AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

Thank you.

@taamvan said in Anniversary 2017 Reprint - rule changes?:

The reprint could have re-organized the setup charts, which are not very rationally laid out and appear to just wander around the area and put the units in a different order in each list. In the better organized versions, the lists are alphabetical, or some snake around the land then the sea–but it would be more rational to have some uniformity to that, rather than just a messy list without any rhyme or reason.

As to the tournament rules, the game is VASTLY different in that setting than OOB. The NOs add a ton of money, the tech adds a lot of randomness. I think the tech favors the allies because they are well-positioned to invest in that starting on turn 1, and would probably make better use of most of the random outcomes than the Axis.

I find both games to be quite imbalanced, towards the Allies. There are no other maps where fighters can fly in one move from US to London, then from London unblockably to Moscow (over the top, 4 moves). There are more layers of buffer territories for moscow–almost as many territories in the “maze” as global. In the 42 scenario, the Germans just punch themselves out really quickly trying to fight in the russian maze. And the 5$ tanks are a big boon for Russia because it can fight Germany on even terms. You might argue that goes both ways, but in most of our 41 and 42 games, Germany has to buy DEFENSIVELY, all game–not just $5 tanks. The Allies have easy choices of what to buy–tanks for russia and fighters for the other two powers, until Russia is absolutely untakable. India without a factory is a lost cause. Both setups are an easy 5-turn KGF, OOB.

In the tourney, its a 6 turn game with less than a 6 bid for either side. The Allies won 1-2 more games than the Axis did, in 2018, under these parameters. I think the only way this is possible is for the Axis to grab Sydney, India, Karelia, and then hold those, plus the original Axis cities. They can lose 1 and still win a tie, I believe.

Not having watched the invitational games in detail, that’s the only conclusion I can draw from the available data.

This is an odd reply to a question about the rules being reprinted…

@Adlertag:

@bugoo:

How would the odds fall with 3 subs 1 bomber?

Now that was a depravity line of thinking. Imagine Eisenhower abort D-day 1944 because the odds was not good enough. We would all be speaking german now. If you want to win games, you need to strenghten your fighting spirit and breed more aggression. Peacekeepers dont win wars, you know that, now do you ? Butt enough talk. Now you better gimme a + karma and help me reach the magic 800 before Frog.

good luck with 800, but i’ll support :)

or worse, we would be speaking russian!

@ Corbeau Blanc

I’m wondering if you are still interested in some test games. I sent you a PM a few days ago with a about it, so read that before you reply.

@Flying:

I see no strategy evolving that includes fighting Japan with a large enough effort that simulates the real war. It will be KGIF. I do think KGIF can be defeated by Japan buying large quantities of bombers and using them to blast Russian ICs. This would give the Germans an opening to crush Russia.

Japan can make America fight.

I was just looking over the new AA50 board image and it occured to me how arbitrary the geography is in this game.

Why is the Belgian Congo in this game at all?

Spain is off limits, even though certainly in the realm of possible history/gameplay Spain could have been a major player or battlefield of WWII; a lot more of a possibility than French Eq Africa or the Belgian Congo which are indeed in play.

Certainly Turkey could have been a significant factor in this alternative universe of a game we call Axis & Allies than ever could have would been French West Africa or Rhodesia.

Yet there they are: Belgian Congo, French West Africa, Rhodesia all open for invasion. Spain and Turkey and others are closed off.

This is so ahistorical, we disagree about countless other nuances and rules about being historically deficient. Yet without Spain and Turkey, we are are not even accorded the ability to play out WWII in ways which could have indeed happened a lot more probable than the invasion of the Belgian Congo and Rhodesia by the Nazi war machine.

Why of all the possibilities of the Axis and Allies timeline/universe are these 2 of the more likely ones that could have happend are indeed shut down?

Nice work, thanks.

I like the icons you used in this one.

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.