@Unknown:

That’s why I was on your case about the playtesting…

I completely agree.

@pagan:

http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=15339
Axis & Allies Revised Enhanced

This alternate ruleset is an enhancement of AAR and was developed at the AvalonHill boards. It’s main goal is to optimize the strategic experience of the game utilizing National Advantages, and to reduce repetitive play (same KGF all the time). The game developed itself through more than 3 years of playtesting by the AARe team and finally reached its goals.

Cmdr Jennifer, can you tell us again how long you did testing on your version of the rule-set?

@Cmdr:

Most of the dev team were gamers who live in Northern Illinois.  After the rudiments were put in place, we had a month of online gamers testing it from the four major gaming sites that I know of: DAAK, FOE, AAMC and here.  (Note:  DAAK players invited were from personal invites since I lost my PW to the DAAK site, actually, it’s been so long since I’ve been there, I dont even know if it is still online or not.)

And you can still make this statement?

@Cmdr:

So far we, the game developers who adapted the AARe rules to fit in the AA50 rules and map, feel the current rule set is as strong or stronger than the AARe rules were/are.

Really?

@Cmdr:

Just like in a mass battle, you need to know what the odds are for Japan to get Super Submarines on Round 3 if one die is purchased.  It’s NOT a success if Germany gets it or Italy gets it.  It’s  NOT a success if you get it on Round 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, …. inf.  If that happens, it’s a FAILURE.

Let me get this right.  You’re saying that if Japan will need Super Subs on Round 3 because of the strategy they are attempting but they get them in rounds 1 or 2 its a failure?
@Cmdr_Jennifer:

Because as I see it there is a disconnect from what is mathematically probable and how the game is played.

So if I have to account for the probability that Germany or Italy will get Super Subs (SS) instead of Japan (according to your calculations), then the probability of Japan getting them on Round 3 would change if both Germany and Italy already have them?  So if by luck/chance/stupidity (whatever you want to call it) Germany gets SS on G1 and Italy gets SS in I1, then the probability that Japan would get SS on J3 is 1/6 * 1/6 * 3/3 = 1/36?  Because I could no longer be playing the wrong nation; both other Axis nations already have SS.

Unfortunately, I don’t get paid for my math skills…or maybe fortunately.

@Cmdr:

They way you are doing it you get:

Germany has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Italy has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules
+
Japan has a 1/36 chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Therefore:

The Axis have a 3/36 (or 1 in 12) chance of getting Super Submarines in OOB Rules

Don’t think that’s valid.

Yes, that’s right.  The Axis have a 1/12 chance of one of their nations getting super subs on the first round, with any specific nation having an individual chance of 1/36.  However that’s assuming that all three nations select the group of tech that contains Super Subs.

@Cmdr:

You could have the correct nation and get a 6 but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation, not get a 6, and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/61/3)}
You could have the correct nation and get a 6 and roll the correct technology. {1/61/61/3}
You could have the wrong nation, get a 6, but roll one of the other 5 technologies. {1-(1/61/62/3)}
You could have the wrong nation, not get a 6 and can’t roll for a technology. {1-(1/62/3)}
You could have the wrong nation and get a 6 but correct the right technology. {1/61/62/3}

Please explain.  If I’m playing the Axis.  It’s Japan’s turn.  Japan wants Super Subs.  How can it be the wrong nation?  Japan’s odds of getting Super Subs are:
1/6 to roll a 6 (assuming only 1 tech token)
1/6 to get Super Subs

1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.

I’m not trying to be annoying, I truly want to know.  Because as I see it there is a disconnect from what is mathematically probable and how the game is played.  Some variables are known at the time of rolling that I think you’re not accounting for; like who’s turn it is and how many tech tokens are purchased.  Again, please explain.  Thank you.

@Cmdr:

No, they are not broken because the odds of getting them is insanely poor. (1 chance in 108 attempts.  Roughly 0.9259% chance of getting them.  And no, the decimal is in the right spot, I didn’t forget to move it.  It’s about nine-tenths of a percent of getting them in any given round OOB.)

@Cmdr:

No, my calculations are correct, you are misunderstanding how I derived them.

Assuming a clean slate, no one has technology yet.

You have a 1 in 3 chance of playing the correct nation that needs the technology at the time you roll a 6 on the die.
You have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6 on the die
You have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the technology you want on the chart.

1/3 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 0.9% or 1 in 108 tries to get the technology on the correct nation, out of the box.  That’s a really slim shot at getting it when you need it with the nation you need it for.

You have to divide it by all nations on that side (axis or allies) because you cannot be sure that Germany won’t get Super Submarines when trying for Heavy Bombers while Italy will get Jet Fighters and Japan will get Radar instead of the Super Submarines it wanted.  Just because one of your nations rolls a 6 for chart two and gets super submarines does not mean it was on the nation you wanted to get it.  That’s why you divide it by all nations on that team.  Who cares if Germany gets super submarines if they have no submarines?  It’s not broken then. :P

My apologies for misunderstanding what you meant in the upper quote.  I thought you meant anyone in the game.

I agree with your math and I think I understand what your saying.  Based on a single side getting Super Subs (in the future) for the correct nation at the exact time it needs them is 1 out of 108.  However, that is not how the game is played.  One has to assume that you wouldn’t be rolling for them unless you wanted them.  So, why divide by 3?  If you didn’t know which nation you were playing then, yes, divide by 3.  Because then there would be a 1/3 chance that you were playing the correct nation that wanted Super Subs at the time you rolled for them.  But you already know who needs them and will roll for the tech duing that nations turn.  So we are back to 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36.  Likewise (small detail here but not figured into your calculation), you are assuming that only a single tech token is purchased.  The probability goes up slightly if you figure in multiple purchased tokens.

@Unknown:

And BTW, those calculations you gave for getting super subs are flaey.

Given that you have no techs already, its a 1/6 chance to get a tech, then another 1/6 chance to get a particular tech on chart 2 (the one with super subs). That’s 1/6*1/6 = 1/36, or 2.78%.

@Cmdr:

No, they are not broken because the odds of getting them is insanely poor. (1 chance in 108 attempts.  Roughly 0.9259% chance of getting them.  And no, the decimal is in the right spot, I didn’t forget to move it.  It’s about nine-tenths of a percent of getting them in any given round OOB.)

:?

Cmdr Jennifer,
If you’re referring to a round as every nation getting a turn, then it would be 1/6 * 1/6 * 3 (Not 1/3) = 8.33%, because 3 nations have a 1/36 chance of getting it.  Or even more of a problem would be if both sides are trying for them.  In that case it would be 1/6 * 1/6 * 6 = 16.67% chance that some nation will have them after a round.  So if my math is correct, the odds are a lot better than 1 out of 108.  But I could be wrong.  It’s been a long time since I had to rely on my brain for math…and my browser doesn’t have a math-checker or a spell checker.

Since we are back on the name topic, here are my thoughts.  While it may be mere semantics, to me the AA50e is misleading from the standpoint that it truly isn’t AA50 enhanced.  AA50 was not the foundation for the enhanced rules.  AARe was.  So, really, wouldn’t the rules being called something like AARe:Anniversary be more appropriate?  It is closer to how they were created.

Again, just my 2 cents.

@Cmdr:

What AA50:Enhanced does do is build off of AARe in a way to apply the rules of AARe to AA50 without ruining the balance and without making huge and drastic changes to AA50 or AARe.

@Cmdr:

The name AA50:Enhanced (AKA Anniversary Enhanced, AA50:e, AA50e) was used because it is a direct result from Revised Enhanced.  Since all the same concepts are brought over from Revised Enhanced, the same balance, the same rules and the same ideas, it makes no sense what-so-ever to invent a new name.

AA50e is AARe on the Anniversary Map.

Imperious Leader, read the thread again if you think it’s just whining going on here, because you missed the point as much as Cmdr Jennifer.

How can you see this as a joke thread, when myself and others have continuously requested information that would validate Cmdr Jennifer’s claim that she has fully tested her rule-set?  I, for one, don’t have as much time as some of the rest of you.  When I get a chance to play it’s a treat.  I can’t spend half my time arguing with my opponent(s) about what a rule was “suppose” to mean (that should be found out in the testing).  Or for that matter, what version of the rule-set we’re using.  What I’m looking for is confirmation that the rule-set will not be constantly changing. You can call that a joke if you want to, but I call it due diligence.

Look at if from a business point of view.  Cmdr Jennifer is a manufacturer selling her version of the rule-set.  She wants us to use them, enjoy them, and assist with minor improvements.  That would make us her customers.  Right now her customers have no confidence in her product, yet she refuses to give us the information we request that would help re-instill it.  Instead she attacks everyone that questions her rule-making process, causing confidence to drop even lower.  (The first post I read that got flamed by her for asking for the details made me think.  “Why won’t she answer it?  What is she trying to hide?”)

I’m not “buying” something that is potentially full of bugs and will require constant patches, updates, or service bulletins.  I don’t have the time or energy to deal with it.  Again, that’s why there’s testing.

How about a real world example:  Microsoft Vista.  Microsoft has launched a huge campaign to trick people into thinking that it’s another OS, so they’ll try it.  That’s how little confidence people have in it.  And when people don’t have confidence in a product, they don’t even want to try it.

AARe has set a standard for expectations when it comes to released versions of Enhanced rule-sets.  I expect nothing less from a version for AA50.  If Cmdr Jennifer is up to the challenge, then let her prove it with documentation.  I’m a big enough person to congratulate her on a job well done…if indeed she has accomplished what she says.  But I won’t take just her word on it, and apparently I’m not alone.  You can call me stubborn, pig-headed or whatever you want.  However, when I get an afternoon off to play, that’s all the time I have; win, lose, or not finished.

These are the two primary points of the this thread.

1.  The lesser point being the name of the rule-set (notice how much of the original post is spent addressing it versus the other topics).  Cmdr Jennifer, you seem to dwell on it as much as anyone.

2.  Main point:  Based on the length of time it took for AARe to be released, there hasn’t been enough time to fully test out AA50, none the less create and viable “Enhanced” rule-set.  Check out the quotes provided toward the end of the starting post.  Almost all of them are stating this same thing.  Yet you fail to answer a single question regarding the play testing, AGAIN.  You say it’s whining.  I say it frustration from having to repeatedly ask for the same information.

Nowhere in my post do I say anything about not liking the rules.  I’m sure you’ve put a lot of time and hard work into them, as you’ve pointed out.  Although in almost the next breath you say very little has changed.  So what has been taking a lot of time?  Testing?  If so, please give us the details.

@Cmdr:

They were asked for their input no less than three times before the official final version was release

You are fooling yourself if you think you have released the “final” version of your rule-set.  To help assist me with my point on January 21, 2009, at 09:25:28 pm you posted a version of your rule-set. Then on January 22, 2009, at 05:27:16 am, Yoshi posted a conflict in your rule-set.  That’s only about 8 hours.

@Cmdr:

…their non-challenging of the creation could be taken as tacit approval of the new version

Yes, that could be true if you completely ignore the posts from cousin_joe and axis_roll stating that it’s too early for an enhanced version (see quotes at the end of the originating post).

@Cmdr:

Seems a little foolish to make a statement like the rules are bad just because you don’t like me personally.  Not my fault you’re too stubborn to even download them, read them, and play them once…

I’ve re-read some of Unknown Soldiers posts and none of them state that he doesn’t like you.  Where’d that come from?  Did I miss that post?  He does make reference to not liking how you’ve gone about this, but not you, personally.  Also, how’d you come to the conclusion that because he hasn’t played a game using your rule-set, that he hasn’t downloaded or read them?
@Cmdr:

As for insulting the intelligence of others, I have never done so.  …Not my fault some people think any disagreement at all is a personal attack against them.

@Imperious:

If you want a whining thread then make one and call it anything you like….

Thank you for the suggestion.  I believe a thread devoted just to this topic might show how much/little universal acceptance there really is for this version of the rule-set.

Disclaimer:  I have no affiliation to Imperious Leader, axis_roll, cousin_joe, Cmdr Jennifer, or anyone involved with the creation of AARe or AA50 (with or without the ‘e’).  Likewise, I have never spoken to any of the afore-mentioned individuals, either personally or electronically.  If my views and opinions appear to be in line with those of others on this site, maybe it’s more than a coincidence.  Maybe there is a real problem with the way things have transpired.  I’m not saying anything is going to change, but I still have the right to express my displeasure.
@Imperious:

Everybody has a right to opinions…

First off, please excuse my lengthy post, but I just had to get a few things, that have been bugging me, out in the open.  Also I’ve included a fair amount of quotations from other threads to help reinforce some of the statements I’ve made as well as clarify what has prompted some of my comments.  Some conclusions I’ve had to make on my own due to lack of concrete information provided by the individual(s) making the statement(s).

My personal view of the “self-proclaimed” official version of “enhanced” rules for AA50.  I only say self-proclaimed, because as far as I know there is no governing body for official house rule versions.  In which case, I look to the people responsible for creating the previously accepted rule-set.

@axis_roll:

Jennifer, please stop posting your assemblage of rules as The Enhanced Rules for AA50..  Your rules were not created via a consortium of A&A players to fix agreed upon game playout issues nor have they been play tested.  You have even incorporated rules from other game editions for no reason!

Had axis_roll not challenge Cmdr Jennifer on her rules, I would not have known that those individuals responsible for the AARe rule-set were not involved with the “enhancements” to AA50.  Does that matter?  Maybe not.  But I’ve come to expect a certain level of thoroughness from the rule-set with the little “e” after it.

@Cmdr:

These rules have been accepted just about everywhere at this point.  …but so far, these are the only OFFICIAL Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition Enhanced Rules.  No other AA50e rules exist.

I have to disagree with the “accepted just about everywhere”, because “everywhere” is a lot of places.  Although, I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again.  Hopefully this thread will prove that to be true once more so we can get past this and continue on with the gameplay discussions.  But until that time comes, I stand by my first statement:  I disagree.  There are enough comments from different individuals on this site to disprove that claim.  Granted there may be people that agree with it, who also haven’t spoken up.

Why use the “Enhanced” term.  There are a variety of terms that mean relatively the same thing.  Modified, adapted, personalized, and custom are some possibilities.  Why pick enhanced, specifically?

Why utilize an established name? 
There are only a few reasons I can think of:

1. The previous “owner” doesn’t have time to continue creating/modifying rule-sets and has asked that someone new carry the torch.
   @axis_roll:

…I asked if you had Cousin_Joes stamp of approval (not a legal right to call these rules AA50e).  You said you had many emails with his approval.  I asked for one example and supplied my email, but alas, no email from Jennifer that states Cousin_Joe is on board with the set of rules you have labelled AA50e.

@Cmdr:

They were not hijacked.  Cousin_Joe and everyone else was made fully aware of what was being done when the official word came that they had no interest in creating the Anniversary Enhanced Rules themselves.  They were asked, begged and pleaded with to assist and they chose not too.  They relinquished control provided we did not make any drastic changes.

2. Inner need to be the center of attention (my life needs meaning).

3. Power/ego trip
   @Cmdr:

The attached PDF are THE OFFICIAL AA50:ENHANCED RULES, end of story.  If you would like to create a different set of rules you may feel free, but my set is the first released and published and game tested and approved by the player base.  Many people had a hand in helping to create them which, indirectly, includes the original designers of AARe since much of the rules are copy/pasted straight FROM AARe…

@axis_roll:

All I asked for was proof that [cousin_joe] agreed with you.  You replied with insults, personal attacks and legal action.  Enhanced was created via a collaborative effort, a unified team that shared ideas, game play tests results and worked together under CJ’s guidance.  More than anything, your Me-first attitude insults that portion of the Enhanced legacy.

Users with low number of posts
@Imperious:

Whiny= more than one complaint about the same thing and nothing else substantive to offer. I am more specifically talking about the other people who have less than 10 posts total and 9 of them are the same post about complaining about the same thing. They got enough of these posts in and everybody has fully understood them so their is no point in reposting the same stuff again and again.

You have got to be kidding me.  What right does a moderator have, to remove a post saying that because the person hasn’t posted 1 thousand times their post has less meaning than someone else’s.  As a matter of fact, I believe it holds more.  I read the posts/threads, but I’ve never felt the need to post, myself.  Look at the number of reads per thread.  There are a lot of people out there that are doing exactly the same thing.  People who are already registered and posting 10 times a day are pretty much giving their “two cents” on everything.  Not that it’s a bad thing, it’s just an observation.  However, as with this post (my very first), the travesty that has been going on here has motivated me enough to create an account and express my feelings.  That by it self should speak volumes about how I view the situation.  And then to say that my opinion has no value because I have a low number of posts is a bit extreme.  But that is what you are saying when you delete a post that doesn’t break any of the forum rules.  (By the way, this truly is my very first post, here.  I have never posted under another moniker on this site or any other site related to A&A).

If more than just a couple of people are having an issue with something, I don’t view it as “whiny”.  And then how can a moderator say that I only have the right to say something once and if I mention it again my post will be deleted?
@Imperious:

Ok everybody is now limited to ONE whining post. All who have posted so far have filled their quota.

You cannot tell me that if I gave 10 glowing reviews to something posted on this site that you would remove 9 of them because I had my say and everyone knows how I feel.

Maybe this needs to be revised?
@Imperious:

Everybody has a right to opinions…

…as long as they are the right opinions.

Imperious Leader, please give me the proper way to express my disapproval for something that you would consider not whiny.  Do I have to put a smiley emoticon after it?  These are discussion threads.  People will always have differing opinions.  That is one of its primary functions:  hear what EVERYONE has to say, whether you like what they have to say it or not, then take it, leave it, or rebut it.

Cmdr Jennifer, please give us the details of your testing.  If you have tested this as intensively as you say, this information should be readily available to you. 
@Cmdr:

…Everything was logical and procedural and stems from the original rules given to us, discussions with the creators, testing by literally dozens and dozens of players…

(Some of this has been touched on, but it’s spread out over several threads.  I was hoping we could consolidate it into one and let the facts speak for themselves)

TESTERS:

1. Who are they?
2. What are their playing levels?
3. How many games of AARe and AA50 have they played?  (Because you are incorporating both sets of rules)
4. Who have they beaten?
5. What side(s) do they play (Axis, Allies, both)?

TESTING PROCEDURES:

1. What testing procedures were used?
2. What strategies have been tested to validate the need for rule changes?  And tested by which testers?  Against which other strategies?  By which side?
3. How many times was each strategy tested?

Part of my daily job is testing.  So when you say logical and procedural, to me that also means documented.  If you haven’t kept records, how can you make rational decisions?  How do you know what’s been tested and what hasn’t?  How can you go back to games played weeks/months ago and re-affirm your conclusions if you don’t know which games prove which points?  How can you prove that chance didn’t greatly affect the outcome of the testing?  Forgive me if I’m skeptical when you state “I believe…”  and you provide no evidence upon which you based your conclusions.
@Cmdr:

I believe it is unbalanced in so much as Germany has no realistic ability…
I believe the allies might have an unfair edge…

WHO MAKES THE RULES:

1. Who submits the ideas for changes to the rules?
2. How is the decision made as to which rules get enacted/changed?
3. What ratio of votes are needed to make a change or prevent one?
4. What level “expertise” does the voting people possess that gives them the right to place a vote?  There are several people here on the site that may have this expertise.  Most of them are listed as people I don’t know up in my disclaimer.  I’m assuming that not every person testing has a vote on which rules get enacted/changed/removed.
   @Cmdr:

Unfortunately, I was out voted.
I was also voted down on my opinion…

@Cmdr:

Lastly, the copyright has been attained on these files.  It was the only way I could think of to get axis_roll to shut up and stop whining that life moved on and adapted AARe to work in AA50e.

You can copyright everything you write, however that doesn’t stop anyone from criticizing what you do as a person.

@Cmdr:

You see, Axis has a bone to pick with me.

1)  He feels slighted because his only critique of the game was that there were too many “new” rules.  There are no “new” rules in Anniversary Enhanced, there is only a blending of AARe rules to work within the rules of Anniversary.

7. Now, if Imperial Leader would be so kind, it would be great if axis_roll’s comments were deleted from the thread. It is painfully obvious that he is attempting to stir up discontent in an effort to kill the hard work of dozens upon dozens of individuals for his own personal gain by slinging mud. Right now there are 3 major clubs that are looking to this board for their copies of AA50:Enhanced and the users who do not know better, might think axis_roll has some influence or say over the matters instead of him just being some discontented user with a bone to pick with me personally.

Again I have to disagree with you. There are plenty of posts that show not everyone is on-board with your rule-set.  Also, I don’t think that axis-roll has a personal issue with you.  Although, not knowing him I can only speculate.

Here are a few quotes that I’ve read that show there is not a universal acceptance to your rules.

@Emperor:

Bottom line, we haven’t played enough OOB games to really know what the ramifications will be.  These rules introduce far too many variables.

@Emperor:

To be honest, I’m not really sure we should even be thinking about an AA50e right now.  AA50 just came out, and really wasn’t AARe designed to add spice to a version that had been out for years?

@axis_roll:

I think these discussions are fine, but I agree with Emperor Mollari and think it still a little early yet for a full blown AA50e. …Let’s get some experience first before we try to ‘fix’ things.

@cousin_joe:

Hi Emperor,
I agree, this is a whole new game and we can’t simply port over everything from AARe to AA50e

@Unknown:

It’s way too premature for a project like this, we don’t know enough about game balance with the OOB rules yet to start making fundamental changes to the rules and expecting quality game play.

@BadSpeller:

Jennifer, stop using Enhanced as if it were yours!  It is in poor taste to hijack Enhanced (AARe) from Cousin Joe.

@mpc220:

Yeah, I don’t want to stir anything up but it doesn’t seem right to adapt the “Enhanced” moniker without the endorsement of the original AARe guys. 
Besides, AA50 hasn’t had time to settle yet.  I think over a year passed from the release of AAR to the development of AARe, and that’s good because apart from a little clunkiness with subs, AARe was an excellent ruleset.  You could tell that the collaborators behind it had played a LOT of games.  I don’t think anyone can really say that so far in the three or so months AA50 has been out.

@mpc220:

The only possible reason to call the Jenny ruleset “Enhanced” is to confuse newbies or people like me who play a lot offline but don’t really keep track of the online scene.  And then to keep at it when the original three ask nicely to desist is boorish and arrogant.

I for one will never play AA50:Jenny, but if the real Enhanced rules come out once you guys get a sense of the game’s balance please keep us informed.

Cmdr Jennifer, please prove me wrong.  Prove to me that what you’ve said in your posts is accurate and truthful; not just “smoke and mirrors”.  This dissension among the players is distracting from the game.  I look forward to a time when game strategy and rules can once again be discussed without the (using your own term) “bunk”.

Whine-free indicator ==>  :-D