Imperious Leader AA50 maps?

Heading back up to your logic up above–its not “units that can (in some situations) retreat”. It is units in this situation that can retreat (attacking tts yes defending ones no). That rule is written as it is to cover the situations where submerged subs, unhittable units (subs vs planes) or amphibious assaults where some units can retreat and others cant.

As a lawyer–I get what you’re trying to do and say that the rule doesn’t say what its supposed to say. As Krieg points out, that’s up for debate. Many lawsuits are about this kind of thing.

But that’s not because its dogma Canon law its because the other outcome is insensible, contradictory, gamey, requires a tortured reading of the language devised over multiple editions and revisons of the game to try and cover so many different situations.

there is no such thing as a perfect document try to write one

Double elimination tournament for both 41 and 42 to start at release of A&A anniversary rerelease.

Signs up here.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40246.0

May the dice be with you.

You read it, so there must be people out there that r interested

i made 2 mods for TripleA’s aa50,

China takes their turn with Russia (plus a number of other balancing changes and some units moved around)

UK starts with a factory as a bid, meaning they place a factory somewhere on the board before the game begins (plus a number of other other balancing changes, and some units moved around)

both games have tech activation happen at the END of a turn, not right after you roll.  so for example, if i rolled for tech and got heavy bombers, then i would not get it right away, but instead would get it during the place-units phase at the end of the turn.

both games also have the options to use LHTR heavy bombers (roll 2 dice, pick best, if sbr add 1), and to turn tech off completely
and to use LOW LUCK dice, yay

Why dont you use triplea for these games?  much easier to use than aabattlemap

Although I have only played a few games of AA50 a few things seem clear regardless of the scenario:

1. Chinamen vaporize faster than the humans In War of the Worlds…for a 1940 population of 455mil you have a better chance of finding a brontosaurus on the map by turn 3, possibly by turn 2 with the 41 scenario. Perhaps the spawn policy should be changed…maybe 1 for every 2 terr rounded up.

2. He/she who controls the Gaza strip rules the world…the strip between Egypt and India plays a major role in deciding the game. If this is in allied hands the russians can usually hold the Caucases… if not their position is tenuous. conversely,

3. Germans cannot live on a diet of sauerbraten alone… a little linguini and sushi help the digestion (of Russia) If the russian player is good I think it is difficult to do it with Germany alone. Just as russia need to hold out until the allies arrive Germany only needs to hold the front with/without  Italy’s help until you can get double/triple penetration on cau/rus with Japan.  Italy can either support france freeing the huns for eastward movement or shuttle thru Istanbul  Btw, I think closed Dardanelles is for pussies.

4. NOs…I don’t know. The axis NOs are more easily obtained but I certainly like the extra 5 I get in russia for no foreigners as it lets me squeeze an armor in here and there.

5. Pocket change…whenever I have a few extra scheckles I find myself buying subs particularly in a no tech game.  Its like a boxer with a good jab. keeps the Japs out of the Americans face, also good for the Med.

6. Advantage who…are the axis really favored???  I am currently plaing a gencom rules game where axis recieved a bid. Maybe this is to offset the allied VC
advantage with an 8 turn / 6 hour limit  an no NOs    I’d like to know peoples thoughts on who is favored and why

Jenk,

Yes, AA50 takes very, very, very long time to setup and play FTF.  I think it would be the same PBF.  I have the game but have only played it twice as it’s very hard to get our group together and revised is still very fun to play.

Good luck.

@hakan:

I have changed my mind. I also think the NO’s are brilliant! Not only because they make the strategies look more like in the real war, but also (don’t bark at me Krieghund) because you can balance the game yourself, or to simulate for example the “Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”, just by adding a few lines in the NO. Much better then to add complicated Optional Rules.

I have nothing against house rules, per se.  I use them myself.  I just think that some people are too quick to implement house rules to address perceived imbalances in games, before enough games have been played to determine whether there actually is a balance issue.