open it, play it, enjoy it! its a way cool game!

OR…be like the kid that grew up across the street from me; he had ALL the star wars toys and GI Joe toys a kid could want and his dad convinced him to keep them in the box becosue one day they would be worth LOTS of MONEY!

my best freind and i see him from time to time…he doenst look like he made THAT much money from it! and the memories i have of all the times i played with my shtuff are still with me and my best friend, that dude that “had it all” doenst even remeber what half  it was!

man, most of you die hard players would freak at the condition of my AA50 game!  the map is still NEWish looking and the peices are NEWish looking too…but the box…its held together with duct tape becosue i’ve tossed it in my work truck, bed mounted tool box and i’ve taken it to three out of state contructuon projects i’ve been on since i got the game!

yes, the box looks like hell and i coulndt get $50 for it now i bet…BUT…the fun i’ve had playeing that game cant be counted! and the box…it still holds the game!

I’m working in LA (Chatsworth/Northridge area) for 3 maybe 4 weeks…anyone able to game?  my evenings and weekends are open…i have no place to go…will travel…let me know.

I already found out that TG Moses doesnt live here anymore…so anyone else still live here that can game?

Late post to an old topic so forgive me if I’m revisiting something that most of you might already consider resolved, but I am currently debating this VC issue with my monthly gaming group.

We have some veteran players of AA50 (some college dudes that have played at least three to five games a week since AA50 was released) and we have some rookies (dudes that haven’t played A&A since the days of classic) and with this collection of players we are running into this question; “when is the game over”?

The handful of times I’ve played AA50 and the umpteen times I’ve played AAR we’ve just played till someone cried uncle…oops…surrendered.

Most of the rookie players are willing to fight to the last man; primarily (it’s believed by the most of the veterans) due to their inexperience at begin able to “see the end”.

Most of the veteran players are pushing to end a game after a few “key things” (more “interpretative things” than “factual things”) have happened; things that they are convinced (from the experience) are “game ending situations”.

We are beginning to experience this situation were some rookie players are feeling like they aren’t being given the chance to win (even IF they had their back against the wall) and some veteran players are beginning to feel like they are being asked to play another few grueling rounds of play in a game that is already “finished”.

Let me explain it this way…
IF this was a game of baseball, the veteran players are feeling like they are being asked to bat at the top of the ninth inning even though they already have more points than the rookie players have.  There asking “What’s the point of batting one more time when you already have the lead and the other team has no times at bat left (no chance at scoring again)”?

And IF this was a game of bowling; the rookie players are feeling like they are being asked to end the game after only 7 frames simply because the veteran player has scored more points so far; taking “any chance” they might have had (no matter how slim) that the rookie player might win…and not to mention…just quitting the game before it is over.  And the veteran players (who are averaging more points each frame and because of their experience they can “see the end of the game”) want to end the game; cutting the game short just because they KNOW the ending of the game so what’s the point of playing it out.

In any event, we are basiclly ending games before a set standardized ending has occurred.  There is no “END” to the game in A&A, its left up to interpretation more than set criteria, so for that reason alone I have been looking at the VC as a way to standardize the games end.  Its clear, clean and consstiant for all players (both rookies and veterans)  something that is needed (IMO) for any game.

Take chess, arguably the longest running strategy game in the history of strategy games.  The game is over when the king is in check mate (or a stale mate), it doesn’t matter if the looser is cut all the way down to his only piece being a king or if the loser has all their pieces still on the board, the game is over when a king is in check mate.

It’s a clean clear rule that is consistent.

I think VC has the potential to be that kind of rule but in a game of A&A with so many variables for what defines “Check Mate”, how does one conclude what is check mate; 12VC, 13VC, 18VC, when a player looses his capital?

I think most players would agree that if a capital is lost (Axis or Allied) to the enemy, the “odds” of winning (coming back from the grave) are pretty dismal…so what’s the point of playing more rounds.  And I think most players would argue that if both Germany and Japan (in AAR) have been pushed all the way back to the only territories they own are their capitals, the Allies will eventually win…so what’s the point to fighting the next 5 rounds to get rid of the last units held up in the capital?  So there are some “key things” that any “veteran player” can “see” as the end of the game, but so much of that depends on personal interpretation rather than “hard facts” which is what ends 99.99999% of every good game ever designed/played (football 4 quarters, baseball 9 innings, bowling, 10 frames, golf 18 holes, chess check mate, monopoly bankruptcy/own everything, life get to the last square with the most money, yatzee, scrabble, clue, Othello, settlers of Catan, etc, etc, etc…)  My point is, every game I can think of has a clear defined ending…except A&A.

To me, a VC condition looks like the most clean, clear consistent way to end every game; regardless of experience of players and personal interpretation of the board situation.

If most players agree that loosing a capital is a solid “sign of the end”, and if some players agree that if so many VC are lost is “just a matter of time” before the game is over, why not make a rule that combines the two schools of thought.  Kind of a middle ground.

Something like this…you need to capture 11 VC and at least one of those VC has to be a capital to end the game.  11 VC makes the VC count low enough that it would represent the minimum # of cities that would “normally be captured” in a game that was a rush for Russia’s capital (since most players believe that is the focus of EVERY game anyway) and one capital meets the idea that if Russia or Germany looses their capital than the game is pretty much over anyway.

But don’t make goofy rules that are separate for each side or power; that would be like making rules for chess that said something like this; if the black captures the white queen they or puts the king in check mate they win but the white has to capture two pawns and one knight AND put the black armies king in check to win.

In other words, if the VC is 11 with one of them being a capital; keep it that way for both sides even if one of those capitals is the small little Italian capital.  (some would argue that Italy…the soft underbelly of Germany…was not a significant part of the war) but in the game, so long as they have the potential to earn IPC and purchase units they are a Power just like any other power…no matter how small they are.

cool…thats what we thought “sounded fair…and right”.

Since part of the rules for transports read:
“Chosen Last: Transports may only be chosen as a casualty if there are no other eligible units. Normally this will occur when only transports are left, but it may also occur under other circumstances. For example, fighters attacking transports and submerged submarines will hit the transports because they cannot hit the submarines” (Page 31 under transport rules).

and…

“Defenseless Transports: In a sea battle, if the defender has only transports remaining and the attacker still has units capable of attacking, the defending transports are all destroyed, along with their cargo. You do not have to continue rolling dice until all the transports receive hits—this will speed up combats……….”  (Page 18 side note under General Combat rules).

And since the rules for heavy bombers read:
“Heavy Bombers. Your bombers are now heavy bombers. You roll two dice for each bomber when you attack or make a strategic bombing raid. On defense, your bombers still roll only a single die.”

Question…
If a single heavy bomber (capable of rolling two dice on the attack) attacks a sea zone with 1 transport and one surface warship (1 destroyer OR 1 cruiser OR 1 carrier with no fighters on it…battle ships…although classified as a surface warship…are not figured in this equation since they can receive two hits) if the heavy bomber attacks and scores 2 hits in a single roll of its 2 attack dice  and if the defending surface warship (destroyer or cruiser or carrier with no fighters on it) scores a hit against the heavy bomber with its single defense die does the transport survive or is it sunk due to the fact that the heavy bomber scored two hits?  :?

I’m asking this because (if I’m playing the rules correctly) if a single regular bomber (or single fighter) conducted an attack in a sea zone containing 1 surface war ship (1 destroyer OR 1 cruiser OR 1 carrier with no fighters on it…battle ships…although classified as a surface warship…are not figured in this equation since they can receive two hits) and 1 transport if the single attacking air unit hit the single defending surface war ship and the single defending surface war ship hit the single attacking air unit the transport would survive due to there not being any attacking units left after the first cycle of combat to hit/sink the transport at the start of the next cycle of combat.

If there were two attacking air units and one of them survived this same attack but the defending surface warship was sunk, the transport would be sunk…regardless of if both attacking air units scored a hit in the first cycle of combat….correct?

So, would the transport get sunk because the heavy bomber DID score two hits and there are no other viable targets for it to hit so regardless of if the heavy bomber was hit by the defending surface warship…wouldn’t the second bomber hit ….hit the transport since…technically both hit from the heavy bomber…hit…something…correct?

That’s how I played it last night…seemed fair…just thought I would ask and see what the consensus on it was (and what the official answer dude would say).

Hope all that was clear.    :?

That’s just it (unless I’ve read the rules and errata and several other discussions about subs incorrectly) the point to this topic is that if a large attack force made up of only air units attacks a fleet heavy with subs and just a few “capital ships”, subs (and transports) are useless for defense.  Subs can’t be taken as hits UNLESS the attacker has a destroyer in their attack force.  The new “bullet catchers” at sea are the destroyers as they are the cheapest surface war ships that can get hit by an attack force made up of only air units followed by fighters as the next “cheap” bullet catcher.

With the new rules fleets NEED to be “built” differently, much along the lines that Kavik Kang mentioned. Players cant depend on transports and subs anymore to protect the more expensive units form being hit by aircraft.  And unless I’m mistaken, the “regular/widespread use” of bombers attacking “fleets” in WW2 didn’t happen.  Air units now have a “lethal power” against surface war ships.  Thats why I proposed follow the “enhanced realism rules” that make it so bombers CANT attack sea units…ever.

But, regardless of the use of that rule or not, fleets are much more vulnerable to attack by air units (as they should be…IMO).  This makes carriers and islands much more valuable (as they should be…IMO).

If I’m not mistaken…as I usually am…didn’t the Japanese think that Battleships “ruled” the oceans only to discover that the carriers/fighters did?

I think most of the things I’ve read about the Pacific (not that I’ve read a lot) the fighters proved to be the decisive factor; fleets in WW2 rarely encountered each other in head to head battles as they had in past wars.  The new rules with transports and subs helps to imitate that better and it makes aircraft more viable against fleets, no one in there right mind would have sent just aircraft after fleets in AAC or AAR.

I ran across a rule in the “enhance realism rules” (but I haven’t tried it yet) that makes it so ONLY fighters can attack sea units, which seems to make things more… “realistic” and “forces” players to use bombers as…well…bombers (units that drop bombs on large stationary targets).

I’ve never felt that long range aircraft disrupt the game THAT much; so they can reach a place but they cant TAKE a place, you still need land units with aircraft SUPORT to do that.  With long range aircraft you CAN reach fleets easier but if you took out the bombers from “sea battles” this might offset the extra punch that can be dealt against fleets.

A&A has such a LARGE and ABSTRACT game scale its hard to make EVEYTHING work out “just like in WW2” but the AA50 (just like AAR) is a great improvement over its predecessor.  Changes have been made that feel more “real” but are still in keeping with the games abstract scale.

Fighters and heavy bombers don’t feel like that much of an over kill to me, and I think fighters only feel so much more powerful in sea battles in AA50 because of the new rules regarding transports and subs (once bullet catchers…now nothing).  If there was MORE ships, fighters might feel less powerful against fleets.

Someone mentioned reducing the cost of fighters, wouldn’t that just encourage someone to build more of them?  Why not reduce the cost of ships instead; wouldn’t that encourage players to make more of them?

The battle system for A&A, and correct me if I’m wrong, strongly favors the player with the most units in a battle (as it should) right?  So if fighters, a relatively low cost unit (compared to sea units) match ships one for one or two for one, doesn’t it make sense that they should/will win more in sea battles than ships do?  If ships out numbered air units instead of vice versa as it usually is in sea battles, wouldn’t the ships win/survive longer?

I don’t feel that the game mechanics/air techs out balance the game as much as the abstract scale of the game does. I hate to use this word but I cant think of another one to use, but the balance of air and sea units when it comes to battles is…“poorly”… balanced for battles.

Let me explain what I mean, infantry, artillery, tanks, fighters and bombers can be “balanced” better, faster and easier in land battles than sea and air units can “balance” out in sea battles.  I think this is in due in large part to the lower unit costs and close incremental attack/defense values of the land units when compared to air units and sea units. Heavy bombers seem to “upset” that balance in land battles (as they should…to a small degree) but I don’t think I’ve ever heard some one argue that regular bombers are TOO strong.  When it comes to sea power verses air power, that balance is harder to achieve and favors the fighters/bombers due in large part to their “low cost” and “high attack/defense” strength when compared to ships.  If ships were as “abundant” as land units are in land battles, things might balance out much faster and easier in sea battles.  Take bombers out of the sea battles and this might offset some of the strength of air power as the rules are played now. Reduce ship cost (making them more abundant) and this might further “balance” the strength of air power to more closely match their strength in land battles.

However, if units costs are reduced too much, that could cause an entirely new problem, because now ships would stand the chance of be coming bullet catchers (like infantry in land battles and like transports and subs used to be) instead of something that players strive to protect; because they cost so much to rebuild and are so vulnerable to destruction.

The consul help button has nothing written on it either.

I like how you have color “coded” the territories list to each power, that makes it real easy to know who originally owned it and easier to find it when you are trading it back and forth.

Also I was wondering if you could/would make a “division” on the purchase unit’s area that has a line that divides the units into land, sea and air units; maybe even color code them.  Might make it a little easier to see what you’re looking for.

Thanks

So I down loaded the latest version…it looks great…but…the + and - signs for purchasing units don’t show up…they are just empty boxes.

Is this a glitch in my download or something you are aware of that you are working on correcting?

Thanks again for the work on this cool bank program.

I don’t see how the UK could hold Africa without US help and Russia shure can’t afford to help.  I think the best you could hope to do is slow them down.

I played one game that the Axis could not get into Africa just because the dice went so bad that the UK held them off in Egypt, but that was some monster bad luck (or good depending on the side you happened to be playing on) that made that happen, nothing more.

You might be able to slow the Axis down in Africa by spreading your units out and making them fight for every territory, but like you said, they are probably dead before you even get a chance to use them.

A factory in the bottom of Africa might help, but that’s another BIG might.

You could try chasing them into Africa from the Atlantic; taking the land they just took from you, but that would take a lot of effort, reducing any of your efforts into Norway to virtually nothing.

With out US help…I’m out of ideas. LOL…I guess?