Posts made by Builder_Chris

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?

IF Germany builds sea units in the Baltic’s…they must be surface war ships.

With the new rules for subs and transports, those two units are completely useless to any kind of buildup in the Baltic’s and only a blind or really new player is going to let operation sea lion happen to them.

A carrier and or a destroyer and or a cruiser make for good combos but it REALLY depends on the UK player’s experience.  Most “veteran” players can/will get rid of any German fleet builds pretty fast; its just a slowing action in most games…just a monkey wrench in the works from the standard “infantry build up” for Germany.

SOME veteran players are surprised to see such a build up and it takes them a turn or two to decide how to get rid of it.

If I’m not mistaken,  :? Rommel believed that the only way to stop an Allied invasion was at the “shore line” and other generals thought it was better to let them get on land and then kick them back into the sea with a counter attack.

I personally like the idea of not letting them get past the shore line.  Sink their fleets and they cant get over the channel, out build them on the shore and they cant land enough units to take the shore line…but no matter what…don’t let the Allies get on to the shoreline and than plan to kick them back into the sea with a counter attack.  Just eh IPC gain alone is enough to encourage them to just keep hitting France…regardless of if they hold it or not.

As usual the game is a kind of race to Moscow before the Allies put too much pressure on Germany from the Atlantic.  So again it’s a matter of the most “cost effective defense”.

Infantry ARE the cheapest defensive units, but sometimes a strong offence can be ones best defense and with the reduced cost of sea units, the NOs and the new rules for subs and transports, all combine to make fleets much more vulnerable to air attacks and other fleet attacks and they are real vulnerable to air and fleet combo attacks.

Just something to think about.

Yea, the subs are not as lethal as the rules make them sound like they are.  The lower cost is nice, but the minor rule changes and the lower cost is still not enough of an advantage to use an all sub fleet “defense”.

MAYBE…and that’s a BIG MAYBE, if you had super subs and the cost was reduced with the tech…I forget which one it is…that reduces the cost of sea units…an all sub fleet might be worth it, but your talking lots of luck on the tech charts.

My kid got that lucky and got super subs and that tech real early in one game when he was the Japanese and he bought a lot of subs.  It worked pretty well (so long as he got the attack on me).  It was like he had floating tanks.

I played 2 games this weekend and had great luck with an all navy build for Germany round one and an all fighter build round two and from that point on I was able to keep steady pressure against Russia because I had total control of the Atlantic; thanks to a round 3 total/all out attack against the UK and US fleet that thought they could take France.  Yea, they landed in round 2 but I cut their fleet to nothing, lost 2 figs and kicked their units out of France with a small Italy attack followed by a German attack next round.  With no fleet it was a big time hard fight for them to come back since I still had a “huge” German fleet ruling the Atlantic!

I don’t know if that would work real well every game, the guy playing Russia was pretty slow on the attack…”waiting for Germany to hit” instead of hitting Germany when they saw my round one all navy build. And the UK player had very little help from the US player due to that player’s lack of assembly like planning in getting their units over to Europe. And…UK did go with a few too many transports and not near enough surface war ships.

One thing is for sure, with subs and transports not being able to be absorbed as hits by aircraft, fighters can be really effective against fleets in AA50.

We also managed to decimate the US pacific fleets twice this night with nothing but carrier and island launched fighters; suffering very little loss to the Japanese air force. Some good luck with the dice was nice, but mostly the US and UK players felt they could hold off against attacking air units like they could in AAR (mistake).

I really like the way the new rules take transports and subs out of air attacks against sea units.  Fighters are a lot more lethal and more cost effective in most cases since a lot of players still think that battleships are the way to go when it comes down to “strong fleets”.  The cruiser/destroyer combo is proving to be much more of an effective fleet “strengthener” than the battleships and fights are proving to be a “cheep” way to sink the (usually) more costly fleet units.  Besides, it’s sweet to see a “fleet” of battleships and carriers (and transports) go down to fighters!

I don’t know if this is really the topic to be discussing this under or not, and I don’t normally use variant house rules…in fact the only house rule I’ve used to date is the Bid and TTL (just with AAR, I have only tried this turn sequence with AA50) .  And I haven’t had the time to look over ALL of the rules/topics/threads about this set of rules YET…

But…

IL
your supposed to attack individually even if you play the turns together.

What do you mean by attack individually?

I figure there’s two different ways to do this; see Example A and Example B below.

Example A:
Germany and Italy are attacking Russia.
First…
Germany attacks (in turn order per the original rules)
Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
Russia defends (and can only hit attacking German units)
Germany and Russia removes all their casualties from the battle board

THAN…IF Russia still has defending units…
Italy attacks
Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
Russia defends (and can only hit attacking Italian units)
Italy and Russia remove all their casualties from the battle board

THAN…IF Russia still has defending units and IF Germany still has attacking units…
Germany attacks
Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
Russia defends
Germany and Russia remove all casualties from the battle board

BUT…IF Russia still has defending units but Germany doesn’t have attacking units…

THAN…Italy attacks IF they still have attacking units…
Italy attacks
Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
Russia defends
Italy and Russia remove all casualties from the battle board

BUT…IF Russia still has defending units but Germany & Italy don’t have attacking units…

THAN…Russia wins the battle and retains control of the territory/sea zone.

IF/WHEN Russia has no defending units but Germany and/or Italy still have attacking units…

THAN…the Axis wins the battle and gains control of the territory/sea zone.

The power that eliminates the last defending unit in a round of battle is the power that captures and gains control of the territory.

OR;
Example B: Germany and Italy are attacking Russia.
First…
Germany attacks (in turn order per the original rules)
Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
Russia defends (and can only hit attacking German units)
Germany and Russia remove all casualties from the battle board AND they start another round of combat between just the two of them.

THAN…IF/WHEN Russia has no more defending units but Germany still has attacking units than Germany wins the battle and gains control of the territory/sea zone and than the Italian units that moved into that territory/sea zone during the combat move just stay in the territory that Germany just captured.

BUT…IF/WHEN Russia still has defending units but Germany doesn’t have attacking units left
than….
Italy attacks
Russia assigns their casualties on the battle board
Russia defends (and can only hit attacking Italian units)
Italy and Russia remove all casualties from the battle board AND they start another round of combat between just the two of them.

THAN…IF/WHEN Russia has no more defending units but Italy still has attacking units than Italy wins the battle and gains control of the territory/sea zone.

BUT…IF/WHEN Russia still has defending units but (Germany &) Italy don’t have attacking units left…

THAN…Russia wins the battle and retains control of the territory/sea zone.

Did you catch all that? Mind numbing I know… but that s what happens to me when I start discussing A&A and  “Only slightly well less known is never match wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line…Ahh HA…HAHAHA HAHA”…(quote from the princes bride…in case you were wondering what that was all about.)

In a nut shell; in Example A the Germans and Italians attack independently in a cyclic order/way and in example B they attack independently in turn order.

And also, regardless of which Example we should be playing by (according to the “official rules”); if the attackers ever decided to retreat, neither Germany nor Italy could do so until they had each done at least one round of combat.  But they would retreat separately and they both wouldn’t need to retreat simply because one of them decided to retreat. Correct?

I personally like Example A Best.  It sounds like it might play out a little more “realistic”.  In “joint operations” over large areas (like the territories/sea zones in the game appear to be) powers would be attacking at the same time.  It doesn’t make sense to me to have Germany fight to the last unit or till they retreat before the Italians would even get a unit shot at.  I just don’t see powers in joint operations “waiting” to attack until their ally was finished attacking.  They would/ should most likely be attacking at the “same time”.  Having powers attack cyclically mimics that idea pretty well (IMO).

Plus, if you are playing with the rule you’ve come up with that defenders can retreat after a round of combat it would make sense also that they would not be able to retreat until both Germany and Italy had a chance to fire at them.  In example B if Russia couldn’t retreat until Italy had a chance to attack, they would have to wait till Germany was out of attacking units and until after Italy had a chance to make at least one attack; Russia could be long dead by than making the need to retreat pointless…since they would already be dead.

I don’t know what the “official” rules are concerning the combat turn for this variant set of rules (since the copy I have is not very clear about it); but after more thought I am probably going to stick with using Example A for the combat from now on.  It just makes more sense to me to have the attacking powers attack independently compared to the “joint attacks” that I did over the weekend, but example B just feels/sounds like it would make the powers “independent attacks” TOO independent; totally eliminating any FEELING of  “joint offensives” (something about this set of rules that really intrigued me.)

With only one game played like this so far, I don’t have an answer/idea about some of these “what if questions” concerning balance.  And maybe if the players I tried this with so far had been more skilled player’s things would have been MUCH different, but we just used the same turn order that is outlined in this set of rules and it didn’t really affect the overall balance of the game.

Round 1 only;
Russia
Axis
Allies
Round 2 and beyond;
Axis
Allies

The rules are not real clear; but we allowed all units in a single territory/sea zone to attack at the same time.

Example; if the Germans had 3 infantry and 1 tank and 1 fighter and the Italians had 1 infantry and 1 tank all attacking the Russians in a single territory we rolled all the attacking units (4inf, 2 tanks and 1 fig) as one force against what ever units the Russians had.

Early in the game this felt really strong; the Allies kept getting trounced in every battle.  But once the Allies consolidated their own forces a few turns later so that they could attack in the same “joint offensive” fashion, the Axis started getting trounced by over whelming odds too.

No battle in this one game was SO powerful that it changed the overall flow/feel of the game.

But, the rules are not written real clear as how to conduct combats. And I have been doing some reading on the forums for house rules since than and it looks like the idea is to have the individual powers attack separately (even if they are in the same territory) instead of “jointly” as we did.

One thing is for certain about using this all Axis all Allies turn sequence is that it speeds up the game by at least 30% to 40%.  Our turns for six players per the official rules take an average of 1 hour (+20 minutes…1hr to 1hr 20mins).  With this turn order the average time was about 40 minutes (+/- 10 minutes…30mins to 50mins).  And the 20 or so minutes that you are “waiting for your turn” goes real fast.  You don’t have enough time to “get bored” because your never really “waiting for your turn” because you have to keep looking at the board to figure out your purchases/strategy/moves while rolling your defensive dice too.

All of the other details about balance; I don’t know what to think about that…YET.  But one thing is for certain, I’m going to play AA50 with this turn sequence several more times before I even consider a bid to correct any imbalance.

But, so far (IMO) the increased speed of the game alone is worth the chance of unbalancing the game.

(IMO) AA50 is just too long of a game to play; I don’t think we’ve had a game yet finish in less than 5 hours.  In AAR our LONGEST games would last 5 hours but most of them ran closer to 4 hours (or less).  So far all of our AA50 games have been lasting 6+ hours (and usually much longer).  I’m sure we could play for less victory cities, but I just never really got into playing for nothing but a total victory for some reason.  I’ve always favored the “till someone cries” (surrenders) type of games.  The strategies are really different when you play till “the bitter end” instead of to a set (low) number of victory cities.

I tried this last weekend with AA50.  I was gaming with my teen son (who couldn’t stand A&A before AA50 mainly due to the time issue…and secondly because he didn’t “know what to do”  :cry: ) and his teen cousin and myself and another 40+ year old dude and it worked great.

My kid has begun to slowly like A&A since the release of AA50 (thanks to the National Objectives…says they help him "know what to do now”  :roll:  as if he’s some kind of idiot…anyway…back on subject) and with the all Axis than all Allies turn sequence from AAHRE it kept them both interested; they said “they felt like it was always their turn”  8-); and it really speeds up the game without jacking too much with the overall mechanics of the game.

Granted I’ve only tried this turn sequence once so far, but so far I’m very pleased with the minor change.   :-D  (BTW…we only used the turn sequence from AAHRE…and kept everything else per the new AA0 rules).   :roll:

But what about Italy going before UK?  Doesn’t this give the Axis an unfair advantage by allowing Italy to sink UK’s navy and land in Egypt without fear of retaliation?

This turned out to be a minor problem; pretty easy to recover from it.  Than again, maybe against more skilled players, this could jack with things, but so far…no big deal.  And its really no different than what happens to the UK fleet in AAR; Germany usually wipes out the med fleet first chance they get anyway.

China “colects” inf at end of her turn

They do already.  Dont they?  :?

I dont think its designed to run the 42 set up yet (from the notes on the down load page) its a “future” thing yet to come.

How do you pay for factory damage?  I dont see an option for that.

Cool…Thanks for the work.

How do you do this…“Writes end game report for post game analysis”?

…but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

Granted its been a while since I’ve played the classic A&A, but the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

Sometimes I think it would have been better in a different stating location too; but only when I’m playing the Allies (of course), because if I’m the Axis, I think the placement is great!  But we could say that about a lot of starting locations of pieces.  The fact is, due to player sequencing, there are some units at the start of the game that are just pretty much toast for any Power (Axis OR Allies).  Something has to get killed round one (it is a war game…after all) so I don’t see what that issue is with the china fighter especially when compared to the past 2 games.  It dies J1 just like it does in AAR.

The Chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t really agree with this. So the fighter would be used as it works for everyone else instead of having its own rules; great.  What’s the big deal about it being able to hit lone transports, so can every one else’s fighters/bombers.  The China fighter will most likely die round one anyway (before it even gets the chance); and if for some odd reason Japan lets it survive long enough to hit lone transports, you could bet it probably wouldn’t get the chance to do it again before Japan would realize the error of their ways and hit that thing ASAP (or at the minimum Japan would secure enough of China’s territories to make it impossible to fly that sucker out to sea and back to a viable landing spot).

That is a big issue.  IF the game is “balanced” then any help we give to China will swing the game.

Yea…if they get too strong they are no longer the speed bump they are in the AAR and AAC but an actual Power.  But so far, they feel like a good mix between the old and the desire for the new to always be more (IMO).  :|