AA50 Objective Trackers

@sensenschwarm thank you.Reprint.jpg

this rule was expanded in the reprint of anniversary edition - but not in the PDF Rulebook on axisandallies.com, and not in the FAQ/Errata, and in my physical copy of the original AA50, it is the version which I had quoted above.

The issue is resolved! Thanks alot! :-)

@Imperious-Leader Maybe you went this way since the original design does archetypally the same, but how about, in the land-to-land borders, colourizing the borders of the borders, while leaving the inside of the borders light grey?
This way, you could properly define the colours for the borders between territories with different ownerships (for example, having the border between Poland and East Poland grey on the west and red on the east).

The Soviet symbol in the turn order is different from the ones inside the territories.

The Azores are sometimes neutral and sometimes American (also probably it would make more sense as British than Americans, but debatable and pointless).

In the “AA50 Suplreme Edition” there are no territories for Azores and Malta, but only the roundels?

I’m thinking of doing this as well. For the sake of a bit of consistency in the rules between games.
And, I like the new rules, but I can’t justify purchasing this game when I already have AA50. They seem like the same level of game.
Btween the new 41, and G40
Plus AA50 gives you the option for tech and N.O.'s, as well as China and Italy.

So adopting some of the new rules into AA50 seems like the best of both worlds.

Between 9 and 15 rounds on average.

It comes down to how well a player can forecast what he wants when it is not his or her turn and what options you have going.

@squirecam:

@questioneer:

Yes, by round 4 technically.

I’ve always been of the belief that if games are ending early, either its a particularly bad dice outcome, or the other side is not playing very well.

Questions:

What did each of you buy as Germany?

When you were allies, did he attack you, or vice versa?

Q1  I bought like 4inf, 4tnk, 1ftr.  He bought something similar

Q2  Russia went too strong the first round and it backlashed quickly.  The 2nd game seemed more like the normal Eastern Front stuggle- eventual stack on either side but the Allied planes came in to defend and bomb just in the nick of time.  This is why I think Allies have the advantage.  Against a strong KGF, there are just too many fronts for the Axis to defend- the new map with chopped up territories doesn’t allow it.

I didn’t completley ignore Japan though.  I simply left a small annoying force to sail south and become a potential menace- but I put all my money and builds towards Europe.  Japan is way to slow- you need more builds to get to Russia because it takes forever.  That’s why I think the NOs help balance it out more because they help the Axis more than the Allies on the onset.

In the first game, he did have some dice whoopings.  The 2nd game seemed pretty normal.  Tech really didn’t effect the games much because the games ended fairly quickly (4 rounds).  They are a lot of fun though and pretty balanced I think because both sides can invest in them- especially with NO’s.

Well said!

I agree with your rational, but I do feel that Paratroopers belong in the game.  I don’t know the solution though.  Perhaps they could only be used in attacks where at least 1 other unit is also attacking the same territory by land or by sea.  (I would make an exception for islands and perhaps undefended territories.)

Breakthrough Chart #1
#1 Advanced Artillery
#2 Rockets
#3 Paratroopers
#4 Increased Factory Production
#5 War Bonds
#6 Mechanized Infantry

Breakthrough Chart #2
#1 Super Submarines
#2 Jet Fighters
#3 Improved Shipyards
#4 Radar
#5 Long-Range Aircraft
#6 Heavy Bombers

On ABattleMap think of the top row as Chart #1 and the bottom roll as Chart #2.