RULES ERRATA

Harsh rules does a great job of explaining the rules in detail I watched them yesterday

It would be easy to mark them, you could simply tip them on their sides like in revised / classic 2 hit battleships.

I think I’ll try this, but I will still require that payment be made to repair them.

LT

Haaahaha! I feel your pain, FMG. The second I bought Guadalcanal, I was so psyched to make my opponent’s IPC’s deteriorate via bombing raids, and swarm em with fighters. And then I opened up the box and went “WTF!?”.

I, too, am a bit unappealed by the rules. What we did was put a certain amount of chips on each island, gave it an IPC value, and put a production factory on our “base islands”. This made for an exciting naval minimap. I haven’t gotten to play a lot of navy-heavy games, usually my 1942 games just end up with British bombardment and amphibious assault on Berlin, and the US navy buildup with the subsequent bulldozing of the Japanese.

So, theres my suggestion for you, FMG. I look forward to your custom A&A molds. I’m DEFINITELY buying an italy set once I get my paycheck, and of course, once it’s released =D

I guess my  :-(  was becz now another rules set I’ll have to learn!!

Thanks Murraymoto for the more specific answer, gives me a good idea now!!

@frimmel:

I’m not much for House Rules. If I had wanted to make my own game I would not have bought one.  :-)

House rules aren’t for everybody.  Nothing wrong with playing the game as written.  I just can’t resist meddling.

@frimmel:

Also your fourth version point on VPs seems sort of silly. Why add a complex rule when you could just increase the points required for Victory or add a Win by X rule? This and your first point of not scoring the airfields on round 1 are essentially the same thing. Again add points required for victory or must win by X rule (to simulate your dominance of the air)

Simply increasing the points would only serve to extend the length of the game, while this proposed rule ensures that one side must clearly dominate for a period of time in order to win.  Consider this example:  The two teams score the same number of points for ten rounds, and then one team manages to score one more point than the other.  That team has then won under the original rules.  Under this proposed rule, that team would still have to score five more victory points (or whatever number you use) in order to win.  This rule would produce a clearer winner, in my opinion.  I suppose a “win by X” rule would produce the same effect, but it would be hard to keep track of it using the point markers on the board.

@Imperious:

OMFG. This is bogus. Cruisers were the most potent Anti-Aircraft platforms of the war. As a protector of escorted ships from aerial attack they were the best defenders on average. The destroyer concentrated its defense on ASW because it was faster, while the cruisers could bulk up on lots of smaller guns because they had the deck space.

It’s not completely bogus if you consider that many U.S. cruisers had no AA capabilities except for some .50 machine guns when they were constructed.  Not a perfect rule to be sure, especially on the Japanese side, but I just threw it out there for consideration.

@legion3:

The CAP in this game is really to powerful, CAP at this point in the war, did not stop any determined air attack before they reached the ships, heck even at the “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot” a few Japanese planes got through and attacked the ships, causing no damage. This game has airbattles where all the planes are shot down on both sides in the air phase. WOW!

Having played some more games, I heartily agree.  I’m not sure the best way to fix it though.  I’ve thought about reducing the air attack of planes by 1, but if you do, it seems like you could produce a huge fighter swarm with nothing that could destroy it fast enough to protect your fleets.  Since fighters are so cheap, you can build a lot of them easily.  I guess I’ll just have to experiment and find out.

Thanks for your quick answer  :-), I think that I will be able to play without any rules ambiguities now (it seems fewer ambiguities are present in this version’s rules than in A&A revised one, even if they are some) . I’m happy to learn that my English isn’t that bad too, thank you very much for all!

Thanks for that. Appreciate the reply.