From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A House Rules
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:12:10 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <BvqJDo.92n@news.udel.edu> barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.005232.6805@ll.mit.edu> shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:
>>The following "house rules" are used at the M.I.T. games club. They were
>>developed (mostly) by Howard Mohler and are reproduced here with his
>>permission. Many hundreeds of games have been played under these rules over
>>the past decade. This variant appears balanced.
>>Some of the rules have been adopted in some of the MB editions.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>STARTUP BONUS:
>>As their populations are enthusiastic about the war, Germany and Japan get a
>>bonus of $8 and $4, respectively, in the begining and the end of the first
>>turn. Afterward, (when the body-bags arrive home, and people realize that
>>war is hell) no more bonus.

>I don't like this.  The game begins in Spring, 1942.  The Germans have
>been fighting for 2.5 years (Invasion of Poland; September 1, 1939), and
>have been militarily active before that (way before).  The Japanese have
>been involved in fighting for a long time as well (sorry, dates I do not
>remeber).  Perhaps I should restate -- I don't like the _basis_ for this
>rule.

Well, we can argue _basis_ until the cows come home; but the Axis WERE on a
roll until spring, 1942 - hence enthusiastic population. Anyway, the bonuses
do a great job of balancing the game!


>>DISCOUNTED HARDWARE:
>>1. Subs        $6
>>2. Battleships $20
>>3. I.C.        $10

>Why?

We found that no one wanted to buy Subs (no one still wants to buy BB, so
perhaps a further discount is in order). As for I.C.'s, they make for very
agressive industrialization play in the far east. This price is compeatative
with transports!

>>CAPTURING A CAPITAL:
>>When a capital is captured, the attacker is awarded 1/2 the cash of the
>>defender (rounded down) with the rest of the money destroyed. A player whoose
>>capital is captured continues to collect income (from his other provinces) but
>>may not build anything. (Research, see below, may still be performed).
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>At the beginning of its turn, a capital-less nation may declare civil disorder
>>by removing all its units from the board and returning all its cash to the
>>bank. (This will allow its allies to "capture" its former provinces and get
>>income for them). Civil disorder is not reversible.

>I don't think I like this, either.  Income in this game is based on
>resources that were made use of.  If the government is gone, there is no
>means of putting the resources to use.  I do like the part about only

The "government in exile" (GIE) saves the income from its (probably very few)
productive provinces (such as far-away colonies) to be used should it's capital
ever be recaptured. The amount is usually small (and capital recapture is not
that common anyway). If the amount is not very tiny, it means that the GIE had
substaintial resources at it's disposal, and hence it is reasonable for it to
come back with a bang! (anyway, I think A&A should have some juicy reward for
recapturing a capital. Sort of "enthusiasm bonus")

>1/2 of the cash being passed on, but this is probably not too
>significant, since the amount passed on is usually rather small (since
>most of the non-capital territories have been lost).

>>RESEARCH:
>I try to avoid research period, so I don't have any reall comment here.
>I simply play the game strategically, and thus try to leave out the luck
>factors that are created by technology.  My loss, perhaps.

Under MB rules, research is a HEAVY randomizer! the house rules make for
less powerfull results, and more even distribution of the results among
the players. Since every power (beside Russia) gets something, each game
has it's own flavor and strategies that depend (somewhat) on the research
results are common.


>Overall, I think this is a very interesting approach, although I fail to
>see why some of the changes were necessary (being so close to the
>original rules).

Many of the changes PREDATE the 2nd edition (I am not sure about this, but
it is my understanding that the 2nd edition was developed with this variant
in mind).

>Nice work, though!

Thanks.

Dan Shoham
shoham@ll.mit.edu
>
>Dewey
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA