Posts made by Bluestroke

We have some time, while waiting for the game.

Here is how, I thought the new game was going to look;
HistoricRef1941R14Africa map
http://www.mediafire.com/?kdwwz1mmmdn

WARNING THIS MAP CONTAINS FASCIST SYMBOLS.
item:I went back and added as many period Rondels as I could find for Allies and Axis Air Forces, inclusive of Fin Flashes.

The MAP;
item:1941, the Axis still controlled French West Africa, French Madagascar. 
The Italians were still fighting in Italian East Africa.
item:added the Red Sea Flotilla for Regia Marina.
item:added Allied and Axis units to finish the fight in Africa.

I asked Larry Harris, " why he had not included these items within the 1941 Setup? "
He indicated, " he had not found a satisfactory method to model French Vichy forces. "  He follows a strict KISS rule.  My thought from the brief note, maybe he feels it unbalances the game, when Africa theatre forces are merged into the 1941 setup.
I respect KISS.  We lose a lot of house rules, simply because it adds time and complexity to the game.

What are your thoughts about these territories not being alloted to Axis?

@Imperious:

AS far as fanaticism is concerned. AA has made me a war lover. I watch Combat! like 3 hrs a day, and all the other movies.

I got a full dress German field Marshall uniform custom made and have no reason to wear it.

Constantly looking for an official 1941 Benz Cabriolet in black, so i can ride around in style

Seriously considering building a Fuhrer Bunker style basement with a custom war room with custom AA table, complete with period furniture.

I can do all these things, but feel its a bit extravagant.  Except for the Bunker. I need an official playing HQ for these games.

This is funny-LOL.

I am not laughing at you certainly. It is an evil deep laugh…  standing next to you.
I can just see you, ready to game, Field Marshall dress, black 41Cabriolet, down to the bunker-par excellent.  You make the rest of us fanatics look like pikers, ja…
I do seem to be watching and looking for more WWII stuff.  Damn, I better be careful, there’s that evil laugh again…

I am by no means an expert in AA as you all seem to be, but spending much time here and reading about the house rules proposed and about the concerns of many of how “broken” this new AA50 may be, isn’t there some merit to suggest that the most innovative AA out there may be the AA clones, esp the Pegasus Hobbies edition which has already implemented many rules that are discussed here as fixing the “shortcomings” of AARevised and the anticipated AA50?

It occurs to me that many of the innovative changes to AA Revised were inspired or driven by “alternative” AA’s such as Xeno’s and by Pegasus Hobbies’ editions.

There are 1939 scenarios, rules about the invasion of neutrals, additions of France and other nations, diplomacy etc etc. Huge solid mapboards too. Perhaps, but I don’t know, the issue of subs has been resolved?

I mean, what is there to drive the selection of AA50 over The Wargame: WWII by Pegasus Hobbies?

As far as being obsolete or unbalanced-LOL really, we don’t even have a completed game, yet.  We have speculation and some rules, partial map.  It might be prudent to wait until you have a game or someone has a game.  So we can fill in the missing information.  Then, play the game maybe twenty times.  Then, maybe a statement like this thread, proclaims, would carry weight.  I have enough information to find a favorable review, but would be premature to proclaim it.  Guilty I am of a soft pedal.

@Admiral:

AA Religion = Larrism

I’m a strict adherent.

Game Dynamics, offered to young college kids;
When I was in college mid eighties, the Classic game never rested.  It was in action in some ones Dorm room every night.  It would return to my aparttment for our Saturday night game.  Any other time, I attempted to get it back for a pick up game, someone else, had a group scheduled to play.  It was cheap entertainment and social and often facilitated discussions on History, current political events and personal experiences, ( lots of vets. )
.

@Krieghund:

It’s just anything with a Chinese marker on it, plus Kwangtung.

Is Kwangtung mentioned in the rules as Chinese operations theatre?  I could not see any Chinese Territory marker on the Gen Con Pix.

@cousin_joe:

@Bluestroke:

Again, disclaimer we use **Sub Stealth Rule. **
Note: we use the hidden rule-where subs orders are written down on paper and you only see them when a destroyer finds em or you attack out of the blue… and at 6 IPC there are a lot of subs(add improved ship yards Tech at 5 IPC the wolf pack is back.)

Bluestroke,

You are playing an entirely different game here
If the DDs don’t know where the SUBs are, then yes, SUBs will be viable

We are talking about OOTB rules here though
DDs know exactly where SUBs are, and what support units they will need to bring in to finish them off
SUBs are near useless in such a combat system

Short of having to write where hidden units are on paper (which will never fly in online play), I think the simplest way to replicate what you’re doing, is not to have detection of SUBs by DDs automatic.  Instead, have each DD roll a “Detection Roll” to see if SUBs are detected or not…

SUB Detection Rolls and DD-to-detect values
-All attacking and defending SUBs are “Undetected” at the start of Combat. Each SUB has a DD-to-detect value, which is 3 at baseline, and represents the likelihood of being detected (a higher value means more likely to be detected)
-Only DDs can “Detect” SUBs. In the first cycle of combat, prior to Opening Fire, EACH DD in the attacking and/or defending force rolls a SUB Detection Roll. If at least ONE SUB Detection Roll is less than or equal to an opposing SUB’s DD-to-detect value, Those specific enemy SUBs are considered “Detected”.
-If none of the rolls are less than or equal to a SUB’s DD-to-detect value, Those SUBs remain “Undetected.” If there are no opposing DDs, then all SUBs would remain “Undetected”.
-Undetected SUBs may submerge on Opening fire and thus avoid further combat

This would greatly increase SUB survivability and make them much more likely to be used (especially in conjunction with some Convoy Raiding Rules).

Joe, What you say is true.  We are not OOB.  That is why I denote our game,
" AA50 House rules, " and include mention of Sub Stealth.

We do not use Sub detection.  Its OOB Automatic detection  when a DD is in the Sea Zone.  The Sub Stealth only modifies OOB, the fact, you don’t see subs until the DD shows up.  OOB rules except, when your submerge, no one sees the sub, until you pop up or a DD shows up in your Sea Zone.  This is simple and very powerful. 
Your path to attack is hidden.  Its how subs operate, ambush attackers.
Though, I like your detection rules.  I will present them to the guys and see if we can adopt them.  The are very KISS orientated, its hard to get new stuff into our game.
Hell, I try every game to get something in-LOL.

Even if, we did not use this rule, I find subs a useful cheap unit under OOB  rules.  Especially when combined with airpower.  Have you used this combination? 
True, We don’t play online, its face to face 4 player games. 
Face to Face, its the way the game was designed. 
I like the instant interaction of board game play.
I know, Online play would be used by me, if I did not have players readily available.
I could see where management of sub stealth would require a modification of online protocols.

@Rakeman:

Bluestroke, you ever go all out KGF?  As in, America and UK dedicate 90% of their resources to dominating Europe ASAP, and managing to sack Berlin before the Axis get Moscow or USA?

Of course, that has been standard move forever(or at least twenty years.)
  Its the standard move in most games I’ve played.  Its not working so, far in our AA50 games.  I note, someone stated in a thread,
" the Axis have the advantage in most new setups." 
They have the hardware deployed.  It takes a little longer to learn, Allies strats.
Allies have to buy and deploy, giving Axis two complete turns, unopposed really.
I remember, when A&A(classic) first came out.  The Axis always won.  Until, we figured out how to play the Allies.  Now, you have to have bids to keep the Axis in the game.
So, Axis have taken 3 out of 4 games.  We stumbled across this by accident, in the first AA50 house game;item:Germany got shipyards on its first turn tech roll.  He began buying 5 IPC subs with his INF buys and trading them with the Allies, before we knew it the Allies were having trouble supporting their shuck shuck ops in Europe.
Meanwhile, Japan left alone ran wild…  nuff said.
  Its too early, to make the broad judgements I am reading.  I am simply asking, why your not deploying sub/airpower combos against aggressive play. 
We have found its slows fleet deployment considerably.
We also note, Italy is much stronger in the Med and Africa then Germany ever was. 
Hell, by the fourth game the USA had begun pulling in subs with his bomber buys and stopped japan for the first time-LOL.
  Either way, we shall see, by the first of the year, different play styles, will have employed variable approaches to the common KGF strat.  We will have an answer.
Do you find this to be the same game as AAR, we find it different, more fluid?

@ShredZ:

Since nobody is ever going to buy subs as germany, maybe germany should get 1 free sub per round! ;)

As for subs not being able to be used as fodder, it doesnt make much sense, if you order a sub to the surface to fight the good fight, it should do as its told!

I am puzzled frankly, we have just completed our 4th, 4 player AA50 house game. 
The Allies won for the first time.  After action;
Analysis, the German player did not buy subs, until it was too late. 
In the previous games, Germany had bought a Min of 1 sub per turn.  Axis won all three games.  The German player decided he lost because,
he forgot to by a sub each round, like previous games and  the Allies made it a real two front war and he lost. 
Are we getting different results? 
We have already decided, a normal buy in our games, min. Germany must have 6 INF, 1 Sub each turn, then whatever else you need with remainder of IPC’s.
Again, disclaimer we use Sub Stealth Rule. 
Our results seem to show Subs manditory for Germany.
  A strong sub fleet, combined with airpower, keeps opponent Fleet defense very busy.
Are you finding USA, forced to defend Pacific every game?  We are, Japan is huge.
note, USA also, buying subs to go with his air units.  He was watching the German player’s effectiveness and started the same, one sub per round thing. 
Its, now getting tougher on the Japanese player.
Why would you not use subs?
Would you not trade a 5 or 6 IPC sub unit for more expensive units, all day? 
Its a winning economic trade.
Defend with subs-no, attack-definitely.  Best defense, is a good offense…
Where the hell are those subs!! should be the question of the day.

@Krieghund:

@Bluestroke:

Item:Subotai, great question;
Krieghund/andor Craig can you guys comment on IPC values of Territories? 
I could not see several territories IPC values, as I drew the map, so, stated on map.
I used derived totals for the territories I could not see. 
So, I would second, the request, to verify, IPC values if possible.

Sorry, we can’t go there.   :-(

Ok, fine, you can only do what you can do, we understand limitations. 
You guys have been a great help in promoting the game and info about it. 
Its like you guys are the entire promotion/marketing dept. for AA50 game-less one official release of the game at Gen Con, lets give em credit,
when they do promote-LOL.
Wait, there was a second pictured release-fair credit given.
I, just hope someone over at AH/WOTC isn’t over their claiming credit for viral promotion techniques.
Whom ever gets their game first, we request you share the wealth,
spill the forbidden info on 1941 setup and bless my lusty soul, the 1942 setup.

@marechallannes:

@Bluestroke:

I have a hunch the most likely units Craig says are missing;
this would be a lite, add on for missing units from pics
items:Subs, completely absent from Pacific theatre.Add 1 for each power.
item:DD in Eastern Med.
item:BMB from Japan. everyone has one, except Italy and China and now Japan, less likely?
item:CA, for USA Pacific Fleet, WUSA?  new unit missing from USA setup.
item:if China generates qty 1 INF for each territory, S/B at least 1 INF in each of the Chinese territories to start?  Again, the Sino-Japan war was in full swing.
item:ARM unit for Eastern USA, as noted in prior post-USA start w with no ARM unit?

Last item, my own Lust, the Second Japanese Battlewagon in the Sea of Japan with CT,
not likely, its an emotional need-LOL.

Sounds nice, but where to place the japanese Sub and the US Sub?

I don’t agree with the second US carrier. In 1941 the US Navy had only two Essex class Carriers (Yorktown and Essex I think). At the time of the attack on pearl habour they had left the pacific fleet for maneuvers.

…and I want this second jap BB, too!

Item:Marechallannes;
No, I did not mean/say a second USA-CV carrier.  That was a CA for USA cruiser.
Happy to hear, the thunder of battlewagons are heard by others-LOL.

Item:Subotai, great question;
Krieghund/andor Craig can you guys comment on IPC values of Territories? 
I could not see several territories IPC values, as I drew the map, so, stated on map.
I used derived totals for the territories I could not see. 
So, I would second, the request, to verify, IPC values if possible.

item:IL, Lynxes and timeover51 great posts as usual;
nice touch with numbers on vessels and the individual ship names and classes
-sweet as my grandson would say. 
One caveat, I think Larry stated, on his web site, Naval units, of all A&A units, could not be extrapolated/translated to numbers?

@Sherman:

Italy should attack the Russians because that takes pressure off of Germany in their invasion of Russia and it expands Italy’s income base, which it needs to do very quickly before the Allies take over Italy.

After Italy, secures, Med and Africa? 
A slight delay, allows the German Player some time to build his strike force.
I would use this tactic.  It pressures USSR Stalingrad IC and UK India IC. 
We have used this overrun technique with UK and USA often enough.  It will be nice, now the Axis can use this same tactic.  I also believe this provides a strong argument for the Southern route to Moscow.

ok edit required for start up,

Since, we can not rely on the pictures.  I have reread the after action reports at Morey’s swamp.  I used these player reports in my original recon for the AA50 maps. 
I must edit my proposed missing unit setup to reflect quotes from the game players.
item:remove USSR FTR -player flatly states no USSR FTRs.
item:remove extra INF from Japanese Islands-Japanese player says he was surprized no INF on those ISlands at start.
other game items I had not changed but have been called into question by posters in several threads;
item:verified Qty 3 CV carriers and 9 ftrs for Japan-player stated.
item:verified Qty 4 FTRS for Germany as German player stated.
item:verified qty 2 BMB for USA, its odd, but Quoted by players in game.
item:verified qty 10 USSR INF in soviet Far East territories.

I have a hunch the most likely units Craig says are missing;
this would be a lite, add on for missing units from pics
items:Subs, completely absent from Pacific theatre.Add 1 for each power.
item:DD in Eastern Med.
item:BMB from Japan. everyone has one, except Italy and China and now Japan, less likely?
item:CA, for USA Pacific Fleet, WUSA?  new unit missing from USA setup.
item:if China generates qty 1 INF for each territory, S/B at least 1 INF in each of the Chinese territories to start?  Again, the Sino-Japan war was in full swing.
item:ARM unit for Eastern USA, as noted in prior post-USA start w with no ARM unit?

Last item, my own Lust, the Second Japanese Battlewagon in the Sea of Japan with CT,
not likely, its an emotional need-LOL.

LOL,

Excellent move and Great Name for the Tactic…

@italiansarecoming:

Well many things are changing about the 41 setup (the 1st pic’s i saw were the 41 setup)  all that everyone is sure of is that the map is set.  (japan with big navy and 2 bombers for usa) this stuff is questionable and will make it very interesting all we can do is guess work…

I am sad we could have bought a&a 50 wah i  :cry: ok i am srry its so sad

Nah not sad,

actually its good that we don’t know everything.  It adds that Xmas anxiousness to the wait.  We are like little children waiting for our new toys-LOL.

@Lynxes:

The real setup should favor axis more than our speculation setup, the BGG setup favor allies with OOB rules. A Russian ftr + a few more allied units must be compensated somehow. Its not enough to remove the extra US bmr. I don’t think an extra Jap trans is enough either. Maybe Italy is stronger than we thought. It seems like Italy is practically useless if allies go KGF, Italy should perhaps get another transport + an inf and/or a tank? If the real setup favors allies more than the BGG setup, then AA50 is even more unbalanced than AAR.

I think NOs will be standard play for the game, whereas some will choose techs and some will not. So, given NOs Axis are way too strong in the GENCON set-up.

After looking at the AAP map and the actual historical naval situation, I expect the following additions (now only naval):

East Med: 1 UK destroyer
East Indies: 1 UK cruiser
Caroline Islands: 1 Japanese cruiser
Sea of Japan: 1 Japanese destroyer & transport
West coast: 1 US cruiser

item: I would agree with all of these Naval placements, except the Caroline Islands CA, add 2nd Japanese BB.
item:where are the Pacific SS submarines, add 1 for each power.
item:Rule Chg all CT trannys covered by a warship, Add German DD in Med, Japanese DD to CV in Midway Sea Zone.
item:Agree with Funcioneta, all Japanese Islands should have INF.
Item:Add Japanese BMB, deployed in Manchuria, maybe.
I will start a Group Speculation map on this setup, and one for Lynxes.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449ab1eab3e9fa335cae9fc2a6a9099e97f
I would as, Lynxes and others have previously stated add more China INF,
hell they had been fighting for near 10 years already.
and USSR FTR in Russia.

@Imperious:

is this the same link as the aa50 fact sheet?

Yes IL, same Link, but inside the folder labeled Speculation. 
You should be able to open it, I made it public.  Or go to the Link in this thread, which inside that speculation folder.

@Perry:

I’ve said a few things about what I felt was strange/in error , in this thread:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12584.15

Anyhow, if there are only a few pieces that need to be added, and no pieces deleted, I would hope for the following (based on three games playing the GenCon setup), sorted from in order of importance to play balance:

1) Addition of US naval units in the Pac!
I’m afraid we’ll see few/no US Pac games, unless this one turn out to be true…

2) Addition of starting Infs to China
'Nuff said…

3) Some more addition to UK navy
Don’t quite know where, but maybe the Pac…Just feels a tad bit weak, right now.

4) Some more land units added to WUS and EUS
Not of very big importance. I just think that there are an Inf left out in WUS and an Arm left out in EUS…

5) Redistribution of Infs on The Jap Pac Islands
Don’t know, they just feel wrong now…
1 Island empy (Iwo)
1 Island has 1 ftr (For)
1 Island has 1 inf (Oki)
1 Island has 3 inf (Car

Actually, that’s just about it…
1 & 2 are important. The rest are minor issues.
Hope I’ll be correct  :-)

Ok, Perry
I started a AA50GroupSpec1941PerryCHG2 map with your suggestions over in the 1941 Scenerio child thread/is this the 1941setup at the map link previously provided.
I used the info from here, and your post overthere.

@Perry:

These are the thing that I find highly irregular, with the current AA50-41 setup:

US

• 2 bmbs for US (a nation has never started with 2 bmbs in the history of AA)
• WUS got 1 inf, 1 ftr, 1 bmb only… Seems strange with so few landtroops in WUS…

UK

• 1 AA in Aus (that would also be a first…)

Japan

• In ECH (East China Sea), Japan starts w/1 inf, 1 rtl on board a trn. That would be a first, also, AFAIK
• 3 starting carriers for Japan, just feels plain wrong…
• Iwo Jima got 0 inf, Caroline Islands 3 inf and Formosa 1 ftr… We’re used to see 1 inf/territory on those Jap Islands… Strange…

China

• China: Well, what can you say  :roll:

The setup of just about everything else, feels rather straightforward. Even Russias lack of offensive pieces are fine, I think.

Ok, started a 1941PerryChg2 map, now online at the above map Link.
item:removed USA WUS 1 bomber.
item:removed Japanese 1 CV and 2 FTRS from Midway SeaZone.
item:removed japanese loaded CT now empty CT, placed INF on Formosa and Iwo Jima.
item:removed UK AA gun Australia.
included addtional info from your post on the other thread;
item:added USSR FTR to Russia territory(per noted missing Chg other thread?)
item:added USA 1 ARM to EUS.
item:added 5 INF to China.
item:added USA 1 CA to US west coast SeaZone.
ok, Perry anything else, map with your editoral above title now running.

Ist gut, Ja-LOL.

ok,
just saw Craigs post in the play test thread.  Confirmed, something is wrong with the BBG 1941 pictures from which, we built the AA50PlayersAid maps. 
Hes checking, to see if he.s allowed to give us specific detail, as to whats wrong.

@Lynxes:

Well, it’s (semi)-official now: the GENCON pic '41 scenario set-up is wrong. Bad for us who play-tested the GENCON set-up, but maybe great for the game. Let’s start a thread to get the information quicker! My five cents for what’s missing in the start-up, and this is guesswork:

1. 1 inf extra in each of the China up-front areas.
2. 1 Japanese transport in Sea of Japan.
3. 1 ftr in Moscow.
4. 1 UK DD in EMD.

All this would seriously change the game in the Allied favour, but play-testing with the GENCON set-up really has shown the Axis to be very much stronger than in all earlier editions of A&A and this is not what was intended I think.

Ok, what was wrong with the 1941setup picture?  Why is it semi-offical?  whats the source.  I just came online is it in another thread?