I was about to start a poll on “do you think the -41 setup favors the Allies or the Axis”. Good thing these news on the real-setup got inbetween!
- 1 inf extra in each of the China up-front areas.
- 1 Japanese transport in Sea of Japan.
- 1 ftr in Moscow.
- 1 UK DD in EMD.
That makes sense. I think the Germans take Gibraltar and the Italians Trans-Jordan.
No Problem for Italy to get the 5+5 Bonus in game turn 1.
Thanks
I figured this much. Well thanks anyway for trying Craig.
The games we tried are not lost. First of all they were fun to do and they learned us a lot about the game mechanism. When the real setup is public, we just have to tweak our findings a bit.
- 1 inf extra in each of the China up-front areas.
- 1 Japanese transport in Sea of Japan.
- 1 ftr in Moscow.
- 1 UK DD in EMD.
If we assume that Larry made mistakes when setting things up a logical mistake would be imo to forget the bomber in Japan.
Why should there be a bomber?
Japan got 8 figthers!
The allies have to build their tanks and artilleries, too. Look at the russians…
So japan is forced to build bombers and ships.
The real setup should favor axis more than our speculation setup, the BGG setup favor allies with OOB rules. A Russian ftr + a few more allied units must be compensated somehow. Its not enough to remove the extra US bmr. I don’t think an extra Jap trans is enough either. Maybe Italy is stronger than we thought. It seems like Italy is practically useless if allies go KGF, Italy should perhaps get another transport + an inf and/or a tank? If the real setup favors allies more than the BGG setup, then AA50 is even more unbalanced than AAR.
All this is without NOs, Craig Yope pointed out that the game balance cannot be judged by using techs, maybe this principal applies also when using the NOs? It shouldn’t be this way IMO, the NOs seems really interesting, I’m sure NOs will be used by competitive players also, tech is the only aspect in which the game designers failed again, just like tech failed in Classic and Revised.
I’m not convinced about “failed” tech status. AA50 is the best tech system we have until now. You spent money and you get something for sure, even if it is not the thing you wanted. What is so bad about HBs? If you think they are not balanced, mod the tech to make HBs a 5/1 that get a +1 on SBR and enough :-)
And rockets. How many countries can use it too much? Germany now will have only 2, not 3 as in Revised, so their impact will be lesser and anyway many here think that Germany needs a boost, and a new aagun costs 6 IPCs now. USA and UK can ferry some aa guns, but those are mainly out of position. Soviets? Well, if they send more than 5 or 10 IPCs in the game to tech, they can be easily toasted by Germany or Japan.
I think the main issue here is about a unbalanced tech, no the very tech system. Mod the toxic tech and that will work
I just don’t want lose the techs in AA50 as in Revised for on-line play. In Revised, they were not a very powerful weapon. They were mainly crap, but still they were, first underpowered because of Sea Lion complaints and then forbidden because of HB complaints
Man, If USA spents 30 IPCs on tech and then 45 on HB, and then send the Pacific fleet out of the Pacific, just send tons of guys to Alaska and Canada and make them pay for creating a Godzilla :-D
Why should there be a bomber?
Japan got 8 figthers!
The allies have to build their tanks and artilleries, too. Look at the russians…
So japan is forced to build bombers and ships.
I am not saying the bomber should be there. I am just saying when setting up the board, it is easy to forget the bomber on Japan. And we are assuming here that Larry forgot to set up some units.
When our playgroup forgets something to place it has been units on Japan many times. They are more easily overlooked. Same goes voor IC’s and AA guns.
The real setup should favor axis more than our speculation setup, the BGG setup favor allies with OOB rules. A Russian ftr + a few more allied units must be compensated somehow. Its not enough to remove the extra US bmr. I don’t think an extra Jap trans is enough either. Maybe Italy is stronger than we thought. It seems like Italy is practically useless if allies go KGF, Italy should perhaps get another transport + an inf and/or a tank? If the real setup favors allies more than the BGG setup, then AA50 is even more unbalanced than AAR.
I think NOs will be standard play for the game, whereas some will choose techs and some will not. So, given NOs Axis are way too strong in the GENCON set-up.
After looking at the AAP map and the actual historical naval situation, I expect the following additions (now only naval):
East Med: 1 UK destroyer
East Indies: 1 UK cruiser
Caroline Islands: 1 Japanese cruiser
Sea of Japan: 1 Japanese destroyer & transport
West coast: 1 US cruiser
I think NOs will be standard play for the game, whereas some will choose techs and some will not. So, given NOs Axis are way too strong in the GENCON set-up.
AA50 OOB is really flawed if its not somewhat balanced, at least as balanced as AAR, which is only slightly unbalanced :-)
I certainly agree with you regarding the NOs, I think almost all players will use them in the beginning.
I will initially prefer to play with NOs myself, but I like testing out different options, so I’m pretty curious about the game balance with/without NOs.
Probably, because the BGG setup may be very close to the real setup, allies have advantage without NOs, and axis will have advantage with NOs, but we don’t know that for sure yet…
Thank God for making sure they made a destroyer guarding that transport. Also kgf = japan to strong i have figured that when you ignore a certain som1 (usa ignoring japan) the allies tend to lose since japan kills russia and germany can just mass inf.!
Anyways nos, are gonna make the game more different you will only fight were they tell you also weres the ones like example taking moscow in 5 turns gives you 10 bonus income once?
The real setup should favor axis more than our speculation setup, the BGG setup favor allies with OOB rules. A Russian ftr + a few more allied units must be compensated somehow. Its not enough to remove the extra US bmr. I don’t think an extra Jap trans is enough either. Maybe Italy is stronger than we thought. It seems like Italy is practically useless if allies go KGF, Italy should perhaps get another transport + an inf and/or a tank? If the real setup favors allies more than the BGG setup, then AA50 is even more unbalanced than AAR.
I think NOs will be standard play for the game, whereas some will choose techs and some will not. So, given NOs Axis are way too strong in the GENCON set-up.
After looking at the AAP map and the actual historical naval situation, I expect the following additions (now only naval):
East Med: 1 UK destroyer
East Indies: 1 UK cruiser
Caroline Islands: 1 Japanese cruiser
Sea of Japan: 1 Japanese destroyer & transport
West coast: 1 US cruiser
item: I would agree with all of these Naval placements, except the Caroline Islands CA, add 2nd Japanese BB.
item:where are the Pacific SS submarines, add 1 for each power.
item:Rule Chg all CT trannys covered by a warship, Add German DD in Med, Japanese DD to CV in Midway Sea Zone.
item:Agree with Funcioneta, all Japanese Islands should have INF.
Item:Add Japanese BMB, deployed in Manchuria, maybe.
I will start a Group Speculation map on this setup, and one for Lynxes.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449ab1eab3e9fa335cae9fc2a6a9099e97f
I would as, Lynxes and others have previously stated add more China INF,
hell they had been fighting for near 10 years already.
and USSR FTR in Russia.
Why should there be a bomber?
Japan got 8 figthers!
The allies have to build their tanks and artilleries, too. Look at the russians…
So japan is forced to build bombers and ships.
I am not saying the bomber should be there. I am just saying when setting up the board, it is easy to forget the bomber on Japan. And we are assuming here that Larry forgot to set up some units.
When our playgroup forgets something to place it has been units on Japan many times. They are more easily overlooked. Same goes voor IC’s and AA guns.
…or german infantry.
Let’s hope so, saves the axis player buying infantry all day long. :-D
ya really (i think that a helpfull thing would be if usa had a few more ships and so did japan like japan 2 destroyers 1 cruiser, bship and transport while usa gets 1 destroyer, transport and 2 cruisers (not including acarriers)
ok edit required for start up,
Since, we can not rely on the pictures. I have reread the after action reports at Morey’s swamp. I used these player reports in my original recon for the AA50 maps.
I must edit my proposed missing unit setup to reflect quotes from the game players.
item:remove USSR FTR -player flatly states no USSR FTRs.
item:remove extra INF from Japanese Islands-Japanese player says he was surprized no INF on those ISlands at start.
other game items I had not changed but have been called into question by posters in several threads;
item:verified Qty 3 CV carriers and 9 ftrs for Japan-player stated.
item:verified Qty 4 FTRS for Germany as German player stated.
item:verified qty 2 BMB for USA, its odd, but Quoted by players in game.
item:verified qty 10 USSR INF in soviet Far East territories.
I have a hunch the most likely units Craig says are missing;
this would be a lite, add on for missing units from pics
items:Subs, completely absent from Pacific theatre.Add 1 for each power.
item:DD in Eastern Med.
item:BMB from Japan. everyone has one, except Italy and China and now Japan, less likely?
item:CA, for USA Pacific Fleet, WUSA? new unit missing from USA setup.
item:if China generates qty 1 INF for each territory, S/B at least 1 INF in each of the Chinese territories to start? Again, the Sino-Japan war was in full swing.
item:ARM unit for Eastern USA, as noted in prior post-USA start w with no ARM unit?
Last item, my own Lust, the Second Japanese Battlewagon in the Sea of Japan with CT,
not likely, its an emotional need-LOL.
Hey, bluestroke, great work! I think we’re getting close here. I especially want to quote this sentence from one of the “Smorey Swamp” GENCON reports:
China begins the game with one fighter and a respectable number of infantry.
So, maybe even 2 per front territory is too low. I don’t think you will see either a second Japanese BB or a bomber, that would be unbalanced. Cruisers are a safe bet in the Pacific I think, maybe subs as well. The big question is if the UK will get a CV at India. Historically, in early -42 UK had at Ceylon:
HM Battleship WARSPITE, HM Aircraft Carrier ILLUSTRIOUS, HM Aircraft Carrier INDOMITABLE, HM Cruiser CORNWALL, HM Cruiser ENTERPRISE and HM Cruiser EMERALD, plus six destroyers.
Translates to 1 CV+ 1 ftr, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 trs, maybe?
PS. This website shows the location of US Navy ships at the time of Pearl Harbor:
http://www.navsource.org/Naval/usf.htm
That US cruiser should maybe be together with the carrier, considering that 6 heavy cruisers escorted them? Yes, I’m getting nerdy, I’ll stop it… :wink: DS.
the scale from previous threads are as follows:
game unit to –- quantity of represented in the war
BB=4-6
CV=4-8
CA=8-12
DD=24+
SS=24+
AP=300
That scale can’t be right for BBs. If correct, UK would have several (they started the war with 9 battleships) and US one on the East coast. It ought to be 5-10.
And CVs can be represented with one or two fighters;
CV + 1 ftr: 2-3 carriers
CV + 2 ftr: 4-8 carriers
Probably we will have one cruiser at East Indies or Burma sea zone to represent Repulse and Prince of Wales at Singapore as well as the five cruisers destroyed by the Japanese in the Battle of the Java Sea and then CV+1ftr, DD, trs at India.
That scale can’t be right for BBs. If correct, UK would have several (they started the war with 9 battleships) and US one on the East coast. It ought to be 5-10.
you have to look at what they had available in 1942 rather than 1939. The numbers are based on Revised and MB editions.
Hood
royal oak
Ramallies
Prince of whales
that’s 4 BB’s sunk right off the top of my head before spring 1942 start date as quoted as the starting point for the games.
Also, you have to qualify some of the older BB’s into a somewhat diminished value.
The Tirpitz was immensely more potent than some of the British modernized/retrofitted ww1 battlewagons, but the shliehen holsten ( spelling) would not be a BB at all qualitatively.
The most of the American ships at Hawaii were old ex- WW1 junk barges and the 8 ships should be counted as one piece, but i think they should have added a destroyer to Hawaii.
