i agree the game is great. i’m not looking for a glorified micro-machines set. but when i bought AAR a couple yrs ago. I had to take some of my acs and hold them over a burner to soften the plastic enough to bend it straight……NO B*ST!!!

there are all kinds of deformed parts in there that I had to fix. AA50 hasn’t been that bad. but pretty close. i’ve had to pull my hobby knife far more than i’d like.

do you want to play with a b-17 that came out of the box…out of the plastic bag…with wings that were f*****g bent in neary half.

Holland… you may wait a while.

Anyways, thanks for the tips, and good work with that phase 2 map.

yes thanks. i have a new version to unleash real soon and the rule set supports it.

perhaps tomorrow.

To all,

But perhaps the main point would be to make it as balanced as possible? Not as good as possible. If you found out 12 ipcs to china would make for a balanced game, maybe that would be the best solution?

I agree with this statement as much as possible.  If we’re going to bid, it might as well reflect the changes in A&A:50 as a NEW game.  I’m sorry but extra infantry/tanks in the Caucuses or in Egypt screams a retread of A&A over and over again.  It may help the Allies win easiest, which is what they’ve always been doing with KGF.

Lets put those extra IPCs in China (or the Pacific) so that those 32243 extra rules about China are worth memorizing.

Exactly right.  China didn’t fully control Formosa until 1887, when the Manchu Imperial authorities decided to declare Taiwan to be part of their Empire.  The intention was to outmaneuver the Japanese, who were expanding their influence to the South.  In 1895 the Japanese defeated the Manchu’s in the Sino-Japanese War, and in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity (not 99 years, like Hong Kong’s New Territories, but in perpetuity, i.e. forever). The Taiwanese didn’t like this idea, and actually declared the formation of the first independent republic in Asia. However, the movement was short-lived: Japanese imperial troops crushed the movement within several months.

@Cowboybob:

@jeffdestroyer:

If Germany is trading Poland as a dead zone, they are in trouble whether are not an IC is located there.
It is about logistics and getting INF to the front.

What do you mean by “Dead zone”?

I mean that each nation keeps trading a territory on its turn, thus not holding it.

Thanks for the help… But Its too late for the poor Russians on the eastern front. I lost everything due to a jap attack with 5 fighters.

I think subs are underestimated…
I like them a lot more than the Cruiser for instance. The extra cost of 6 IPC’s doesn’t make up for the shore bombardment and extra punch.
Now, let’s take a look at their advantages:
-subs are CHEAP! 6 IPC’s for a naval hit is dirt cheap!
-subs are invulnerable to lone enemy aircraft => this allows them to swim around Europe/Pacific avoiding those German/Japanese ftrs.
-subs can’t attack airplanes, and apart from DD’s, other sea units are more expensive than airplanes. As a result, if a fleet has got only 1 DD, it won’t stand a sub attack, because the expensive carriers, cruisers, and battleships will be the first to get hit. This is often underestimated!
-subs have a greater mobility than other fleet units because they can’t be attacked without an enemy DD.

disadvantages:
-1 defense is little, even for 6 IPC’s. Don’t count on subs to stand tall against an organized attack.
-subs can’t hit air, but air with DD can hit subs
-subs don’t like a lot of DD’s (a single DD is seldom a problem)

To summarize: I like subs a lot the way they are implemented now. And I think Germany building a sole sub fleet is a viable strategy. If you just don’t let the British navy too close, the subs+air will keep the baltic.

@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

We both agree that the movement is legal, since it’s not specifically forbidden by the rule book… but his complain is very soundable: all those zeros should be able to intercept my bombers (or other fighters if I had them)

Fighters in territories or sea zones being flown over cannot intercept planes.  Only planes in the territory or sea zone actually being attacked may defend.

@Cowboybob:

On another note i have alwase wonderd….when Fighters attack a territory that does not have any Fighters or AA guns in it and just Ground forces,do the Fighters attacking get to just keep rollin tell they have killed all the Infintry/Tanks?.I can not tell you how maney times me and my fellow A&A freaks have run into a situation where the Germans have these air forces attack a USSR territory with no AA or Fighters.So my queation is do they get to kill all the Reds or do they have to turn back after one round?

Ground units defend normally when attacked by fighters and/or bombers.  The attacking air units can stick around for as many rounds as they like, or until they’re shot down, whichever comes first.

Thanks

Opps for got the link.

http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/cause.htm

This is actually a question that gets asked fairly often about each incarnation of A&A.  I guess it just confuses some people that they can move forces into a contested area after the battle is over.

I agree with Gallo Rojo.
The majority of italian sculpts are recycled from other axis nations and this is a lost opportunity for making Anniversary a “perfect” edition. Moreover the brown colour for Italy is a sub-optimal choice

Only one thing I do not agree. USSR received a lot of truck, half-truck and other necessary supplies. Thanks to this supplies Soviet Industry has been able to focus on building only tanks, guns and rifles. Despite that the great majority of USSR units moved on foot and logistic was made using horses! Only Soviet Tank Armies (of wich only 5 existed) where mechanized. The remaining part of the Red Army went on fight like the Armies of the WW1, by train to the front and then on foot. German Army was more mechnized than Red Army and German were losing the War.
Having not her economy supported by USA the Red Army should have a lot of logistic problems.

So, I have always thought that in A&A factors like: turn order, IPC and initial set up are related not only to the quantity but also to the quality and training of the units, to the logistic, and to the economic organization of a nation. Anniversary confirm this idea, having two different set up with different turn orders.

China’s first turn is treated in the same way as any other turn.  It gets the number of infantry indicated by the number of territories it owns at the beginning of its turn.

Jeffdestroyer is correct.  One infantry for every two territories means that odd territories don’t count.

I have to agree that the original map is very well done. My personal favorite though has to be the European map.

Yes, this is correct.  Having no destroyers is a pretty big mistake.

@Black_Elk:

It would make a lot more sense if you just put a “house rules” sub-forum in each category, instead of continually moving the threads around.
:-D

I can’t imagine a topic worth discussing, in any section, that isn’t going to verge on a house rule at some point. Besides the current House Rules is section is all over the place anyway, and rather hard to navigate, since stuff gets dumped their from all over the rest of the site.

I totally agree with you.

$75 with shipping included is the best price i have seen for one copy. buy it.

I think I will use an old Xeno piece for the China Fig to distinguish it apart.

@Imperious:

Larry has stated many times that the units don’t generally fit standard military models for classic formations (divisions, corps, army) and in some cases these are corps and others they are armies. They are not the same in every case, allowing for the corps in Africa to be symbolized as perhaps 2-3 units, while in the Soviet union one infantry may represent an army ( 3-5 corps).

Yes, IL thanks,
I have been reading those old posts.  I note he (Larry Harris) stated the Naval units abstraction was a greater dilution of unit strength, or a direct correlation to vessel numbers from standard representation of Classic fleet/squadron/Battle groups.  I am thinking more in chess terms, where tempo or position is sometimes of more value then individual pieces.