@a44bigdog:
Telamon, I prefer playing games with tech because in my opinion they are much more interesting and have a greater variety. While I think AA50 has some more options than Revised I feel that playing non-tech games will lead to most of the games playing out the same way.
Thanks for your view a44. I can certainly see where you’re coming from, though for me the infinite variations in each game make me enjoy it enough as is. After a lot of games, i take your point that the strategies probably play out the same way so it could get repetitive.
I still feel ignoring Japan is a huge mistake.
This may be true, though I havent played enough games of AA50 to be sure. To make the alternative case: if you fight the pacific as US, you prevent otherwise losing a UK and probably 2 US NO’s plus some unreliable island dollars from turn to turn. Lets say 20 bucks a turn for the allies, which I acknowledge is significant.
On the other hand, the US (in concert with the UK) is capable of projecting some serious power into Europe and north africa. And it can be delivered much cheaper without the need to invest in as much navy infrastructure to wage a sea war with japan (debatable perhaps, as you do need to buy the transports and a couple of boats to protect them).
Remember that even a rich Japan has trouble making itself relavent. Its sheer distance from the key areas (russia and italy’s tender bits) makes its $$ hard to deliver. If they go into infrantry, its sunk money walking across siberia/china/persia. If it goes into ICs, there’s a lot of cash sunk right there. If you attack america, sure you disrupt the troop pipeline, but you’ve also sunk money into transports and troops doing little. My current view is that you’re right - the IC–>tank option seems the best way to stay relevant.
