Cmdr Jennifer Hijacks “Enhanced” – How do you really feel about it.

I think MPC220 summarizes the past events quite nicely.

@mpc220:

The only possible reason to call the Jenny ruleset “Enhanced” is to confuse newbies or people like me who play a lot offline but don’t really keep track of the online scene.  And then to keep at it when the original three ask nicely to desist is boorish and arrogant.

I for one will never play AA50:Jenny, but if the real Enhanced rules come out once you guys get a sense of the game’s balance please keep us informed.

I think Jenn has good intentions when she tried to continue the Enhanced legacy from Revised to AA50.  But the best intentions do not make up for her attitude and failure to do what it needs to make a great rules set.  Anyone can make a rules set.  Making one that makes the game better, consistently, that passes the test of time is another thing.

A collaberative effort with many games of play testing is the best way to do this.  Hell, the community just now is only beginning to compile game numbers of any value to evaluate Anniversary Edition.  How can a rule set that is meant to correct the issues in the base game be close to meeting it’s goal when those issues aren’t even ‘known’?

One last point:  House rules that worked well for the Revised game can not just be copied over and applied to the new game.  And copying them via cut and paste (in an effort to make this rule set ‘official’) is probably the worst way to port the old rules to the new game as the rules almost certainly need tweaking for them to be effective for AA50.

Yes collaborative effect would be nice. Though I thought AARe was ultimately in charge by cousin_joe rather than a council anyway.

I do sort of think people should not use an established name to name their set of house rules.

@tekkyy:

Yes collaborative effect would be nice. Though I thought AARe was ultimately in charge by cousin_joe rather than a council anyway.

The ‘council’ of players would discuss and make suggestions, do the game play testing with a final recommendation for a rule.  Cousin_Joe did have final say, basically to avoid a ‘mutiny’ type of situation from ever happening.

Fortunately, CJ’s genious was usually right on with respect to the proper rule to be implemented.

Not to legitimize the thread, but two things of clarity:

1)  Cmdr_Jennifer is not me.  Kinda silly to take that name, but I’ll take it as a token of honor and respect that he so wants to be like me that he’ll take my name.

2)  The title AA50:Enhanced (or 50th Anniversary Edition: Enhanced) was used because the entire rule set comes from Revised:Enhanced.  Every idea, every concept, every pre-conceived notion in the AA50e official rules comes from the AARe official rules.  Virtually nothing was changed except as a way to adapt to the new pieces and territories in Anniversary that did not exist in Revised.  The goal of creating AA50e was to make the absolute minimum amount of changes from AARe so as to play the AARe rules in Anniversary without violating the rules of Anniversary.  Considering there are only 10, very minor, changes, I think this was accomplished splendidly by the community of gamers who collaborated on this effort.

If you dislike the rules, then you probably dislike the AARe rules since they are virtually the same.  In fact, any legitimate argument against AA50 enhanced would be equally legitimate against AAR enhanced.

D-Day is a carry over.
Convoy Raid Damage is a carry over.
Unit Costs are a carry over.
Submarine detection is a carry over.
Japanese/Russian Non-Aggression treaty is a carry over.

Every major aspect of AARe has been carried over to AA50e with the exception of National Advantages.  The NA in AARe were converted to the technologies in AA50 in the creation of AA50e and that was because the NAs in revised enhanced were virtually identical to the technologies in AA50.

Obviously things like China and Italy had to be added to Revised since they exist in Anniversary.

So you have to wonder, the whiners out there who have an issue with Enhanced for Anniversary, why are they complaining?

1)  They felt left out.  Even though everyone was invited, the invitation was only on this game forum or by direct invite.  People like axis_roll determinedly and, in my opinion, pig-headedly refused to participate in the adaption of the rules to Anniversary.  They felt that if they did not participate, that the entire world would come to a screeching halt and they could exist with their heads firmly implanted in the sand.  They were wrong.

2)  Some think there were too many changes.  Well, sorry, but it is impossible to adapt Enhanced rules from Revised to function at all in Anniversary without at least some changes.  They were asked for their input no less than three times before the official final version was released.  No specific rules were challenged at those times.

3)  Even though Cousin_Joe and other creators of Revised Enhanced never questioned the creation of Anniversary Enhanced and were appraised at each and every step along the procedure (their non-challenging of the creation could be taken as tacit approval of the new version) some people have taken it upon themselves to complain about the name being used.  It’s akin to someone complaining that you named your dog “Buddy” because someone else named their dog “Buddy” one time and you “stole” the name.  It’s silly.  It would have more merit if they had named their dog “Buddy” but it wouldn’t be much more merit.

So, instead of saying “Hey thanks.  Cousin_Joe and company did not want to make an enhanced version of Anniversary and we missed a lot of the enhanced rules from Revised when we converted to Anniversary.  So it’s great that you and a team of players adapted the enhanced rules from Revised so that they would work in Anniversary and saving us the trouble of having to do it ourselves.”  They b’tch’n’moan as if I had shot their dog.

Seems spiteful and hateful to me.

I am reluctant to step into the middle of a family squabble, but I don’t think this thread is serving a useful purpose.

There seems to be a plethora of house rules and other modifications that players would like to experiment with. Personally, as long as everyone agrees, fine by me. Call them what you want, “Enhanced”, “Modified”, “Historical”, “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, or “George” for all I care. If you don’t want to play with modified rules, then don’t.

Life is way too short to be picking fights in cyberspace over a game. A&A is a great game, but it is only a game. If you are not having fun, then something is seriously wrong.

My 2 cents.

If you dislike the rules, then you probably dislike the AARe rules since they are virtually the same.  In fact, any legitimate argument against AA50 enhanced would be equally legitimate against AAR enhanced.

Once again, you completely miss the point. Just because you copied and pasted rules from AARe to AA50 does not mean your game will necessarily have the same strategic variety and game balance that was achieved inr AARe. You can’t just slap together a bunch of rules from a different game and expect them to function in the same way. Your failure to even acknowledge this point does not help your credibility as a game designer, and it casts serious doubt on the quality of your rule set. This is why people take issue with your use of the name “enhanced”: you’re taking the name of a well-established rule set in order to give your rules credibility.

Do your rules deserve that credibility? No, not as far as I can see.

Never mind the fact that people haven’t even figured out the basic game yet, you make bold claims about how your rules were thoroughly playtested by expert online players. Yet, when pressed for actual names of these players by axis_roll you simply ignore the question. Hmmm. Not a single other person who can vouch for you, huh? Not helping the credibility along.

If you haven’t playtested the rules, that’s fine. Just say so. People post rules all the time that I’m sure haven’t even been tried once. I just don’t see why you have to lie about it, and instead steal the name of an established rule set in order to legitimize your own.

Coming from someone who has played AA50:Enhanced exactly how many times, Unknown Soldier?  My bet, ZERO

Talk to me about how well the AA50 enhanced rules work after you’ve played a dozen games of it.  Until then, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

@Cmdr:

Coming from someone who has played AA50:Enhanced exactly how many times, Unknown Soldier?  My bet, ZERO

LOL, obviously I haven’t played it.

My whole point is that these rules aren’t worth playing because you haven’t demonstrated that the same level of thought and playtesting that went into AARe went into your rules, even though you try to present them as such.

Now are you going to address these concerns, or continue to avoid them by simply attacking me?

@Unknown:

@Cmdr:

Coming from someone who has played AA50:Enhanced exactly how many times, Unknown Soldier?  My bet, ZERO

LOL, obviously I haven’t played it.

My whole point is that these rules aren’t worth playing because you haven’t demonstrated that the same level of thought and playtesting that went into AARe went into your rules, even though you try to present them as such.

Now are you going to address these concerns, or continue to avoid them by simply attacking me?

Hey, you’re the one attacking me.  You have not even gone to the trouble to play the rules, and I suspect, to even read them.  How can you possibly say that there was not the same level of thought and playtesting in these as there was in AARe if you have not even attempted to play them?

Seems a little foolish to make a statement like the rules are bad just because you don’t like me personally.  Not my fault you’re too stubborn to even download them, read them, and play them once (though I suggest it might take 3 to 5 games to truly see the balance at work) and see if they are as bad as you claim.

No, instead you’d rather flame and troll around.  Why don’t you go away and get a life?  If you don’t want to play AA50:Enhanced, then don’t play it.  No one is forcing you to.  And since I legally own the name, no amount of bleating like a stuck pig is going to get the name changed. (Though there is also no reason to change it, since the rules are virtually identical to AAR Enhanced which is the sole reason Anniversary Enhanced has that name.)

Well the thread is a calling card for the whinners to cry about whatever, so i see your point, but this thread is something like a purposeful salt cleaning for a wound thats self inflicted.

I too cringe at some of this, but at least its not spilling in other threads. I think its a joke thread anyway even if some people take it like gospel.

No, instead you’d rather flame and troll around.

If you wanna call me a troll or whatever, fine, but how about just addressing the issue at hand instead of calling me names? You brought this on yourself, so deal with it.

How can you possibly say that there was not the same level of thought and playtesting in these as there was in AARe if you have not even attempted to play them?

Its pretty simple, really. You read the rules. Which, despite your accusations, I did do. There are obvious flaws, one of which was pointed out to by axis_roll in the other thread. I questioned whether you playtested the rules in my first post in that thread, which was promptly deleted by IL. Then axis_roll asked you about playtesting, specifically, who was involved.

You responded with:

Most of the dev team were gamers who live in Northern Illinois.  After the rudiments were put in place, we had a month of online gamers testing it from the four major gaming sites that I know of: DAAK, FOE, AAMC and here.

Wow, that sounds impressive.

Then axis_roll asked you the following:

I ask WHO they were (online monikers).  How many players as well?  You also didn’t indicate their background (i.e. years experience, AARe experience, etc)  I know most, if not all of the Enhanced players.

To which you refuse to respond.

So, call me a skeptic, but I’m just not buying your story here. It seems as though maybe you didn’t bother playtesting much, if at all. It seems like you’re just saying things to sell us on your rules.

@Cmdr:

Every idea, every concept, every pre-conceived notion in the AA50e official rules comes from the AARe official rules.  Virtually nothing was changed except as a way to adapt to the new pieces and territories in Anniversary that did not exist in Revised.  The goal of creating AA50e was to make the absolute minimum amount of changes from AARe so as to play the AARe rules in Anniversary without violating the rules of Anniversary.  Considering there are only 10, very minor, changes, I think this was accomplished splendidly by the community of gamers who collaborated on this effort.

The model for creating AARe was this; start with LHTR and modify from there.
Notice this small sample of AARe from the early stages.
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ADVANTAGES:

1. Method of Deployment
-At the start of each country’s first turn, they will select 1 NA to be used for the game
-The NA does not come into effect until it is declared at the start of that country’s first turn
-Once declared, the NA comes into effect immediately.
-The Axis also get one additional NA, for either Germany or Japan (Giving Axis and Allies 3 each in total), which they do not declare until the start of their second turn.

RUSSIA
1. Nonagression Treaty - as in LHTR
2. Lend-Lease - as in LHTR
3. Russian Winter - as in LHTR
4. Mobile Industry - as in LHTR

GERMANY
1. Panzerblitz - as in LHTR
2. Atlantic Wall - as in LHTR
3. Wolf Packs - as in LHTR
4. Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers - as in LHTR but modified to include Land Combat only.  FTRs attack normally in Sea Combat.
5. Afrika Corps - Place 1 free INF in SEur, and 1 free TRN in SZ 14 during the Mobilize Units phase of this turn.  This can only be used once per game.  Note: you’ll likely need a capital ship to protect the TRN.
6. Convoy Raids - On the Russia, UK, and US Collect Income Phases, for every German SUB within 1 SZ of (ie. directly adjacent to) an IC owned by that respective country (eg. Cau,UK,EUS), subtract 2IPC from their collected income.  For every German SUB within 2 SZ of an IC, subtract 1IPC.  One SUB may affect multiple IC’s in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses)

See how the method to create AARe is referring back to Larry Harris Tournament rules as much as possible, and not to some other game.

Notice the basic start and workings to what it is today.

Cmdr Jennifer, your rule-set does not follow this model.

The goal of AA50e is to follow this model, not to copy and paste.

AA50 is different. Different map, prices, rules, naval interaction = a different puzzle.

BadSpeller

@axis_roll:

The ‘council’ of players would discuss and make suggestions, do the game play testing with a final recommendation for a rule.  Cousin_Joe did have final say, basically to avoid a ‘mutiny’ type of situation from ever happening.

yeah I know what you mean

though I would use the word ‘mutiny’ to refer to the main testers/supporters not happy with cousin_joe’s decision and thus withdraw their support/endorsement for the rules

under a council there is no such thing as a mutiny, but simply a proposed change that did not pass

to keep the set of house rules clean, its better controverisal changes don’t go through rather than letting them creep in and see what happens

so the naming issue aside, I would hope Jennifer go forward rather than backward in the formation of the rules

Actually, Bad Speller, it does follow that model.

It starts with AARe and makes 10, very small, very minor, changes to account for changes in the board, changes in the pieces and the addition of two new nations as released by WOTC.

Everything starts from AARe, though.  Every concept, every idea.  It’s all just adapted to fit into Anniversary Edition.

Also, it is the “final version” but it might have Errata just like Anniversary, AARe, LHTR, AAR all had.

I’m new to this conversation but if I were asked, I would say that unless it came from Larry Harris himself, they are all unofficial house rules. Almost every enthusiastic A&A player at one time or anouther changed the rules because they believed that they could make the game better…… its only natural. That being said, anything can get published but was it under the game labels that have owned the rights to Larry Harris’s design in the past? Thats the question… so whats the answer?

@Cmdr:

Actually, Bad Speller, it does follow that model.

NO, your rule-set does not follow that model.
To follow that model, one MUST start with the AA50 rules.

For example; in the AA50 rulebook, on page 2, Larry Harris writes;
“One important aspect of the game that I wanted to address was the ahistorical tendency for the Japanese to attack Russia. I did not mind if this attack occurred late in the game–-who knows, if things had gone differently during the actual war, perhaps the Japanese would have attacked Russia.  The solution I settled on was to add additional territories and units between the Japanese forces and Moscow.  The real-world translation or these additional territories is the seemingly endless miles that exist between Asia and Moscow.”

By Larry adding territories and changing the map (in AA50) the Bilateral Non-Aggression Treaty (that Cmdr Jennifer has copy-pasted to her rules) is not there and not needed.

This is just one example.

The true developers of AARe would start with AA50 and work form there.

Everything starts from AARe, though.

But this is exactly the wrong way to approach things. AARe =/= AA50.

I know it doesn’t equal AA50.  AARe does not equal AAR either, nor does it equal LHTR.

What AA50:Enhanced does do is build off of AARe in a way to apply the rules of AARe to AA50 without ruining the balance and without making huge and drastic changes to AA50 or AARe.