If the USA moves a fleet into sea zone 6 (the one around Japan), and lands units unopposed on Korea, can Japan scramble fighters from Japan to defend sea zone 6?
If the USA already has a massive fleet in the sea zone surrounding Hawaii, then on the next turn amphibiously assaults Hawaii (that is owned by Japan), can Japanese fighters on Hawaii scramble?
Craig
The Axis still likely have the econ advantage at that point and Japan is probably just on the verge of making her weight felt.
I’ve tracked the income on two of our games. The total Axis income, including National Objectives, has never at any point in the game been greater than the allies.
Craig
Larry Harris Tournament Rules (LHTR) is used at big Axis & Allies tournaments, such as GenCon. What will the tournament rules be for AA50? Will tournaments play 41 or 42? How will bids works? With National Objectives? Or with Technology?
Have there been any conventions with AA50 tournaments yet?
Craig
Our gaming group in Kansas City has played 8 games of AA50 using the 1941 start with National Objectives and without technology. The Allies have won every game. Its never even been close. What are we doing wrong?
We generally do Kill Germany First, but have also done Kill Japan First and Kill Italy First. We found that even when Japan is ignored, its just too far from Tokyo to Moscow for the Japanese to do anything to the Russians.
Any suggestions?
Craig
Where is the AA50 FAQ published?
@Imperious:
Yea this is turning into house rules….make a new thread or stay on topic.
LOL. The topic was complete after the second post.
If submarines attack a lone aircraft carrier with 2 fighters on it, can the subs be killed by the defending fighters?
If Russia conquers Manchuria, who gets the income? Does Russia get 3 income, or does it count as liberating a Chinese territory?
The rules state that the flags on the board mark the owner at the start of the scenario. However, this territory is one of two that has both a Chinese and Japanese flag on it. It starts under Japanese control.
Any news on the updates to version 3.25 or 3.3?
While the rules for the Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition are not available, the game was played at GenCon recently. I read about the strategic bombing on a review at Board Game Geek from someone who played at GenCon. You can read it here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/336612
The reasoning to keep the subs makes sense. Fighters can get too strong. I’ll have to try new tactics to clear the Germans in the Atlantic. I think keeping them as is makes sense right now. If I have a brilliant idea, I’ll share it ;)
Here are a couple of items for consideration:
Change Strategic Bombing - Our group just doesn’t bomb because its not worth the cost. Using basic bombing rules, you do an average of $3.5 damage and lose an average of $2.5 (1/6th chance of losing a $15 bomber). This is slightly worth bombing. With the extra fighter escorts, there are more loses due to AA guns. If there are defenses fighters, it tips even more in the scale of the defender. I love the way the new Axis and Allies Anniversary edition does bombing:
This fits the GW mechanics perfectly. Money placed on that industrial complex is the only money that can be used for repair to that Industrial complex. I think this rule change would make bombing more strategic and simplify the rules at the same time.
Weaken Italy - I think Italy is monstrously strong. They always take Africa without trouble, and often develop a large navy that can be moved out of the Med to protect Fortress Europe. Reducing their starting units by a tank and artillery would be fair. This might just be our game group, I would be interested in what others have seen playing Italy.
Shore Bombardment - Some games limit the number of naval ships that can bombard a coast to the number of units landing on the amphibious invasion. I like this rule, however, we are evenly split in our gaming group. I like it because it means you can’t just drop off 1 infantry and get 8 Battleship Bombards. On the other hand, the argument is that if you drop off 1 infantry, they can spot and call in fire for all the battleships, so it should be allowed. Just a point for thought.
USSR / China liberation - Some games make it so that the USSR and China never liberate territory. If China or Russia conquer any territory from the Axis it becomes their territory regardless of the original owner. This is somewhat more historical. I think its a fun rules. Again, our gaming group is split on this one. The argument against is that it is another exception to the rules to remember and doesn’t really change much. Just a point for thought.
Technology Development - After playing again, I agree the technology development chart gets cluttered. I really like the mechanic, but haven’t thought of a good way to reduce the clutter yet.
I think the rule that makes Air only attacks hit submarines on a 1 should be eliminated.
With the current rule, submarines are overpowered. They are too difficult to eliminate. Subs have 3 strengths: Attackers (except destroyer) can only roll once to hit a sub (then they can submerge), they are cheap, and air only attacks only hit on a 1. Air only attacks only get to roll one round of combat, which limits damage. The problem is that attacking with 12 airplanes will likely only kill 2 submarines. If you have 12 aircraft, why don’t you build a navy while using CAP to protect the new build? Now the 12 submarines just move into 12 different sea zones. Now if any of the subs are attacked by the newly built navy and airplanes, you can’t CAP. Or if you attack with just the newly built navy, you probably can only attack 1 or 2 locations, only killing 1 or 2 submarines.
Is there an anti-submarines tactic I am missing? Of primary concern is how long it takes for the allies to clear the Atlantic of German submarines. How do you do it? We asked the “What if America only built submarines in the Pacific?” It seems like it could easily eliminate the Japanese Navy and blockade the Island of Japan quickly.
It is also the most confusing rule for our players in Kansas City. I’m not sure why its confusing, but it gets asked about every single round in every game. And then misinterpreted in every other round of every game.
We played again this weekend. It sure is a fun game.
Craig
Some of the rules and play aids were just updated, so it might be worth waiting for version 3.3. I’ve played version 3.2 and it plays very well.
The best way to print circles is to get 3/4" or 1" pre-cut circle stickers at Staples or OfficeMax and format to print on the stickers. I then put them on bingo chips or something pre-mad.
I used pieces from http://www.tabletactics.com/ to augment my A&A pieces to add Mechanized Divisions, Air Transport units, and Cruisers.
Craig
Any guesses when this will be available in stores?
Here is a picture of Jeff Stein and me. I’m wearing a T-shirt with Jeff’s face on it. He didn’t notice for over 4 hours. Oh, and we kicked his team’s butt!
Craig
To print, it depends on how much money you want to spend. I print on a vinyl banner from http://www.123print.com/Banners It cost about $140. To print at a minimum cost, break the map up to many 8.5x11 sheets and tape them together.
Craig
On the first round of combat, the blockhouse hits on a roll of 3 or less and can choose its target among enemy units that just got off a transport. Other than that it defends on a roll of 1. This is an especially effective defense for islands.
Oh yea. And I withdraw my previous comments on Blockhouses. They are very balanced at $5. The UK has used them to great effect to defend islands in the South Pacific.
Craig
I’d be happy to add a Neutral setup chart. I can probably get to it this weekend.
I like the change and clarification to the submarines and battleships. The repair for battleships is appropriate for a $20 cost.
Komakazi’s are fun as they are without the ability to defend. They are a challenge to position. They were used in our games to play ‘chess’ with the American fleet. While the economics might not look good, the ability of a Komakazi to choose its target is very powerful. I’m not sure any change is needed. I’d have to try the change to be certain. I’ve previously posted that Komakazi’s might be over priced or under powered. I’ve changed my mind since playing the Japanese. :-D
All 5 of us really like the technology development how it is now. Everyone enjoys the roll and watching their country advance. In all other Axis and Allies games we have chosen to play without technology development. Global Conflict is the first game we actually liked the technology development process. In our first game three countries developed a technology by the 5th turn. Two of them were useful, and the players had a fun time adjusting his play around the new development. It is fun advancing the 5 stages to completion for a technology. Once you develop a technology it takes a turn to adjust purchases, then a turn to exploit the technology. This allows all the players time to adjust.
The reason we don’t like technology development in other games is that it can make or break a game with a small roll. A player may choose to ‘bet the game’ on their first technology roll. Here is an example. Say the German player believes he can win the game if he gets super submarines on the first turn. Whether he gets them or not, or even whether he is correct on his thinking or not, the game will be over by turn 2. The German player will ‘bet everything’ on getting super submarines; perhaps by purchasing all submarines on the first turn. If he doesn’t roll super submarines he is screwed. If he gets that 42% chance and develops super submarines he wins. At least he wins if he is correct on the technology being too strong. Or he loses if he was wrong about the technology. Either way the game is over by the second turn. We prefer the strategic play, not the gamble play.
If you do keep the change in technology, you might have to lower the odds of developing a technology a little. As they are, there would be an average of over 2 technologies developed each turn. Thats a lot to digest and might make a radical change in the balance of the game.
I’m not too worried about the change in technology. We can always play with it as is, or we can do what we normally do and play without technology. Global Conflict will still be an awesome game without technology.
I really appreciate all the effort that has gone into making Global Conflict. It shows it the excellent balance and depth of play. I look forward to its evolution.
Craig
If a fighter and a bomber fly over an antiaircraft gun to attack a territory, how is the antiaircraft casualty chosen?
1. One interpretation of the rules says you roll one dice for the fighter, and if it rolls a one, then the fighter is hit. Then roll a second dice for the bomber, and if it rolls a one, then the bomber is hit.
2. Another interpretation of the rules says you roll two dice and if either rolls a one, the attacker choses to lose the fighter or bomber.
The revised rules that I have say on pages 12 and 13:
Antiaircraft Guns:
Antiaircraft guns can never move in this phase; they can make noncombat moves only. However, they can make a special attack in this phase only. Whenever an air unit moves into a hostile territory containing an antiaircraft gun, the gun gets a chance to shoot it down.
The air unit’s controller plots its path using the numbered punchout markers to indicate each space in which combat may occur (the first space is 1, the second 2, and so on). Whenever an air unit encounters enemy antiaircraft guns, resolve combat separately in each space along its path, starting with the first.
Every time an antiaircraft gun in a territory is overflown by air units, it shoots once at each air unit that enters. (Only one antiaircraft gun per territory can fire, however.) If the gun misses, the air unit may continue its move.
Craig