Thank you kreig

The land units may not be offloaded in the same turn that the transports retreat.  This is covered on pages 21 and 31 of the rules.

Hmm,  :| something about Afghans in cowboy suits…random, yet it kind of works in a finny way… :|

The naval battle must be complete (and won) before the amphibious assault begins. If the Japanese choose to not complete the battle by clearing the fighters, then they must withdraw any remaining ships to include the transports. There can be no amphib. assault.  Any remaining Allied fighters can then land on a friendly territory adjoining the sea zone.

That pile of poker chips can be awesome too.

Especially when you hold them in your hands and let them fall thru your fingers one by one to let your opponents know what builds you will have coming!!  :evil:

@Cmdr:

If you are lucky and Japan is not primed to take India round 2, an Indian IC can be a godsend.

If Germany did not hit Egypt, than an Egyptian IC is even better! (Italy has no chance, not with 4 Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Fighter, Bomber in Egypt at the end of England 1.)

I like one in Philippines as well, FIC isn’t half bad either.

France works well for the Allies too.

If your building in France, Phil, Man, or FIC doesn’t that mean the game is well in progress and your at stages you can’t really plan for at the begining of a game?  And if the UK happened to take France it is so darn close to it I would hesitate to build an IC there (unless making massive amounts of cash).

A Brazil factory seems pointless/ a liabilaty, A Norway factory for the UK seems redundant (unless they are making massive amts of cash) but may be OK for the US player.  Canada seems silly.

I have never been in a position to be able to consider an early IC build in Egy or India.  If one insists on an early factory build I would say SAF is easily the most defendable option, but the better option if it can be done would be a T2 Aussie buy

yeah he is my boss but he ain’t like that. we keep our work seperate from that stuff. but now i can rub it in his face that i am right! lol haha

I think all the units, and particularly naval units have been handled very well in AA50.  I don’t think they can add anymore units or do much better with design for this type of game.

Sounds like an awesome slugfest.

Like two fighters in the late rounds, wheeling about in the the ring backpedaling away from each other, trying to hang on, trying to land the decisive one punch to end the contest and trying not to lose the match!

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=1759

I voted '41 w/o NOs.  However, my vote is pretty meaningless since that is the only type of AA game I’ve played  :|

I do believe that the '41 scenario without National Objectives is pretty balanced with perhaps a slight edge to the Allies.  However, it seems that ultimately if both teams play well it really comes down to dice in determining the victor from my experiences thus far.

Well one stratagy that my friend keeps employing against me (he is usually the allies) is to (with the UK and US) build nothing but BBs for several turns with a destroyer, sub and aircraft carrier here and there.  This poses a problem for me.  What I usually do is hit with everything I’ve got before his fleet gets to big.  It gives me a headace because the BBs are taking a hit then pounding away at me.  Just my two cents worth!  :-D

and that 33/67 split is going to be actually more historical for that opening of the war as well.  Europe was the stated first objective, then Japan from the US standpoint, so more money did go that way at the start.

It’s even worse: allies fall as a card castle after China fall J1: India, Australia and then or Soviet Union (KJF) or Alaska plus Canada and maybe Africa and finally Soviet Union anyway (KGF). As in Revised, ignore a theater and you lose the war. Opposite to Revised, you cannot choose as allies in 1941, it’s Japan who chooses ignore China or not, and if Japan is wise, it will not ignore China J1

Your point is valid: even if the game were balanced (and it’s not), it has no fun the way China is designed, even for Japan. When I play face to face, Japan is my last option, because it’s the more boring: just stomp all at your reach  :| I could even pick Italy (but not China) before than Japan

makes sense, thanks kreig.

also Afghanistan are spelled wrong, like Afganistan

I have not yet played a single game of AA50 with tech. I choosed the 6-10 games option, but I think almost as many games I played have ended rnd 5 or sooner. So for me it’s about 50%-50% split between up to 6 rnds, and more than 6 rnds.

My record for “long game” I think is 9 rnds, maybe 10.

With NOs I would be suprised if games takes longer than 10 rnds. NOs are a mechanism for shortening games, b/c one side will get substansially more money than in a game w/o NOs, as soon as they start getting the upperhand.

It can be found at Larry Harris’ site.

If you have $120 to spend, chances are you’ve won the game anyway.

@uffishbongo:

The one involving Archangel says there must be “no other Allied forces…”

This is probably a stupid question, but does that include AA guns?  I’m so used to retreating the British gun to Caucasus and now I may have knocked out 5 of my own IPC’s by doing so.   :x

That is an Allied force (a UK AAA).

This is covered in the errata thread, btw, I believe.