Been getting interested in A&A, used to play the board game then alot of TripleA games until I couldnt find people to play anymore…
So I was doing some research, seems like this is the big new ruleset everyone is running with, is that about correct?
I gotta say, I’m shocked at the new rules, dont think I like it but hey we will see. Aircraft can suddenly appear on carriers as new? They can also land on carriers that dont exist yet? That and many other rules seem really, well, blah. RETREATING?!?! wtf is that?
Any old schoolers shed some light on how this changed the game for you?
:)
oh , has anyone tried a&a on tablegamesonline? Seems like an amateur site (they only accept paypal or checks), but the demo I tooled with looked good.
The AA50 ruleset (the same as AA1942) is now the standard ruleset of the series.
The rule about moving fighters to a sea zone where a carrier will be built makes sense. Otherwise you’d have fighters flying 4 spaces and landing on the IC and then move an additional space to the new carrier. And the retreat rule exists since the 1st edition of A&A.
I’ve played Classic on board for years, then went on with Revised (both board and TripleA - it is still running) and now I don’t play anything else than AA50, AA1942 and AAE40/AAP40. And I greatly prefer the new ruleset to the Revised one.
I agree, it seems they fixed a lot of the problems throughout the series. No longer can you have a fleet of just 1 BB and a hoarde of transports. Transports are near useless other than shipping troops across the seas. Naval warfare is a lot more in depth with these and the sub rues. Also the new, cheaper costs make buying a battleship a reality instead of a waste of money.
For me, just having the Battleship be harder to kill is a massive change(buying one is a good move now). And, some of the rules are actually based upon player made ones from the 80s and 90s. The Kamikaze option for instance was around since the 80s in informal play - everyone I knew allowed it. The main problem with the original game was that sea units were an afterthought in the game design and the game was all about the land war. The changes make what you do at sea just as important. Really so on the new Pacific version - almost painfully so if you link the two maps into a “super” game.
It’s also fairly balanced. The original was only winnable by the Axis if you did silly things like lower armor cost to 4 and so on, or changed to win condition to only one capital, because there was a strategy that would pretty much crush Germany every time like clockwork. With the new game, a bad combat in the Atlantic and a submerged sub blocking you can cause a massive tie-up. Germany actually stands a chance now. And Russia isn’t as horrendously nerfed, either. In reality, Russia was by far the strongest military force in WWII. But if you play the original game, it plays like a wet noodle.
I don’t have time to play a lot, but after playing Revised on GTO, one game of '42 made me a believer of the new rules. I think the submarine rules are great, and transports are finally treated right.
I do play occationally both board nad tripleA. I have never played revised since Spring 1942 came and i do not think i ever will. IMHO, the new rules make for a more complex and balanced game.
I have never played revised since Spring 1942 came and i do not think i ever will.
Since I got Spring 1942 I sold all other AA games that I had at that time which was all of the board games from MB 2nd edition up to AA50. I have AAP40 but seldom play it. I like AA42 a lot and it sees more table time than any other WWII game that I have.
I also like 42 better. They took what had most improved in Revised (the map) and then improved what still needed the most improvements (naval warfare).
Nowadays naval combat matters, and, guess what: it’s FUN! I’m using (and buying) subs. SUBS!
A great ruleset!
