@Imperious:
they were not red. They wore light earth brown uniforms.
They were called the red army because of the flag. that’s it. nothing was red.
yes, I know that.
But chip’s colors in AA are all kinda generic colors for each army (Germans Uniforms were not black, unless the game is representing only SS Officers)
I was suggesting the color just to distinguish from the Italians (otherwise you should paint the italians in some other non-realistic color – light blue like in TripleA?)
I’m playing with a friend and we run up the following situation:
My US Bomber can reach a couple of un-escorted transports… but only by flying over a massive Japanese fleet with 2 AC and all 4 fighters.
We know that air units can fly over enemy occupied territories – rule book says so.
But rule book’s picture describes bombers flying over tanks… not over a territory with enemy fighters
We both agree that the movement is legal, since it’s not specifically forbidden by the rule book… but his complain is very soundable: all those zeros should be able to intercept my bombers (or other fighters if I had them)
Is there any house-rule for that? any disambiguation for the manual?
thanks
why not painting the Russians on real red instead?
I don’t have much experience on AA50 yet: I’m on the second round of my first game (1941)
my friend and I are playing with NOs
I don’t think they are very hard to remember
But I have some problems with them:
NOs are supposed to lure the players into a more historical gaming by tempting them with economic gainings
We’re at the second turn, and Japan is already as economically strong as the US. Japan took a time to further push on the pacific to deny the Americans of 5 IPC for controlling Wake, Hawaii, Midway, Solomon… but that’s it! I’m playing the Americans and I’m retreating the US Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic (5 IPC are not an incentive to stay there).
So the game looks to be evolving into a KGF again, and Japan will start attacking the USSR as soon as he can.
As far as I read here, that’s what’s happening in most games
Point is: If NOs goal is to lure the players into a more historical deployments, then it’s not working.
The game is still KGF for allies and Kill Russia for Axis
If NOs as economic incentive are going to be useful to produce more historical gaming, then the economic gain (or lost) for not controlling those territories should be significant to a point where the entire war effort of a given nation is threatened if NOs are not achieved.
Ideas and suggestions:
NOs should be both economic significant and mandatory: In addition to capturing Victory Cities, each Nation must achieve their NOs
Example: if the USA abandons the Pacific… the US looses the war; Washington is out; kapputt, finito! (we need a Japan that it is not Gozzilla after the 2nd round)
@Imperious:
Its not like Germany has an NO for taking Brazil and cloning Hitlers.
House rule: It does now!
:-D
House rule should be: Germany controls Brazil and Gregory Peck playing Joseff Mengele
Mechanised Infantry was alright, but Germany also had mechanised infantry,and U.S.A. was farting around in the Pacific. I couldn’t mount much of an offense.
Germans with Mech Inf could be a real pain! that would be a real Blitzkrieg!
I guess that Soviets could use Mech Inf to move their infantry defensively (covering any “hole” in their lines)
Improved Arty could be really useful for the Soviets too
“The Chinese ARmy … does not receive IPCs for income or use IPCs to generate new units. Intesad, China gets one new infantry unit per turn for every two Chinese territories that are not under Axis control during the Purchase Units phase of the US Player’s turn”
I understand how this works from Round 2+
But how does it works at China’s first turn?
I mean: Every other nation starts with an amount of IPC… China, on the other hand, doesn’t has any IPC
China starts with 7 territories under her control (it should have 3 infantries)
But if after Japan’s first turn China loses (say) 3 territories… then at USA’s purchase phase China has just 4 territories: meaning 2 infantries.
Should China receive 3 Infantries at her first round no mater what? or should receive as many infantries as half of her territories after Japan’s attack?
Additionally: what happens if China ends up with an odd number of territories (say: 5)?
@Flying:
USSR
-Gain 5 ipcs if you have not engaged in combat with Japanese forces as attaker or defender at any time during the game. This will simulate the nonaggression treaty with Japan, if either side breaks the treaty then both lose the ipcs. Yes Japan will have the same NO.
I like that because it will also lure the players into a more historical game-play…
… having say that:
The Allies (specially Russia) are the ones who don’t want Japan to attack the USSR*
So giving both sides 5 ipc for doing something that USSR won’t do anyway is just a gift for Russia
And giving 5 ipc to Japan will simply make it stronger (and many players are saying that Japan is strong enough already)
Why not using one of the alternative rules of Revised to represent the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact? Just give the USSR 5 infantry for free to be automatically placed at any Soviet territory where Japan crosses the line? (just the first time Japan attacks of course).
Russia would love to have War Bonds or Advanced Artillery. Rockets aren’t a bad deal either. Increased Production is good too.
well I just started my first game on board, playing as allies on 1941 scenario
I followed your advice and bought:
2 tanks
5 infantry
1 technology token
I rolled the dice and I got a lucky 6! :-D
then I got Industrial, and it’s been very helpful
I bought Russian tech one game an got Mechanised Infantry and then Paratroopers. :(
Mech infantry would be great… Paratroopers, yuk! I can see your frustration!
it would like Bands of Brothers meets Enemy At The Gates (we can call that “Bandovich of Brotheruskis”)
Russian Officer: “We don’t have enough parachutes and guns, so you’ll go on pairs: one of you gets the Parachute, and the other gets the riffle… ah! and we don’t have cargo planes either, so we’ll catapult you behind the enemy lines”
1 ftr, 5 inf, 1 R&D :D.
You need fighter(s) to trade efficiently with Germany.
R&D and then rolling for what? :-)
@Imperious:
which scenario is this?
I assume its 42.
no. 1941
IJN has 2 x AC + 4 Fighters on sz38 that could attack USN either at W USA (1 BB, 1 CA, 1 Sub, 1 TN) or at Hawaii (1 AC, 1 Fighter, 1 DD)
IJT has 1 AC + 2 Fighters on sz38 that could move, launch an air strike against attack Hawaiian fleet.
(other combination are also possible)
does anyone know what cruiser class are represented by nation’s chips?
(I mean: I know the US BB are Iowa class, German ones are Bismark class, Japanese ones are Yamato class… what about Cruisers)
Should Japan focus on Pearl and leave US fleet at sz56 alone?
should go after both?
should commit her AC on sz56 or keep them away?
how should US Navy respond if Japan attacks sz56 with 4 fighters? (typically scoring two hits on first attack round) Should the US take the Sub as casualty (hopping to shout down as many Zeros as possible – and maybe even saving the day)? or should assume that the fleet will be lost, take the first two hits with the BB and the Cruiser and submerge the sub?
some other opinions?
My biggest concern is:
Is a Fighter absolutely necessary? Would you buy it in the second turn instead?
I think it may be very important (they were in Revised to retake territory without committing tanks)
This topic is not related to game’s mechanics but to some underlying political topics related to how the game treats some ‘minor’ countries
Italy:
we now have an independent Italy and that’s great. Three Allies (+ semi dependent China) vs Three Axis. I was looking for this since Classic!
But let’s take a close look to Italian chips:
Italy has her own Infantry and tanks, but all navy and air units are German ones with Italian colors
Italy had a very decent (and very beautiful) torpedo bomber: the SM-79 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79)
It also produced their own fighters
In terms of navy, they had the Littorio Class battleships.
Now that AA50 granted Italy with her independence, It would have been nice her own units too :-)
USSR
The USSR was the nation that effectively defeated Germany during WW2 (even after D-Day, roughly 70% of the German army was committed to the Eastern Front, and at that time, after Stalingrad and Kursk, the tide had turned to favor the Red Army).
Nevertheless, the USSR is always the poorest allied in the game
Some times, a bogus explanation was presented for this: the USSR received a lot of material from the west. Yes, she did… they were mostly trucks.
The UK, on the other hand, received much more help from the USA… but UK is a richer country in the Game
I understand that if the game’s set up were historical, it would be almost impossible for the Axis to win; hence, some modifications have to be made… but mysteriously the modification has to do with make the USSR a shadow of what it really was.
Take a look on what the USSR NO are (that will justify 5 IPC for Moscow if no allied troops are on her soil):
“The Allies, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, seemed able to meld their individual objectives into one common cause – the complete and unconditional surrender of the Axis. This was also the official position of the Soviet Union, b_ut unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, the Soviets had world communism in mid as well_” (Rule Book, 22 - emphasis added)
Stalin was certainly a butcher and the USSR a totalitarian and expansionist regime.
But, C’mon! the Western Allies only thing they had in mid was defeating the Nazi, spread democracy and save the world?
The United Kingdom was fighting for her survival, and for her empire. Meaning keeping her colonial rule around the world.
The United States was also engaged on a race to extend and assert her place as a world power
but for the game, the evil Soviets are the only ones with a hidden agenda… :roll:
I’ll let China aside for now… I guess I’ll get a lot of bad karma with b!itch!ng about Italy and USSR alone… :-D
@Cmdr:
Anyway, the entire point of my thread was 100% non-aggression between Russia and Japan as a way to balance the game.
If that’s in place, then Japan has nothing better to do than attack America through Alaska. That’s the point.
if that’s the case, I agree :-)
@Cmdr:
@Gallo:
@Cmdr:
In Revised it actually makes life a lot harder on the allies. Japan now has nothing better to do than attack Alaska and W. USA meaning America has to actually invest in a National Guard and a navy in the Pacific.
I beg to disagree: in Revised Japan has nothing better to do than ignore USA, built two or three factories on mainland Asia, and start rolling tanks against Moscow
I think you made a very tactical mistake here. Japan can build a million armor pieces and can NEVER attack Moscow with them, nor can they even get to Europe because you have to go through Russia to get there.
So they do, in fact, have absolutely nothing better to do than annoy America forcing America to be more honest with history and fight Japan.
Without America giving significant aid to the allies in Europe, England will have to send everything just to hold the line against Germany and prevent Russia from falling.
This in turn spurs Germany into sending only minimal efforts into Africa so they can maximize as much punch as possible to break Russia before the joint armies are too strong to break.
(In Revised.)
This of course is if Japan and Russia cannot attack one another (or pass through conquered lands of one another) until such time as a capitol falls.
I don’t understand what are you meaning
If Japan and Russia cannot attack one another, it would be obviously stupid for Japan to build any factory on mainland Asia to produce tanks and go after Moscow (since it’s forbidden).
However, that’s only forbidden if you play with a especial rule (USSR-Japan non-aggression treatise)
If you play with no such especial rule (which is the way most players do), and allies are not playing a KJF (which IMHO is a lesser strategy than a KGF) then best thing Japan can do is build one factory on Manchuria and one on India (after taking it from the British) and start rolling tanks against Moscow; hopping that Germany from the West and Japan from the East would conquer Russia before Western Allies take over Berlin.
Do you play TripeA? If you do, I dare you playing a PBEM where you play the Axis and instead of going after Russia you go after USA by Alaska
Then I play the Axis and I go after Russia with both Germany and Japan
And we see which strategy works better (and I’m a sorry Axis player)
I would like to give it a try… but how can you play by forum? :?
