AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A

@Imperious-Leader Maybe you went this way since the original design does archetypally the same, but how about, in the land-to-land borders, colourizing the borders of the borders, while leaving the inside of the borders light grey?
This way, you could properly define the colours for the borders between territories with different ownerships (for example, having the border between Poland and East Poland grey on the west and red on the east).

The Soviet symbol in the turn order is different from the ones inside the territories.

The Azores are sometimes neutral and sometimes American (also probably it would make more sense as British than Americans, but debatable and pointless).

In the “AA50 Suplreme Edition” there are no territories for Azores and Malta, but only the roundels?

@LincolnsTopHat:

Just curiously, how do you plan on getting it printed? I’ve been looking around, and so far most printing sites are almost as expensive as getting the game itself.

Oh, printing the map isn’t about saving money (unless it was 2016 and you were trying to “make” AA50 without spending $500+ on E-Bay for an out-of-print used copy of AA50).

TBH, I’d be surprised if you could print a map for under the price of the game… the purpose of printing the map is usually to make a BIGGER map that is a single piece without creases or separate board issues for a more enjoyable way to play the game (I have printed maps for all my versions of A&A… I like bigger maps without the creases).

If you’re looking to save money, by all means, buy the game and play on the board that comes with it… that’s the cheapest way to play AA50 (at least in 2017).

Splitting this Colonial Outpost idea out into it’s own thread.

Cool program!  I’ll try it out the next time I’m with friends.

We play with four,
hoping to add another.  We also speed up the game by going all Axis then all Allies.  We are going to add timers, to keep the game moving, we include a 6.5 hour time limit on our games, with pizza and beer, or in my case a shot of whiskey can not be with held.

Yes, I built a factory in India and Australia. The Japs went for Australia first but I was able to delay them with two of my destroyers so that Aussies could build two infantry before they could get there. Added to the already 3 you have plus the artillery, the AA gun, and an American fighter and bomber that landed there. Since he was after the Aussies this gave time for the Indian Factory to build 3 Armor plus the 3 infantry, 1 Artillery, and AA gun that are already there. I was going to send my South African troops to help in Egypt but, by this time the Axis was already losing in North Africa and I sent them to India. I considered building a factory in Canada to avoid the German Air power when I built 1 or two ships near the UK when my fleet was in the Med. In the end I didn’t but it would have been nice to have. There should be the ability to build in all of these areas from the beginning. Looking at the '42 scenerio it looks very hard to build a factory in India without losing it right away.

So Italy really wasn’t a large factor? Did they conquer all of Africa? What were their builds?

Italy built 1 trs and 1 CV and then mostly land units, adding 1 DD later on. Africa wasn’t important, Germany sent a tank down there which manoeuvred to avoid 2 UK infs (landings in West Africa were not done but probably would have been a good idea). Italy was a factor in that it distracted from attacking the Germans and I think a balanced approach by the US and the UK is probably more effective, i.e. landing in both Norway and Algeria, having fleets both in North/baltic sea and West Med, SBR against both Germany and Italy, and this necessitates a lot of US involvement.

For such things as India IC, this is a detail which o/c we just have to try and fail to see if it can be held, more than 4-5 rnds?

In this game there was no India IC, India survived because Japan focused on China and Australia. In an other game an IC was built and defended with the help of some Russian troops but the jury is out on if this really is viable if the Japs really go all-out vs. India. I hope there’s more UK ships to start with since that would make defending a built IC so much easier! We’ll see very shortly when we get the UK set-up.

@Imperious:

Larry has stated many times that the units don’t generally fit standard military models for classic formations (divisions, corps, army) and in some cases these are corps and others they are armies. They are not the same in every case, allowing for the corps in Africa to be symbolized as perhaps 2-3 units, while in the Soviet union one infantry may represent an army ( 3-5 corps).

Yes, IL thanks,
I have been reading those old posts.  I note he (Larry Harris) stated the Naval units abstraction was a greater dilution of unit strength, or a direct correlation to vessel numbers from standard representation of Classic fleet/squadron/Battle groups.  I am thinking more in chess terms, where tempo or position is sometimes of more value then individual pieces.