Rules A&A Pacific 1940 2nd Edition French

Thank you, Panther!

clarified thank you very much

Yoper:

“But spelling mistakes are different from people actually having troubles understanding certain ideas or concepts in the rules.”

Yes, they are different, but both fall under the jurisdiction of the editor(s).  That being said, I agree that “Trying to put forth a rule (like the political rules in AAP 40) in a way that is clear to all is a tough task.”

From what I’ve read, it seems that people should also apply some common sense - especially those who’ve been playing A&A games for many years.  I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve read of someone wanting a clarification - only to wonder why it needed to be clarified in the first place.

As to the spelling mistakes… well that’s just plain shoddy workmanship.  No, it doesn’t effect gameplay, and I’m still going to have fun playing the game. But if people are shelling out a fair amount of money for a game - they expect a higher quality product, one that doesn’t have spelling errors (which is something that might be expected from a garage based game publisher - not a major manufacturer).  And there is the element of presentation as well, in this kind of medium, it’s important.  And c’mon, consider the demographic of your buyers… we’re talking about guys (mainly) that go through great lengths such as painting the pieces, inventing pages of optional rules, making new maps etc.  Of course spelling mistakes are going to leap out at the average A&A enthusiast!

You stated, “I would like you (or anyone else) to give me a list of all the spelling mistakes in the rulebook.”  I’m not about to be an unpaid editor/proofer, but the point is that if there is one… that’s one too many.  It’s not that difficult to publish something without spelling mistakes - its done everyday.  And a lot of these publications don’t even have the benefit of more than one editor. Perhaps I’m a bit retentive in regard to the spelling issue, but I am obviously not alone in this stance.

BTW - I too don’t think anyone should be pointing fingers at the wardog or Larry Harris, it’s not like they design and produce the whole game themselves…

Yes and yes.

February 4, 2010 - Fixed UK income from 18 to 16

http://www.mediafire.com/?mynuzmzyzzz

Sorry!

@Brain:

@BadSpeller:

@Brain:

@BadSpeller:

Nice work!

+1 to you.

Would you please change ‘bomber’ to ‘tach bomber’ or ‘tactical bomber’ in the #3 zone?

That might clutter it up and I think the icon speaks for itself. IMHO of course.

Maybe if the Tac Bomber looked like the allies Tach bomber with 2 engines, the icon would be fine…but the Tac Bomber icon and the Fighter icon look similar to me.

But there should be no mistaking the fighter for the tactical bomber because of the text.

True that!

Yes, this is really cool. Thanks for digging it up and posting it.

@Vareel:

I don’t think i’m explaining properly.  There should be convoy zones to represent what goes from the US to the UK/Russia.  If G attacks those convoy zones only, it would start war.  I think that is how it should be.  Obviously there should be other convoy zones as well, at least for the UK.

I suppose it depends how they do lend/lease but I’d prefer it not be a simply free cash objective for Britain/Russia (where’s the lending part in that).  What I’d like to see is a lend/lease that’s not a 1:1 gain for Britain and Russia.  The US can designate some number of IPCs to Russia and/or Britain (say 12) and they get half that amount (6 to the banker).  This has a sense of depreciated value and inflated cost (hey, the US is capitalist) to that “lease” from the US and doesn’t punish the axis as much trying to balance Russia & Britain’s economy vs Germany’s which could be unfairly skewed as Russia and Britain get free loot at minimal expense to the US.  And that could be designated in as a different type of convoy zone, perhaps only near the US coast, which would mean the Germans would have to go way past the Channel to stop it, if they even wanted to.  It has the benefit of immediately helping Russia and Britain in a pinch, but if they can hold out the US can send more in US units, which I think would be a more balanced way to send help to an ally.

That way it’s not quite the same as the established convoy zone, because Russia and Britain can’t GET cash from US territory obviously (nor should they)and there would need to be convoy zones for britain that are wholly independent from the lend lease zones you speak of.