New units in AA50?

Not much to say just sharing a map I made. As you can see it is heavily inspired by the War Room map, “hand drawn” and set to correspond to the original AA50 map 1:1.
This map is 100 cm in diameter or about 39 and a half inches.

You can see how it fits the units in the “images” section on BGG!

Good luck and have fun!

https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/237973/new-round-map-ana-50ae-fixed

1.png

And as a bonus the round map for AA - 1941: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/237931/new-round-map-ana-1941

@barnee
Thank you very much
I appreciate.
Tasos

@General-6-Stars would you mind to share it with me as well. Thanks a lot

I use a LL chart for Russia and sometimes UK gets a Destroyer. Plus in Ger NA I have if they get they can buy a Ger piece and place at a Italy ic or buy Italy 1 piece and place at a Italian ic. I think this is best way so you don’t interfere with the Transports. Besides I have enough convoy raiding going on in the Atlantic. If you guys are interested in my rules and game NA just to give u more ideas I can post more here if you’d like.

I just tried to addressed to the one of the main complaint about Japan’s power in Anniversary and claimed that having Japan with that power is not a must for maintaining balance but happy to see different income distirbutions with No’s or not.

@vodot said in [AA50 & AA42.2] Fixed Cost Techs + Tech Expansion:

This is a work in progress, but I’m putting it out here for ideas and feedback if anyone is interested in geeking out on something like this.

This is an expanded list of techs with fixed costs (no more die rolls) that would simply come into effect immediately (unless otherwise specified) for the cost shown. Some of these have a cost of 5 IPCs, with the intention of simply enabling what are essentially house rules/new units (Mechanized Infantry, Cheaper Naval units, rudimentary dogfight rules, etc.) while allowing players with no interest/need for them to ‘opt out’ and save the 5 IPCs. I’ll be using this list for my next solo game and will be making adjustments.

Note: The ‘Turkish Pact’ tech is designed for games where the Turkish Straits begin the game closed (via house rule), but also works for games where the straits start open as per OOB rules (in which case, upon the development of ‘Turkish Pact’ they would cease to be a special case of “Always Open” straits and revert to the normal OOB straits rules (closed to units unfriendly to the controller of Turkey).

Fixed_cost_Tech_v2.xls

SIR, THIS IS PURE GOLD! :)

Wild Bill wrote,

“Like I said before although Russia needs help, I’m not in favor of Russia getting an NO bonus if the western allies make landings stick in Europe. The Russians are already getting the benefit of Germany fighting two fronts, therefore axis will have less to spend on the eastern front (that is the real bonus).”

Would you be willing to test the Russian NO before simply scrapping the idea? I think both ideas, the Russian NO and the Lend Lease idea might be a way to end the Allies “bidding.” By the time an Allied landing can stick, its usually too late for the Axis to really dislodge them anyways. This might help to end a game that really takes too long. However, it might result in quicker landings that actually fail, (resulting in no NO for Russia), and then actually make Germany stronger, because they secured “fortress” Europe.

In another thread by YG, he asked about changing the turn order to let the US go last. That might also be a good way to end the bidding process. Also, it sounds historical since the US was the last major country to enter the war.

hmmm… attack zero.

Makes them useless, for 1 IPC more you get 2 points. I would never buy these at all.

should be 1-2-1-2 (a,d,m,c)