollick, it's not like this is the Canadian Cabinet or anything :D

[pagan]

More like the Japanese cabinet where people get blindsided & decked !

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

Don't worry, with the original setup as is, there's no way the bid can be eliminated. Germany desperately needs an extra 1-2 units in Libya so that they have decent odds of taking Egypt with 3-4 ground units after G2, thus being more likely to hold off the UK counter on UK2.
why say that the bid can not be reduced or eliminated. with current rules you are correct. but if you tweak rules, such as na deployment we can get closer to one of aares goals of game balance.

[Vollick1979]

I think if you really wanted no bid just switch the tank and artillery pieces in Libya and Algeria. This simple change alone would do so much for Germany in Africa.

And Joe what's the big deal with small changes to the intial setup if the end result would be a zero bid game?

What if Germany and Japan show nothing? How are the Allies supposed to react then??? The Allies have to be prepared for ALL possibilities, knowing the Axis can spring anything on them. This is a HUGE advantage for Axis


Well joe if the Axis powers need the military NA's to win then it doesn't make sense for them to wait on taking them. The longer the game goes the more likely the Allied IPC advantage will catch up to the Axis. BUT if the Axis do decide to wait then the Allies can do the same, wait them out. OR they can take the NA's that everyone is writing about: Coloniol Garrison, Commonwealth, and Pacific Divisions and really put the hammer down on Japan. In my mind delaying NA's isn't the HUGE advantage you make it out to be.

[newaxis]

Speaking of small changes to setup, I think one of the best changes would be to move the Japanese transport off the coast of Kwantung to Japan. Then Japan could invade Hawaii in force turn 1 and not have its transport be sunk be UK every single game.

The Japanese transport off Kwantung reminds me of the 2nd edition German transport and submarine that got killed by Russian fighters first round every game if you didn't play restricted attack. My 2 cents. I must say, however, that I have to grudgingly agree with cousin joe's stated desire not to change the default setup, at this point anyway.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

both vollicks and newaxis small setup changes would be great at balancing the game.

i personally would like those two changes(just thinking in my head without actual playtests that this could make the game have bids of less than 3 for either axis or ALLIES)

but with trying to have game uniformity setup changes probably wont be accepted by joe.

[Vollick1979]

Having uniformity with an inferior product only diminishes the sparkle of a true gem in enhanced.

If you say it that way maybe joe will accept the changes! ;)

[Stephen]

Speaking of small changes to setup, I think one of the best changes would be to move the Japanese transport off the coast of Kwantung to Japan. Then Japan could invade Hawaii in force turn 1 and not have its transport be sunk be UK every single game.

The Japanese transport off Kwantung reminds me of the 2nd edition German transport and submarine that got killed by Russian fighters first round every game if you didn't play restricted attack. My 2 cents. I must say, however, that I have to grudgingly agree with cousin joe's stated desire not to change the default setup, at this point anyway.
I like the fact that, in AAR, Russia and UK need to be a little aggressive on their first turn, and that's why that transport is where it is. Move it, and UK's strategy in the Indian Ocean is based around the survival of its fleet. This is a dramatic change!

I do agree with switching the German art and arm in Africa, that would make a big difference and is relatively simple.

What else... how about exchanging one Kwangtung inf for an artillery? Just a little more firepower when attacking China J1.

[pagan]

Japan navy -- let is sit where it is and die where it sits

Kwangtung ART -- I have no opinion {by deafult that means 'no' i guess]

Lybia increased by 1INF but pulled from UKRAINE

[DocD]

I agree again with Pagan Skywalker!!

[DY]

I like the fact that, in AAR, Russia and UK need to be a little aggressive on their first turn, and that's why that transport is where it is. Move it, and UK's strategy in the Indian Ocean is based around the survival of its fleet. This is a dramatic change!

I do agree with switching the German art and arm in Africa, that would make a big difference and is relatively simple.

What else... how about exchanging one Kwangtung inf for an artillery? Just a little more firepower when attacking China J1.

I agree 100%, that Transport needs to stay where it is. moving it would reduce strategic options for the Allies.

I can also see that the Arm-Rtl swap could reduce the bid for the Axis to <$6.

Not convinced about the Kwa INF<->RTL swap

[cousin_joe]

both vollicks and newaxis small setup changes would be great at balancing the game.

i personally would like those two changes(just thinking in my head without actual playtests that this could make the game have bids of less than 3 for either axis or ALLIES)

but with trying to have game uniformity setup changes probably wont be accepted by joe.

Sorry AWNIL,

No setup changes are planned for Enhanced :(

But I do think you'll be interested in my next variant, which should be out very soon, and you can feel free to suggest all the unit setup changes you want :)

And here's something else, it should be playable on TripleA, and sgb really likes the idea :)

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

now that people have had a chance to play aare 3.0 and joe has taken this suggestion into action, what do people think?

especially those that voted no in the poll

[Guerrilla Guy]

I forgot who asked earlier in this thread or if B_Anderrson has already posted his NA's on the forum but here was his remake of NA's....

3. Conscripts (replace Mobile Industry)
The Red Army won many battles with their raw manpower, by using untrained infantry and many times unequipped.
During your mobilize new units phase, you may place one of your infantry for free in any red territory if you control it. This free unit is in addition to the group of units you just purchased.

4. Salvage (revised)
After the battle of Kursk in 1943, the Germans left the shells of their wrecked tanks behind. The Soviets found interesting uses for them.
If you win a battle against the German player and at least one German tank is destroyed, you may place one free Soviet tank in that territory.

5. Katyusha Rockets (replace Lend-Lease)
The Soviets were able to supplement the artillery with massed batteries of rocket launchers. The sheer volume of fire more than compensated for individual lack of accuracy.
Your artillery attacks on a 3, for the first combat cycle only. Thereafter, only one artillery unit can retain this increased attack factor of 3.

1. U-Boat Program (replace U-Boat Interdiction)
Determined to undermine the Allies’ supply chain, Germany eventually endorsed a program of shipbuilding. As a result a fleet of U-boats were built in an attempt to starve Britain.
Your submarines now cost 6 IPC's and have the ability of Allied supply line interdiction. After the US collect income phase, the U.K. and U.S. player must subtract 1 IPC to the bank for each of your submarines on the game board. The maximum combined Allied loss by interdiction is 8 IPC’s in one round of play.

3. Panzergrenadiers (replace Panzerblitz)
During World War II, the Germans had troops that were designed for fighting alongside tanks. These were fully motorized units, so that they could at all times keep up with the tanks.
Each of your tanks give one matching infantry one additional movement allowance. The tank and the infantry unit must leave from the same territory.

4. Tiger Tank Battalions (replace Wolf Packs)
The massively powerful Tiger tanks were assigned to heavy tank battalions to support other units for special operations, to be deployed en masse for decisive shock action.
You may build three tank units as Tiger tanks, but only one per turn. A Tiger tank attack and defends on a 4 or less. Each Tiger tank costs 6 IPC's and may be rebuilt if destroyed. Tigers have a movement capability of 2, but cannot blitz as regular tanks.

5. Blitzkrieg (replace Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers)
German warfare combined the use of mobile units with the close support of airpower into a steel juggernaut emphasize speedy movement and maximization of battlefield opportunities.
When a fighter attacks along with a tank, their attack increases to 4 respectively. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The increased attack ability is for the first cycle of combat only and is cancelled if defending fighters are present.


4. British Commonwealth Troops (replace Mideast Oil)
The British Commonwealth Troops served in all theatres in World War II - from Europe to North Africa to South-East Asia.
During your mobilize new units phase, you may place one of your infantry for free in one of the following territories if you control it: India, Western Canada, Eastern Canada, Australia, South Africa, Anglo-Egypt, or New Zealand. If the teritory contains an industrial complex, you can mobilize nomore units than the income value of that territory.

2. Kamikaze Attacks (revised)
A terrifying development was the Japanese suicide tactics as a desperate means of slowing the Allied advance. The Japanese used pilots who only knew how to take off and dive into their target with an aircraft full of explosives.
You may convert your fighters to kamikaze – suicide – aircraft to perform kamikaze attacks on any naval target of your chosing, except submarines. Such an aircraft have a range of 2 and may only be launched from Japan or Okinawa. Kamikaze attacks must be declared during combat movement turn and you receives 2 IPC´s from the bank for each converted fighter. A kamikaze attack takes place during the opening fire step of the first cycle of combat and automatically hits the chosen target, but the chosen target may defend first. If a target chosen is an aircraftcarrier with at least one aircraft onboard, the aircraftcarrier defends on a 4 or less. More over, one hit is sufficient to sink a battleship. The defending target may defend against many kamikaze attacks, but may not counterattack any other attacking units. A kamikaze aircraft may not be taken as a casualty, as kamikaze aircrafts are destroyed when they make their attack.

3. Floatplane Fighters (replace Kaiten Torpedoes)
With an empire stretching across thousands of kilometers of the Pacific, the Japanese specialized in good floatplane fighters.
Your fighters may treat islands you control and adjacent sea zones as one. Therefore your fighters can travel in and out from an island or island group you control at no cost of movement. An island or island group is a territory located entirely inside one sea zone.

4. Dreadnoughts (replace Lightning Assaults)
Dreadnoughts or leviathans like Yamato and Musashi were the largest and most powerful battleships the world has ever seen.
Your battleships attack and defend on 5.

5. Fanatic Resistance (replace Dug-In Defenders)
The fanatic willingness to die for the Emperor was a terrifying feature of Japanese fighting men in all theatres.
All your infantry defend on a 3 during the first cycle of combat.

6. Fugo Raid (replace Banzai Attacks)
Japan used balloon bombs, supposed to set fire to and drop antipersonnel bombs randomly on the U.S. There was even a plan to use balloons in order to attack the enemy with plague.
Once during the game you can launch a Fugo Raid to reduce enemy industrial production. A Fugo raid must be launched during your mobilize new units phase and from an antiaircraft gun, which may attack an industrial complex within 4 spaces. There is no defense against this attack. The Fugo Raid causes both an economic and a military setback. The opponent must surrender the territory's income value in IPC's to the bank (or as many as the player has), and no units can be built in this territory on your enemy's next turn.

1. Lend-Lease Program (replace Island Bases)
During World War II, the U.S. military began administrating what became known as the "lend-lease program". In this program, the U.S. gifted its allies with an array of military equipment and munitions, including ships.
During your mobilize new units phase, you can convert one U.S. unit to an equivalent U.K. or Soviet unit. The conversion can only take place on an allied territory containing an industrial complex or in a sea zone adjacent to it. Remove the affected unit from play and replace it with the same unit of your allys´ color.

4. Motorized Army (revised)
With its fleet of trucks, the U.S. Army was the most mobile force of soldiers in World War II.
Your infantry and artillery have a move of 2 and may blitz as tanks do.

5. Liberty Ship Program (replace Fast Carriers)
In 1941, the U.S. embarked on a massive expansion of the merchant marine fleet under the auspices of the Emergency Shipbuilding Program. The standard Liberty ship was the centerpiece of this program.
Your transports now cost 6 IPC's.

6. Superfortresses (revised)
The B-29 Superfortress carried the biggest standard bomb load of any wartime bomber.
Your bombers each roll one additional die when conducting a strategic bombing raid.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

hi guerrilla, those are neat ideas but they are not what i was asking about. i was wondering about delaying aare nas

[Guerrilla Guy]

AWNIL I know,I was resoponding to DocD who mentioned increasing the number of NA's

[Sihr_Togg]

I would just like to add:

1. Don't forget you can only delay your second NA. So half of your NA's are alreaddy known to your opponent. That might alreaddy give away your strategy. One could always base his turn/counter NAs on the alreaddy chosen NA.

2. I think that delayence of NAs gives more choices and gives the Allies the advantage of waiting to see what the Axis chose. Axis cannot afford waiting with NA's because they need to be fast in AARe: the longer you wait the slimmer your chances. And the Axis main stategy always is taking out Russia, so the NAs don't really give away their strategy, while Commonwealth does give away the Allies strategy. This all means the option for NA delaying is at least also an advantage for the Allies.

3a. If the NA is delayed there is no 'surprise' element anymore, because NA comes into affect at the mobilize new units phase when delayed. So an Allies player doesn't have to mind the what-ifs for defending a fleet or territory.
3b. Naval Advantage NA is tech, that means on J3 for example you get 16IPC for a tech, on J4 you roll for the tech, on the end of J4 your tech comes into affect (if you were lucky or paid an extra $8, otherwise turn5), at the start of J5 (lucky or +$8, otherwise turn 6) you can use your tech offensively. I think this is a big Japanese disadvantage of delaying your 2nd NA: you can use your tech on J5 earliest That gives the Allies enough time to react on it, doesn't it?

4a. Changing the standard setup is not a good idea. If you change this, you could change a lot more to the setup that would be 'a great advantage for the bid'. You could remove all the round 1 bites for all sides so it would be 'a lot better', but they all offer a nice strategic option of how to take them all out on the first turn, what bites are worth it and what are not? Like on J1 you don't have enough fgts to cover all battles properly: Haw, EPO, Chi, Indian Fleet.
4b. The Kwa trn is also a nice one, UK has to take it out (or not, also an option of course), but how? many options, taking it out with the fgt and land in Ind again sacrificing the fgt for making it a harder air cover for J1, but you can also attack sub in SOS (force submerge and kill @2) and land the fgt on USA AC in EPO, great for a pearl counter. Hard for Japan to take both EPO and Haw.
4c. The Africa rtl arm switch isn't good too: it means that Egy can be taken without a disadvantage if you don't place a bid there: africa bid is more or less useless. Now trn EJS seems to be a pretty good one. And the disadvantage is that you must take out the DD in EMD with bb, trn (optional fgt) to drop more units in Egy, and thus taking out the BB in WMD with air (optional sub) or risk losing 1-2 fgt in Egy. :eek:

5. Adding a penalty is a hard way of trying to force one to chose his NAs immediately, with a !-eqiation you could aswell say: max delay = 1 turn. However both (penalty or max delay) are not a good solution, because delaying a NA has alreaddy built in penalties: you lose the surprise element (comes into affect during MobNewUnits phase) and are missing the use of 1NA during the rounds you are delaying them. This is for dropping/price reduction NAs a big penalty aswell as for others like:
-Naval Advantage; explained before,
-Panzer Blitz; inefficient trading in early rounds,
-Tokyo Express; inability of early DD inf transporting, which is especially useful in the start: getting inf of the islands.
-Banzai; later in the game you will need other land units aswell like arm, Banzai is very efficient on the first turn: inf drop and Chi attack.

6. Congratulations to all who have taken the time to read all my thoughts. Hopefully you will do something with it. Reactions are very welcome.

[cousin_joe]

I would just like to add:

1. Don't forget you can only delay your second NA. So half of your NA's are alreaddy known to your opponent. That might alreaddy give away your strategy. One could always base his turn/counter NAs on the alreaddy chosen NA.

This is where some strategy comes into play. As Axis, do I reveal my main NA immediately, or do I wait til Round 2. On round 2, do I reveal the NA now, or do I wait another turn and keep my opponent guessing (or wait to see what he does).


2. I think that delayence of NAs gives more choices and gives the Allies the advantage of waiting to see what the Axis chose. Axis cannot afford waiting with NA's because they need to be fast in AARe: the longer you wait the slimmer your chances. And the Axis main stategy always is taking out Russia, so the NAs don't really give away their strategy, while Commonwealth does give away the Allies strategy. This all means the option for NA delaying is at least also an advantage for the Allies.

It's still a bigger advantage for the Axis. First there's 2 NAs to delay. Second, the Allies rely on a lot of counter-play - waiting to see what Axis does. If Axis does not show all their cards immediately, then the Allies have to cover all the possiblities.

When an NA is revealed, a player must choose to match it strength for strength, or look for the weakness. With no NA revealed, then they have to take a more general, broad-based approach, which can hurt them in the long run


3a. If the NA is delayed there is no 'surprise' element anymore, because NA comes into affect at the mobilize new units phase when delayed. So an Allies player doesn't have to mind the what-ifs for defending a fleet or territory.
3b. Naval Advantage NA is tech, that means on J3 for example you get 16IPC for a tech, on J4 you roll for the tech, on the end of J4 your tech comes into affect (if you were lucky or paid an extra $8, otherwise turn5), at the start of J5 (lucky or +$8, otherwise turn 6) you can use your tech offensively. I think this is a big Japanese disadvantage of delaying your 2nd NA: you can use your tech on J5 earliest That gives the Allies enough time to react on it, doesn't it?.

The loss of surprise balances delaying nicely. Delaying still is nice though, especially for NAs you know you can afford to delay.


4a. Changing the standard setup is not a good idea. If you change this, you could change a lot more to the setup that would be 'a great advantage for the bid'. You could remove all the round 1 bites for all sides so it would be 'a lot better', but they all offer a nice strategic option of how to take them all out on the first turn, what bites are worth it and what are not? Like on J1 you don't have enough fgts to cover all battles properly: Haw, EPO, Chi, Indian Fleet.
4b. The Kwa trn is also a nice one, UK has to take it out (or not, also an option of course), but how? many options, taking it out with the fgt and land in Ind again sacrificing the fgt for making it a harder air cover for J1, but you can also attack sub in SOS (force submerge and kill @2) and land the fgt on USA AC in EPO, great for a pearl counter. Hard for Japan to take both EPO and Haw.
4c. The Africa rtl arm switch isn't good too: it means that Egy can be taken without a disadvantage if you don't place a bid there: africa bid is more or less useless. Now trn EJS seems to be a pretty good one. And the disadvantage is that you must take out the DD in EMD with bb, trn (optional fgt) to drop more units in Egy, and thus taking out the BB in WMD with air (optional sub) or risk losing 1-2 fgt in Egy. :eek: .


5. Adding a penalty is a hard way of trying to force one to chose his NAs immediately, with a !-eqiation you could aswell say: max delay = 1 turn. However both (penalty or max delay) are not a good solution, because delaying a NA has alreaddy built in penalties: you lose the surprise element (comes into affect during MobNewUnits phase) and are missing the use of 1NA during the rounds you are delaying them. This is for dropping/price reduction NAs a big penalty aswell as for others like:
-Naval Advantage; explained before,
-Panzer Blitz; inefficient trading in early rounds,
-Tokyo Express; inability of early DD inf transporting, which is especially useful in the start: getting inf of the islands.
-Banzai; later in the game you will need other land units aswell like arm, Banzai is very efficient on the first turn: inf drop and Chi attack..

I agree, the current penalty is fine. It's also very simple and no need to keep track of Rounds Passed.


6. Congratulations to all who have taken the time to read all my thoughts. Hopefully you will do something with it. Reactions are very welcome.

[Sihr_Togg]

I agree, the current penalty is fine. It's also very simple and no need to keep track of Rounds Passed.

You think the rules as they are now are OK????
Then why did you vote "no" in the poll?

btw. I also think the rules as they are now are OK: the option to delay NAs is good. Nothing needs to be changed: delayed NAs are no harrasment to the ideoligy of enhanced: it doesn't improve conservative offensive play. I thought you wanted to change the rules, because you voted "no, the option to delay your NA is not good"

1. Don't forget you can only delay your second NA. So half of your NA's are alreaddy known to your opponent. That might alreaddy give away your strategy. One could always base his turn/counter NAs on the alreaddy chosen NA.

This is where some strategy comes into play. As Axis, do I reveal my main NA immediately, or do I wait til Round 2. On round 2, do I reveal the NA now, or do I wait another turn and keep my opponent guessing (or wait to see what he does).

This is all for Axis NA choices:

In case of Allies reacting on Axis:
You can also see the strategy by other things like buys. (like if Ger/*** buys subs) If the Axis player then choses a NA that is not in accordence to his previous buys, it's not a very good strategy either, it only costs him time, he could aswell have done that one turn earlier. Not giving away your offensive strategy by delaying your NA is equal to waiting one round and thus useless.

In case of Axis reacting on Allies:
(like your example of the Japan - USA fleet conflict):
In this scenario it are the Allies who take the initiative (USA threatens Japan, not the other way round) so logicly Japan reacts with the NA on USA buys, so it's very useful for the That is good for gameplay: If there is no option to delay your NAs Japan would have to chose one NA, that would be useless because USA can react to them. If Japan choses Kamikazes, then USA won't go heavy AC. You might aswell randomly assigned the 2nd NA to Japan.

Conclusion (Axis):
Delaying your NA by means of not giving away your offensive strategy is useless
Delaying your NA by means of reacting on enemy offensive strategies is useful
This is both OK


All of the above applies to Allies NAs too, except that waiting one turn (first part: not giving away your offense) is not useless since more time is good for the Allies. That's why I also think the delayed NA is good for the Allies aswell and not only for the Axis.

[cousin_joe]

Togg,

The poll is old. Initially I was against delaying NAs, but I was eventually convinced it would be a nice option. I have yet to see anyone delay their NAs, although I did think one of my opponents could have to his advantage.

Has anyone else seen anyone delay an NA?

[pagan]

nope

never a good option....

I would be certain to delay my NA as soon as situations arise that I can benefit from the delay or it inhibits my opponent effectively, and since it is 'impossible' for that situation to occur , I could qualify my above statement to a looping intrusive negation of the antecedent. (smile)

sounds like delaying NAs is GREAT!

I wish it upon all my opponents...
.

[FSSKOG]

I think the option of delaying the 2nd NA is great. In my last game, as the Axis, I have delayed my Germany 2nd NA till round 4. My reason to delay is that the positions of my troops on the board in G2 will not allow me to maximize the utility and the surprise element of my strategy. I took Luftwaffe Bomber in G1. Yet in G2, I don't have many tanks near the front line to take advantage of the panzerblitz. With no threat of D-day from the Allies and only the original amount of RTL and SUB on the board, I have no need to take the Atlantic Wall or the 88 or Wolf Pack in G2.

[cousin_joe]

Yes, this is a good example FSSKOG :)

I noted an opponent of mine took Panzerblitz G2 but was not able to use it immediately on the turn he declared it.

Strategically, I think it would have been better to wait the turn. That way, you keep him thinking you might go Atlantic Wall (or at least you retain the option to go Atlantic Wall if you needed to - say if he took Marines). Also, once you lock into Panzerblitz, the enemy will adjust his strategy to respond immediately - whereas if you delayed a turn, he would need to plan for you on using any NA.

The situation in the Pacific is similar, where Japan can hold onto it's second NA to keep the US guessing as to optimal purchases for a Naval attack :)

[pagan]

you guys are deluding yourselves.

[Vollick1979]

I disagree Pagan, delaying NA's could be useful. To say that there is no situation that could benefit from delaying choosing your NA would take a long time to prove and just one instance to disprove. I like those odds. ;)

[pagan]

Since probablitiy has no certainty i do admit to my hyphenated_ 'impossible' _above being a bit over-stated .:rolleyes:

However, given the chances, you would_ 'likely' _be dead before it would ever come to pass.

i like those odds. :)
.