Posts made by DY

Historically fighters that were tied to close escort missions protecting bombers performed poorly when compared with “free roaming” fighters. Fighters are much faster than bombers, so even throttled back a little they would have to perform all sorts of zig zaggy kind of patterns throughout the formation so as to not overshoot the bombers too much etc.

As the war went on tactics changed and the attackers would send out fighter “sweeps” ahead of the bombers trying to draw the interceptors out into a more “even” fight. The defenders learned to try to avoid getting into these dogfights as they lost much of their advantage.

Other tactics such as “top cover” where fighters would escort from a few thousand feet above the bombers so they could swoop down with extra speed/energy when they were called to engage.

Bombers were probably too expensive at $15 because they were rarely built. At $12 they are a bargain and many players build several.

They are usually better than a fighter now. Both units are improved in “value” relative to land units if you allow tech, due to the research token / twin chart system.

I think with escorts/interceptors bombers will still be good value, since there are so many more territories in AA50, the extra range and offensive punch is still great value at only $2 more than a fighter, but they will no longer be “broken”.

Surprisingly enough the attacker is (as always) the player who is taking their turn.

I personall believe that playing with NO’s tilts the balance slightly towards the Axis, but by including the “closed Bosphoros” rule, the game returns to a very balanced position.

I believe that bombers at $12 will make SBR too powerful and eventual “league” games may well adopt the escort/interceptor rules

Still early days yet though.

I have played 6 games of the 1941 scenario (3 face to face and 3 games online still in progress).

This is the most balanced AA Title I’ve played – so long as you include the National Objectives (official) optional rule.

I believe the 1941 scenario favours the Allies if you do not play with these rules. However, it is still VERY early days.

Please note that AA 2nd Ed, AA Revised, AA Europe, AA Pacific can all be made “balanced” with a bid for the axis/allies.

Having played in several tourneys at other sites where games have gone to judgment, I’d take a quicker 13 VC game over a “subjective” result any day

+1 for 13 VC

@HolKann:

Wow, it looks good, but I doubt a lot of people will have a computer near them when playing A&A

Having a laptop with a dice sim nearby can shave hours off a F2F game.

I would never have allowed it in the past, but after enough PBEM games my group built up a tolerance to it.

I think perhaps he doesn’t understand the concept of “errata”.

I’ve played a lot of AA & AAR and while I only have a couple of games of AA50 under my belt, it “feels” like AA50 is vastly superior to both those titles.

I never bought any of the more “tactical” AA titles like Battle of the Bulge, but both AAE and AAP are very good games (they do require a bid for the Allies to balance them though).

If you want a second AA game I’d vote AA Pacific over AAR.

@a44bigdog:

The + and - keys on the number pad of the keyboard control the zoom.

LOL no jokes, I’ve been playing online for like 4 years and never knew that. Cool

Hi

Thanks for the link, unfortunately  that thread gets totally hijacked about half way through and turns into a “let’s buff China” fest  :evil:

The general consensus seemed to be that the NO’s are required (although they might tip it a little the other way).

Has any one else tried NO’s plus “Dardenelles closed to ships” optional yet?

Yea I’ve seen the Black sea optional rule. Makes sense as it does seem that NO’s might swing it too far the other way.

I was thinking that as it stands in 1941 without NO’s the bid would be possibly as high as 2-3 inf for Germany to give it the ability to hold Egypt on G1 or poise to take Kar on G2.

Hi

I’m an AAR vet and have only completed FTF 2 games of AA50.
I’m currently playing one PBEM over at DAAK

Games were all 1941, one with tech and two without. All three did not have NO’s.

I’ve been reading on several different sites that both 1941 and 1942 are skewed in the Axis’ favour. This has not been my experience however.

Without NO’s the Allies can KGF/KIF pretty easily with their economic power. This seems to be more effective than in AAR because

1. Russia is richer, almost on par with Germany.

2. Germany is weakened by having Italy as a separate power

3. Most of its gains in Russia are worth less IPCs than in AAR.

4. Japan has much more distance to travel to Moscow and most of it’s gains against Russia are worth less IPCs than in AAR.

I have noticed that most of the active PBF games here include NO’s.

Is it fair to assume that the experienced players have found that NO’s are rrequired to balance the game, giving Germany and Italy an early leg up over Russia and encouraging the USA to commit some resources to the Pacific?

Your responses will be appreciated!

@TexCapPrezJimmy:

Heavy Bombers is for Strategic Bombing Raids only.

How do you justify that comment? Unless there’s some funky errata I haven’t seen yet, then…

For SBR take the sum of the two dice.

For regular combat if both dice score hits then you can move two defenders behind the casualty line.

If it goes to 32, I’m in.

Thanks for organising this guys.

1.  DM
2.  Jennifer
3.  Uberlager
4.  flesh_pile
5.  Danger Mouse
6.  Lynxes
7.  Questioneer
8.
9.  eudemonist
10. MatildaMike
11. Perry
12. Funcioneta
13. anchovy
14. BigRedOne
15. Bardoly
16. Ogrebait
17. tcnance
18. Botider
19. atarihuana
20. P@nther
21. DY
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.