Yeah, if we’re talking w/o NO’s, then I’m with you - hands down!
We played tech - but I don’t think that it had an actual impact.
However, wheter or not to do NO’s, is of course huge…
Maybe a no tech, no NO game, Axis definitely need a bid….
What about:
Can’t judge wheter or not this is a satisfactory bid system, but it would be interesting to test…
Why is China so less powerful in 1941? It looks like china will be a push over in the '41 scenerio. The '42 scenerio looks more like it. This setup for China makes me want to play the '42 scenerio more and I was really looking forward to the '41. You have to use national objectives I think too. The US less powerful in '42? The US is even less powerful than in revised. Yes, you lose the Phillipines but it the game doesn’t take any account of increased US production. I want a balanced game but it seems the US is always under powered. I will have to wait and play.
Maybe a no tech, no NO game, Axis definitely need a bid….
What about:
- Each player bid how many NO’s he want in order to play the Axis…
- NO’s are selectable after the bid is won…
Can’t judge wheter or not this is a satisfactory bid system, but it would be interesting to test…
I’m not really into (playing with) house rules, other than many of them are interesting in the context of discussing what we want AAR/AA50 to be like.
I play online, not f2f, so the only house rule I’m using is no tech…
As for bids, I think the bids are just fine as they are, almost all players using preplace bids. It could be interesting to play with cash only, I have never tried it so I don’t know how high bid is needed to balance AAR. As for AA50, we will have to wait and see. Even if Wotc should release all of the setup info at least now, there’s only 1 week left, some info is much better than no info.
Can’t wait to know the Japan + German setup charts :-)
Generally, I’m skeptic to house rules too, but I don’t view bidding as that kind of house rule, if you know what I mean… :wink:
So you think the standard 50/50 preplacement bid rule will prevail also in AA50?
Well, I suppose chances are big that it will… It’s a system that is known to most people, and that is rather easy to explain.
The number of threads on this site, concerning “How do bids work?” (and god knows I’ve written a few myself :-) ), stands to prove that you need a rather simple & intuitive system in place, in order for it to be generally accepted & understood.
@Imperious:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17222181#post17222181
check it out.
Thanks detektive! :wink:
It’s been a while since I discussed bids, how high and what kind. I’m playing in the TripleA lobby, and there almost all players use preplace bids, that means all units are preplaced, not 50/50. When you are playing via forum, you use half cash - half amount in units? I thought you also used 100% preplace bid, and only 1 unit pr TT.
That rule if bid placement can be grouped is a minor one. I know good players have lost even if they placed 3 inf in Ukr…. :roll:
I almost forgot this is the AA50 thread, not AAR :lol:
Wonder if ppl still will use all bids to Germany - Africa, and if the bids will difference from with or w/o NOs.
I can’t imagine bids for allies, but I’m not 100% sure yet. The biggest question is if AA50 bids will be higher than AAR.
@Subotai:
What does it mean: Yunnan: 1 infantry, 1 fighter (US). It means that the fighter is owned by the US? So China does not have any own fighters?
No, it simply means that it’s a US fighter piece. The fighter is controlled by China and moves and attacks with Chinese forces.
But if US brings in another fighter, that can under no circumstances be controlled by the chinese, right?
No, it simply means that it’s a US fighter piece. The fighter is controlled by China and moves and attacks with Chinese forces.
OK, that statement made me slightly confused … Why isn’t it just a chinese ftr piece? If it is a US ftr piece you risk mixing it up with other US ftr pieces…
Ok, I understand that the real-life unit was made up of US Nationals, but I still think it will confuse players more than clarify anything, don’t you think :? :?
@Silent:
But if US brings in another fighter, that can under no circumstances be controlled by the chinese, right?
Correct, even if the original one is gone.
No, it simply means that it’s a US fighter piece. The fighter is controlled by China and moves and attacks with Chinese forces.
OK, that statement made me slightly confused … Why isn’t it just a chinese ftr piece? If it is a US ftr piece you risk mixing it up with other US ftr pieces…
Ok, I understand that the real-life unit was made up of US Nationals, but I still think it will confuse players more than clarify anything, don’t you think :? :?
I’m sure that AH just didn’t want to go to the expense of including a single Chinese fighter piece in the game. If it becomes a problem, I’m sure it will be easy to find a way to differentiate this fighter from US fighters, such as turning it upside down or marking it in some way. My guess is that you won’t have both a Chinese and US fighter in China all that often, as the Chinese fighter tends to die early.
Maybe we need bidding fighters for China then :-P
I suppose we will play usually 1942 scenario then, unless Japan have almost zero guys in mainland Asia (for chineses being able of more than a sparring). There is a heavy danger of 1941 scenario favoring axis too heavy (Japan being able of killing a power in J1 :-P). Still, 1942 scenario has 3 USA bombers … hard to believe … the feared strat bombing party for free :-D
Let’s hope Japan’s setup will correct this. Or that those charts are Photoshop tricks :roll:
Imagine:
So USA has the GENCON set-up after all, interesting. Still hoping for a stronger UK pacific fleet and a soviet airforce, we’ll see about that very shortly.
Anyways, me and Perry’s playtest game is now on a thread of its own and you can feel free to comment on that Subotai!
@Craig:
Let’s all get in approx. ten games before we start to proclaim which side has the advantage. Actually, let’s make that ten games with the NO’s and ten games without the NO’s so as to get a good read. Oh, and let’s make that both scenarios. 8-)
I don’t know, Craig, that sounds awfully reasonable to me! :wink:
The set up chart for Russia is up on the official message boards……
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1111655
Bomber in the 42 setup.
Something odd with the Russian setup:
Russia has 30 IPCs for both 1941 and 1942. Does this refer to starting IPCs or IPC level?
On the US setup, it starts with 40 in 1941 but it drops to 38 in 1942 to reflect the loss of the Phillipines. Shouldn’t Russia be down to 24 as well?
Oh and there’s 2 AA guns on Russia.
Agreed
Great … 1942, soviets have 2 aa guns in Moscow but zero ICs there :-P And commie flag covers part of the setup. Income the same for both scenarios, even if soviets start 1942 with less territories. Or a typo or Photoshop magic :-D And zero fighters in both setups :?
OMG its a misprint!!!
they meant to have 1 factory in Russia, not 2 AA guns.
Incredable…nobody proofs anything… what a joke. :mrgreen:
Something odd with the Russian setup:
Russia has 30 IPCs for both 1941 and 1942. Does this refer to starting IPCs or IPC level?
On the US setup, it starts with 40 in 1941 but it drops to 38 in 1942 to reflect the loss of the Phillipines. Shouldn’t Russia be down to 24 as well?
Oh and there’s 2 AA guns on Russia.
You are rigth. Seems they are not able to print correct set up charts. Russians owns 24 IPCs income in 1942.
…and I’m pretty shure they mean “… 1 AA Gun 1 IC” for russia in 1942.
Doesn’t matter! Give me the UK-set-up-chart!!!
