Posts made by Bluestroke

@Builder_Chris:

Bluestroke wrote…
I have studied that picture for several weeks.

Man…you guys are CrAzY……Studying a picture that you “think” is the 42 set up for several weeks…. :?  I have finally found a group of AA & WW2 freaks just like my self! :-D

Thanks for all the pics and speculation so far on this thread, its really cool!  And thanks to Krieghund for introducing me to this site.  I’m pretty new to all of this forum….“stuff”…I never saw the point in all the “talk”, but after getting sick of looking for A&A freaks like myself in my own city and coming up real short I thought I would look online for others that eat sleep and breath all things A&A and WW2. After reading these posts it looks like I finally found the right place!

welcome, I am rather new myself. 
Yes, I stared at those pics for several weeks, but I was drawing the AA50PlayersAid maps 1941,1942Lite, 1942Heavy.  I wanted to redraw the 2004 Revised game board into a real map and along came those pictures, so off I went.
There are links to those maps here somewhere.
I have been attempting to absorb many of the older posts pm this site, to catch up to where the online communities have been.  Man they have covered a lot of ground.

@Perry:

In the uploaded Abattlemap resource for AA50, there exists a “Perry Channel” (PCA) area north of WCA/Alaska.
Is that an area that is possible to enter?
Is it somehow connected with Hudson Bay SZ??
Anyone knows?

It appears they built their AAbattlemap from my AA50PlayersAid1941 Map.  I have redrawn about 80% of the 2004 revised game board, into a real map. Thats why I know they used my map as their base reference. 
And Yes, I added the Perry Channel.
its not on the 2004 Revised game board.  My orignal statement was, Perry Channel not useable for the basic AA game.  In a Later map revision, I removed  my Perry Channel statement and replaced it with Icepack.  This was to prevent people from loading units from western Canada Polar regions and taking them to USSR. 
You can see it for yourself on one of my AA50PlayersAid maps;
I have now added the 1942 Map setups. 
Their is a Link to the maps, over in the 1942 Scenerio thread or the AA50 Fact Thread.

Greetings all,

Here is my AA50PlayersAid1942 Maps.  There are Two,
Item:one called 1942Lite,
which gives the basic 2004 Revised setup on the new map, Plus new countries delinated from 1941 setup with a sprinkle of New cruiser units added to the game, and/or the smallest amount of speculation.
Item:one called 1942Heavy,
which provides the heavest speculation, such as, if you believe each country would have a battlewagon as its nations flagship,
(which up to this point Larry has provided;)This also rebalances the so called bid, requirement from 2004 Revised for the Axis.
So, heavy involves Germany keeping its battlewagon, relocated to the Baltic Gruppe.  This Heavy map is translated from the lone photo of 1942 game display at Gen Con, which also included random piece placements.  I elimanated many of those.  So, this map is a reduction from that display.  I also, cross referenced with Dante’s map. Yes, this is a more speculative, let me see what you see,
" loose the Dogs, cry havoc "
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449d2db6fb9a8902bda
Reality, is somewhere inbetween the two maps,
enjoy.

I am still not sure, why people are overly concerned about SBR;

We have now played three AA50, granted house games, utilizing the partial AA50 rule set, we have put together here online,
some points to consider;

Item:Players have always used USA/UK bombers to bomb Germany,
now add Italy(same territory really as Souther Europe) to your list,
in our 3 games, it was not more of a factor, then usual, some hurt, but not overwhelming. (Italy?  giving Germany less attention, priceless.)    
(and, yes, our USA, UK players bomb every round possible, they love their bombers,
even, more bombers then usual were in play-cheaper.)

Item:Noted, This AA50 game seems more mobile, w cheaper Naval units, new game mechanics, lots of action, get ready to lose those bombers.
Brief point, screening (at 8 IPC) destroyers, backed by cruisers are defending at 2/3, are soaking up a lot of attacking air power, costing 10-12 IPC.  A subtle, but steady economic loss.  The same results happened in the second game.
By the third game, everyone, began buying more subs to counter the larger naval deployments.
Air power may be losing dominance, fighters will likely have to get cheaper
(at least 8 IPC,) to stay in the game( Next game Rev-LOL.)
Hell, even the Germans/Italians now seem to have credible naval operations.

Item:Disclaimer, of course our results, might not be yours, and yes we play with some AARHE rules, which could modify our results further.

The Map territory markers painted on the map, show Italian East Aftrica as UK control.  Ref pictures of game board displayed at Gen Con, thats how I marked them on the PlayersAid Map.

@Imperious:

1942 set up is the last secret weapon of the game.

I would like to have a May 1940 scenario and July 43 scenario made with some starting technology in the latter. Ill get to work once things are known.

IL,
I am of course rather new to these boards.  I just wanted to thank you for the many detailed posts.  They have made good reading.
item:1942 the challenge, can we deduce Larry’s force deployment from the meager clues?
Item:A 1940/1943 I look forward to seeing those ideas.

@timerover51:

Except for the rules and the techs not changing, everything about the 1942 scenario is speculation at this point.

Greetings Timeover51,

I am new to this online community. Thank you for many of the detailed posts you have written.  I appears, it drives IL, a little buggy, when you go off on those historic tangents, but I usually learn something. 
Especially, when you and IL cross points, interesting reads.
Also, great to read you have modified AA for some historic simulation classes.

item:total speculation 1942, I love this.  I want to see how close we can get to Larry’s actual force deployment for 1942.

@Imperious:

russia 1st trun= only 1st round
axis germany,japan + italy(optional)
allies u.s.a, gb and russia after 1st round also russia = ussr ok lol!

Thats something that looks similar to AARHE which uses the Revised map and takes place in 1942.

1st turn:
Soviets
Axis
Allies

All other turns:
Axis
Allies

that’s the proper way to state it.

Item:Hey IL,
thats how we play all our games.  It speeds up the game, and no one is left standing around waiting to play.  Its more fun to have everone in action at once.
We use several of those AARHE rules.  Victory City- INF placement.  I am attempting to have more of the AARHE rules adopted, but I have run into rules overload- with attempting to splice AA50 unit values, costs, TechTable etc… into our game.

Item:Dante thanks for the map for 1942.  Ahh, now I see, where your edit visuals have helped, me.  I can not remember If I told you I had given you editing credit on the AA50PlayersAid map for all your help.
  I will study and see where I can revise my 1942  AA50PlayersAid map with your information-and of course your credit.  I am about 90% done, having a hard time deciding, what those last few placements in Europe.  I feel this 1942 map will be the most speculative of the two(1941/1942.)Do you guys agree?

Black Elk,

I like your thinking.  I realize this is just brain storming, so here is an idea we use to partially accomplish, what your indicating, though I think this has a smaller footprint within game balance; We use several historic rules(AAHE.)
One of them allows a player to raise (place) infantry only (from your turns purchase phase) on victory cities, Qty limited to territoral IPC limits.  I like this mechanic, small but with large impact. 
A member of our group idea, we adopted, a new factory doubles the IPC value, for unit placement only, of any territory it is placed.
Some small suggestions, not mine, other players devised them,
just ones we use to enhance our game.

Greetings all,

More speculation China,
I have been staring at one picture from Gen Con.  It is the display showing a 90% 1942 2004 Revised Setup, plus new stuff. 
I note qty 9 Chinese Infantry, plus Fighter. 
I wonder if Larry has his own Oct surpise, with the 1942 setup.
By the way, I like Chinese troop restrictions, they were focused on China. 
I would hate to see Chinese troops in India.
nuff said.

Swwweet, nice shot IL.

@LT04:

Is there a way we could add a temporary count down timer that will stop at October 23?

OHOOOOH!!! Goood Idea, we could even do an manual one, as its own Header thread, if a automatic one was too techy. I vote, Lt04 has the idea of the day.

damn- :-)LOL, I am going to jump off the edge my desk….

Hey Craig, Krieghund,
You guys allowed to comment on AA50 1942 Naval Set up?  I note more destroyers, wondering where, the new cruisers might end up???
I think the surprise for Oct, is going to be an alteration in 1942 startup???

Ahh,

You guys have been discussing my dilemma.   I have been working on AA50PlayersAid 1942 Setup.  I have studied that picture for several weeks. 
My observations;
item:Yes, the Philippines territory is 2, you can just see its edge under a unit.
item:IPC conditions, with Bonus IPC’s I think the values do change.
item:Great tech changes, simple, effective and qty 12.
back to the map;
item:Item:Krieghund reminded me, No 1942 game played at Gen Con, that was a 1941 game.  The picture then, would be staged for display.  Yet, there are too many 1942 Revised game positions noted on the board, for it to be accidental.  Plus additional random positions laid out, or pc’s laid on the board, for display perhaps.
item:I started with revised 2004 starting positions previously-known information.  How will this be modified by game’s rev? 
item:We know starting IPC’s have been altered slightly, the addition of new territories, and new Country Italy.  So, Given-there has to be a change to 1942 starting units-more units on starting, then in 2004 Revised…
item: We know unit costs are less expensive, so this allows and alteration of starting unit types (Especially Naval units.)  While maintaining, approximate Economic parity with Revised 2004 Setup.
Item:We know the new cruiser unit must be depoyed 1942, this will alter starting units.
Item:We know the Revised 2004 was slightly unbalanced for the Axis,
(please Hold the counter Historic counter reaction on this subject-timeover51, you are of course correct, but as pointed out in previous threads/posts, were working game balance-peace?)
I believe Larry would make that slight alteration, so add German Naval units-
I speculate, yes.
item:You guys have made some good observations.
The more I see that picture, the more I am inclined, to add, those extra Naval units, It makes sense.  Of course, less your observations, like brazil’s German Intrusion, Trans-Jordan"tank carrier-LOL"and what about China -(new stuff+old stuff emm…) and all those complaints about, Japans easy access too USSR.
qty 2 German Bombers maybe not( someones pushing IL’s heart rate? :-D)

Craig,

Serious?

@Craig:

@Imperious:

This is turning into house rules AGAIN…. :roll:

For god sakes Timerover please stop turning every thread into History lesson– followed by your house rules proposal. AA50 neutrals are void and considered just like AAR, where you don’t enter or fight in them. That’s it!

If you want to talk about Spain in 1808 and such make a thread in the History section and not AA50.

“Hello?  Mr Kettle?  This is Pot calling!” :roll: :-o :roll: :-o :roll: :-o :roll: :-P

Craig

Thats funny-LOL.  I am new to the online community, but I have soaked up enough old posts, to laugh out loud at this one.

@Admiral:

I really like these house rules on stealth submarines Bluestroke. Thanks. I can really only see two problems that could come from them…

First, all the players must be very diligent in their order writing. How tragic would it be to incorrectly write an order, or forget, thereby causing your whole plan to fail. Although this kind of adds an exciting flavor to the game which simulates a failure of communication lines. I really like this! On the flip side however, what happens to a sub if a series of movements culminating in some sort of combat situation are discovered to be based off of an incorrect, or impossible movement made much earlier in the units lifetime? Does this negate that particular submarines activity since that incorrect order? Does that submarine have to withdraw from that combat situation, or is it played out regardless of that earlier error?

Yes, the sub attacker must prove his path.  Any navigation mistakes cause the sub to be relocated back to where it should be, its actual locale, is exposed without an attack.
navigation incompetence is punished.

Second, all the players must be completely honest with each other when a submarine is found by a destroyer, whether it be by accident or on purpose. If one player isn’t completely honest, then the game could become very frustrating and a source of bitter arguments.  What type of repercussions do you use to deter those from committing such deceit ? Perhaps eliminating that submarine from play would be appropriate?

yes, integrity is required.  When destroyers enter sea zones, they have the right to demand sub review, so no one can feign ignorance.

Hopefully all the people I play with have enough brains to avoid screwing things up, and have enough dignity to not cheat.  :lol:

We enjoy it, the extra surprise element adds to the texture of the game.

@Admiral:

@Black_Elk:

Fricken subs are everywhere.  Which means you better have destroyers. 
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.)

I’ve never heard of this house rule before, but I’m greatly intrigued. At what point do the subs ‘disapear’ after they’ve been built? And with combat, do they ‘disapear’ immediately following combat phase? Those of you who’ve tried it with other A&A games, does this rule make subs overpowered?  I can see that this rule can cause some real headaches for the Allies, which is always entertaining. In anycase, I’m definitely going to try this one.

item:We place them in play at IP Factory, as usual at the end of your turn. 
( We believe intelligence networks nominaly alerted commands, of vessels leaving sub pens. ) 
item: Next, during your combat movement you submerge (move) the sub to side of the board, with a territory control marker and write down what sea zone it moved. 
Each turn, even if the sub holds station, you must write in the seazone and turn.
when you attack, you have proof of route to the attack. 
It gives subs, what they were, stealth/ambush strikes. 
note:If, destroyers are ever present in a sea zone, your subs must be revealed and placed on board, this is automatic.
item:OOps forgot, once exposed in combat,  contact revealed their( the subs ) position, now known, you can not submerge, until normal Revised rules, either thru retreated combat submerge, or your next move phase. 
We did not elaborate into ASW dice roles.  Depends on your complexity level here, maybe something you could add for advanced play.
Wd don’t claim credit for this rule.
I believe someone on this site already provided it.  We just use it.

Remember Cmdr,

At 8 IPC Destroyers cost what transports used too, but they screen with an attack/defend value of 2.  So, for the same price of the old transport, we have some punch.  If you used to attempt to use subs/trannys as screens, they were prone to easy air picks, now with destroyers screening, we have some AA cover at 2 as opposed to a trannys 1, or a subs inability to respond to air, it bears out in play. 
This was a thing of beauty, minor changes, with big impact, nice.
Yet, I like your, tongue in cheek throw away, (3 IPC Atk 0/DEF 1, cheap unit,) Corresponding to real units like, S-boats, R-boats, PT-boats, midget subs etc… a cheap Aux unit- I like it, this has merit.

@Black_Elk:

I’m just not sure about the real benefit of this change to the transport rules. I feel like its going to introduce a lot of confusion into the naval game, but at this point I don’t see the upside.

I understand the argument that the nerfed transports are supposed to force the purchase of more capital ships (destroyers, carriers etc.) but I’m concerned that people are just going to buy ton of subs and bombers, and be totally conservative with all their other naval units.

First thanks Krieghund for the no more tranny blocking explanation;
We have played three games now using the new unit values and tech tree rules,
(we use the classic battlewagon as our cruisers.)  There is a lot of Naval action,
especially Subs, destroyers-with fighter support and cruisers.
Larry has hit an excellent balance with the Naval units,  what a difference it made to move to combat ships instead of Tranny fodder.
No, not conservetive play, just the opposite, the reduced costs of the units, have put them into action.  You are not afraid to use them, or hold them in reserve for that big push.  Fricken subs are everywhere.  Which means you better have destroyers. 
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.)