AA50-41 Tech Tourney sign-up (sign-ups CLOSED)

@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?

I have an AA50 for sale. It has been played a few times but is still in excellent condition. If anyone is interested send me a message with an offer and the highest offer by 02/05/10 will get it along with the full set of Combat Dice from FMG. I also have a copy of 2nd edition, Revised, Europe, the original Pacific game, and Battle of the Bulge available for sale. Message me on those as well. I am keeping AAP40 and AA42. Thanks.

Jenk,

Yes, AA50 takes very, very, very long time to setup and play FTF.  I think it would be the same PBF.  I have the game but have only played it twice as it’s very hard to get our group together and revised is still very fun to play.

Good luck.

I guess by the responses I have read it is unanimous, Italy is better as a seperate entity mainly due to the added possibilities that it creates and the overall strategy changes it allows from both sides.
The other thing I really do like is that with 6 countries it is axis then allies turns rotated so as to not have two allied turns back to back. It is harder to double team that way.
Thank you every one for your thoughts. 8-)

I like AA50 better.  We actually succeeded with a Kill Japan First strategy in the 1941 scenario, which I didn’t initially think was possible, which made for an exciting pacific game, for once.  I love the inclusion of Italy, and the way research is conducted means that people buy it and inevitably a couple players will get technologies, which makes every game different.

AA50 is a sight better than Revised in my opinion, and is worth the money.  I can’t think of any changes from Revised to AA50 that I wouldn’t consider an improvement.

I definitely think we’ll see some KJF’s or US Pac strats in time.  There are actually quite few things I’d like to try as the US, but it’ll just take some more games.

Also, you don’t have to actually kill Japan, just sink its fleet or keep it stuck in the Sz around Tokyo.  Once the fleet can’t move (or is gone), you can pick the easiest capital (still usually Germany in Revised) and take it out several rds later.

For example, I’ve had great success with a US - AC/ftr strat in Revised.  I see no reason why this can’t be attempted and used in AA50 (with modifications of course).

The general premise is to buy an AC and 2 ftrs every turn.  The ftrs can threaten multiple sea zones and once you move to Sol it becomes almost impossible to sink the AC without a massive commitment.  From there the US picks off the islands etc.

You still go after Japan and can get a feel for the Game.  How does Russia and the UK look?

Then immediately buy 1 AC, 1 ftr, + (subs/dd for fodder).

Rd 2 you can go 1 ac + 2 ftrs + ~12 ipc (for other stuff).

Japan has a mightly fleet to start, but they do have to take quite a few islands early.

Now the main question is can Russia hold out for 5-6 turns with only UK’s help and how poweful will Italy be with the US only commiting 2 inf per turn to Alg?

Another option I’d like to try as the US is some type of US Sub strat (talked about in other threads).

US 1 - buy 5 subs, 1 ftr
US 2 - buy 1 ac (+ ftr if needed), + 3 subs + other filler ships (or inf)

Essentially by US 3 you can have:
8 subs
1 dd (start with)
2 ac (1 start with)
4 ftrs (3 start with - maybe lose 1 in Pearl counter)
2 boms (start with)

Here you spent 62 IPC (8 sub + 1 AC), and you should have ~26 more ipc to spend (rd 1 - 40, rd 2 - ~48) meaning maybe you buy 1 more sub, 1 ca, 1 dd.

That is a 14 ship navy with 4 ftrs and 2 boms.  If Japan commits to trying to sink it, it will take quite a bit of effort.  Again the downside is:  can Russia hold out for 5-6 turns with only UK’s help and how poweful will Italy be with the US only commiting 2 inf per turn to Alg?

Also can the UK help with any of this? 
And just how much early help does Russia need?

These last two questions will depend on what will eventually become the “standard” G1 open, so Russia and UK can coordinate the best counters.

I wouldn’t rule out an Aus IC or Safr IC combined with US Pac strat but I’m usually not a fan of the early extra IC.  An Ind IC just seems like it might be too tough to hold, but you never know.

no it does not.

your doing good work BTW.