Posts made by gamerman01

Hah - I think my journey would end right here with her!

You’re right - it’s far from worthless for USA.

Only problem is, if my radar deters my opponent from SBR, it just makes it more likely he’ll bomb my units and I won’t even get the AA at “1” chance!!

Lol very well said Scamp.  No one plays A&A for long without feeling the need to vent!!!  We all get hammered by dice much more often than we’d like!

I read about the new A&A that will be marketed to the masses this fall.  It has no tech!  LOL!  A&A without tech is not A&A, IMHO.

It seems like in about 50% of my games USA ends up with all 6 on chart 2.

And if Germany gets mech. infantry at a key time (round 3 or 4) it’s pretty much game over. 
Like he said - helps make every game different.

@Veqryn:

I agree that when playing with NOs, you should:
1 more infantry at Egypt
1-2 more infantry in Yunnan (1941) and 0-1 more inf in yunnan (1942)

However, I disagree with reducing the price of Cruisers without reducing the price of Carriers.  If cruisers go to 11, then carriers should go to 13.  And I would never accept cruisers going to 10, ever.

I like the idea of Battleships having to return to their port to repair.  I have always argued with my friends that battleships should not repair at the end of combat, they should repair at the beginning of their owner’s turn (this would allow a BB damaged by the UK to be sunk by Russia/USA, etc, instead of just repairing so quickly).

I would also argue that China should be able to get the benefits of attacking during their turn, OR they place units equal to half their territories rounded UP (instead of down).

To me, a factory in the East Indies is rather dumb when compared with a factory in India and Burma, which are much closer to the action and do not need transports to function.

Agree with you except about an East Indies complex being dumb.  First round East Indies complex seems to be a no-brainer for the Japs.  It’s safe from conquest, being on the island.  Japan can’t build IC on India turn 1, of course.  And Burma is usually vacated to kill the flying tigers, so not wise to buy an IC there.  Also, it’s better to be able to build 4 units than 2 or 3.  Yes you’re buying transports - transports that lead to taking over Africa, Australia, whatever your heart desires.
I’m definitely playing that IC’s can’t be built on islands except Australia from now on.  I play both sides, solo, frequently and the East Indies IC at the outset is a powerful move that doesn’t make sense.  The 4 IPC’s is due to natural resources in the islands, not industrial capacity.

Hehe, hey Scamp!  In my current game we both have heavies with Germany and US and both countries are strong.  I don’t think the game will end any time soon (in round 10, have about 12 hours in already!!) because we can now annihilate each other’s fleets.
One of the best defenses against heavy bombers is to get them yourself.  At least they’re “only” 2 dice now instead of 3 like in the good 'ol days! 
Russia should have defense - it’s called “rolling a 1”.  Another thing, heavies aren’t as devastating as they used to be because the max damage a TT can take is double the IPC value.
Could be worse - Moscow could have been hit for 12!!
You know, your opponent did have to take the chance of paying for tech - he just got rewarded for taking the risk.
Always tough to be on the receiving end.  Some day you will be the one with the heavies (unless you never roll for tech!!).  You’d better hope he doesn’t get Long range!
Right now my opponent has heavies for Germany.  But my America has Improved shipyards, super submarines, long range aircraft, radar, jet fighters, and heavy bombers.  Now if I can just get paratroopers.  Then I would have Long Range Heavy Bombers that can carry infantry.  Holy cow.

Thx, guys.

Yep, we are in round 10, and I have 6 techs with USA.  I never rolled more than 2 a turn (except 3 in last turn to get heavies I guess), and I think none in the first round.  I was incurring heavy pyschological damage on my opponent by rolling 2 a turn and usually getting a 6!  Lucky for him Heavy Bombers were the last one I acquired.

If we continue our game, I will definitely have to move the radar to the UK.  Hopefully I have a transport off the Eastern US right now.  Thanks guys for backing up my interpretation of the rules.  I won’t feel cheesy for doing it now.

I played a new opponent F2F last weekend.  I had all 6 chart 2 techs for USA and then he got heavy bombers for Germany.  Then I realized that since I had radar for the US, I could export an American AA to the UK to double their protection against Strat bombing.  My opponent protested loudly (and I haven’t even done it yet).  He didn’t think the teched up AA gun could shoot at his bomber.  I said I thought the best AA gun in the territory could fire.  I haven’t double checked, but I believe the rules are not crystal clear on the matter.  I asked him “what if I transport the British AA away from the UK and the USA AA is the only one there?”  He didn’t like that either.  I suppose he just wanted to bomb the daylights out of me with minimal consequences.  What say you?

@Telamon:

You’re spot on Holkann - hit taking ability is as important as hit giving ability.  That’s why 5 cruisers (attack points 15, cost 60) will consistently lose to 3 battleships (attack points 12, cost 60).  Extra hits.  It’s what makes destroyers the best value for buffing a fleet.  I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships.  At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships.  I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market.  Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.

I also agree Holkann had a great point - pretty much the same thing I was thinking when I read Larry’s reply.  Hit taking ability is a major factor.
It is difficult to really compare the ships because every one has different abilities.  You compare 5 cruisers to 3 battleships because they have the same cost, but it’s hard to compare because of the auto-repair ability.  Put it this way, if I had 5 cruisers I wouldn’t want to attack 3 battleships with them, and if I had 3 battleships I would want to attack 5 cruisers because I have the option to retreat after taking 3 free hits.

Also, if you “buff your fleet” with a bunch of destroyers, you’re right that they’re more efficient than cruisers - against other fleets only.  But my land and air units on land are not afraid of your destroyers coming closer, but your cruisers are menacing.  Also, Larry had a great point about the cost.  Battleships “only” cost 1.67 times more than a cruiser, but many times I do not want to commit 20 IPC’s to one unit.  Or what if I have 12 IPC’s I want to spend on my fleet?  Which is better, a destroyer or a cruiser?  I can’t buy 2 destroyers with 12 IPC’s.
I don’t think 12 IPC cruisers should be in the top 20 of our suggestions for improvements to AA50.  We’ve come a long way from 24 IPC one-hit battleships and 18 IPC carriers, though, haven’t we?
I’m “writing this one down” - no new complexes on islands - brilliant.

With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3.  So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.

I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).  I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says).  What do you think about my house rule?  (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)

@Subotai:

For me it’s like a complex chess game, 1vs1, who can move the pieces/units better than the opponent. But it is also a WW2 theme, and it is better with a little more realism, both for warfare matters and specific WW2 factors. We got improvements from the Revised version, but not enough, imo.

Maybe having Japan attacking Russia is a lesser evil, for the real WW2, what the hell was the Japanese thinking before they attacked the US in 1941   :roll:  :-)

One “slight” difference between A&A and chess.  When I attack your queen with my pawn in chess, the queen is dead.  The A&A version of chess would have you roll dice first.  If I roll a one, i get a hit, if your queen rolls a 5 or less than you get a hit.  :lol:

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor pre-emptively to prevent the entire US fleet from eventually coming after them and crushing them.  They attacked Pearl Harbor to get an easy kill of a bunch of battleships, so in their mind they would have some kind of chance of surviving their own imperialism.  The American carriers, however, which turned out to be the real “kings of the sea”, were all mysteriously absent from Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.  This is one of the main reasons some believe the higher ups in the USA (like the President) knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and allowed it to stir up the public support for the war which simply was not there with no attack on the US.  I think the Japanese naval codes had already been cracked at this point too, so some conspiracy theorists believe US command knew the attack was coming.

But anyway, I agree with you that it was not a good move for Japan to sucker punch the most powerful industrial nation (and most innovative) in the world which was trying hard to stay out of the war altogether.  Admiral Yamamoto recognized this immediately (he was probably against the attack in the first place) when he famously said that “I fear all we have accomplished is to awaken a sleeping giant”.

@Veqryn:

There is no benefit to taking these islands, either for japan or for the usa.  even National Objectives do not solve this because Japan is going to want to take the Philippines, East Indies, Borneo, and Kwangtung anyway just for the money.  The NOs should have skipped these and only dealt with the non-moneyed islands.

But USA has NO for Midway, Wake, Hawaii, and Solomons (any 3).  A Japanese NO includes Solomons (no IPC value) so the game design does give more incentive than ever for the 0 IPC islands.  Not enough to sucker the USA into fighting a losing battle in the Pacific, but more than before nonetheless.

I agree too much value given to Borneo and East Indies.  They were 1’s in “classic”.  Boosted to 4 to give some extra income to Japan since all countries were beefed up a bit for revised, but now Japan is too powerful in AA50.  In this thread, we have as a group determined that Japan is too powerful with 9 fighters and 3 carriers, about 4 transports, and no enemy complexes anywhere closer than Moscow or San Francisco.  Recipe for domination.  Let me put it this way.  I run out of Japanese control markers, so I went to get my classic set and took ALL of the Japanese control markers from it.  I still don’t have enough.  I’m playing solo, so the playing ability of Japan and her enemies is roughly equal.  In all my 1941 games Japan gets to about 60 IPCs income plus NO’s and completely takes the US out of the war by continuously threatining and attacking California, and trading Western Canada.  All this while easily taking over all of China, Northern Russia, some of Africa, all of Southern Asia, with absolutely no retaliation from anyone.  There’s nothing to do but help topple Russia faster or tie up the Americans.  The Americans are closer (remember 3 carriers, 9 planes and a lot of transports) and easier to attack quickly with big forces, so that’s how my games go.

I understand that in 1941 Japan had a lot of fighters and carriers and everything.  I guess you could say the Japs got majorly “diced” at Midway, which evened things up in actual history.  In the '41 scenario, that hasn’t happened.

I guess I’m looking at the game a bit differently than when I originally posted this topic.  If you set up a game based on the actual military positions in the world in 1941 and ignore actual historical events, and one country moves at a time, the Axis are in a position to take over the world.  Russian winter is not a factor.  Midway - didn’t happen.  Biggest successful decoy of all time in 1944 in UK in preparations for D-Day - nonfactor.  The fact that after a few rounds (of game time) almost all experienced Japanese pilots had been killed - makes no difference.  The fact that Japanese tanks were not equal in any way to German and American tanks - not accounted for.  I’ve learned to just appreciate the game for what it is - a fun wargame to play.  It’s almost best to throw history out the window and forget about it, and start rolling those dice.

Wild Bill, those sound like really good ideas.  However, in AA50 I think the designers did a good job of keeping Russia and Japan off each other without adding a rule.  Japan has no NO’s in Russia and Russia has none way out there past Siberia.  Russia has all infantry out there so doesn’t really attack Japan - just takes Manchuria if it’s left to attack rest of China.  The extra Russian territories that are all worth 1 IPC plus the potent attacking power of Germany along with the new power of Italy make the silly old strategy of Japan pounding towards Moscow and draining all their production capacity a thing of the past.  In my games so far, Japan of course takes over everything from India to Hawaii/Solomons to Eastern Africa/Madagascar and most of China in 2 turns and launches a major invasion of the Americas/Alaska.  Pretty much takes USA out of Europe, so Germany and Italy can put more pressure on Russia.  In my games the USA is lucky if they keep Japan out of Western.  All those Japanese transports and 3 carriers and 7-9 planes - once everything in sight is taken over, only makes sense to me to go after fledgling USA.

Thanks for your posts, Chang and Zhukov.  As I said from the outset, I love this game.

Dabapic!  Did you even read my post?

I guess what I was looking for was some responses about whether others have had a similar experience, that is, wondering whether this game was playtested much at all.  It’s just that the first few times I’ve played it, I’ve noticed some glaring things that I don’t like and I wouldn’t think a lot of other people would like.  I just got the feeling the first few times I played (and I’ve played A&A since 1992) that

I think the opening setup of 41 is very historically accurate.  I guess, as someone pointed out, the A&A premise is to set you up at a point in history, and then “you” are in command.  So history means nothing once the game starts - embarassingly, it’s taken me awhile to realize this.  After all, Japan has 9 fighters to start, and 3 carriers.  In my games Japan can go full bore after USA and has a good chance of taking them down, just as Germany traditionally does Russia.  So again, A&A wasn’t meant to be historically accurate - I have to keep telling myself this.  A&A simulates, if each power had these military capabilities at this point in history and all politics were removed, what might have been?

You know, I’m sure I’m very biased.  I used to play classic, usually solo.  Once you learned how to play the Allies, they always won.  So I got used to a game that was pretty “historically accurate”  (Allies working together to cave in Germany from its high point of power, then island hopping and conquering Japan).  They had a couple optional rules, like Russia restricted attack, German jet power and Jap super subs.  Also, the economic victory thing.  So the Allies could lose if they gave up too much land to the Axis, even though with enough time they could often STILL win.

Nowadays it seems most players (and I got caught up in this too) want “balance”.  That is, they want it to be like other games, everything from Chutes and Ladders to Chess to Risk to Stratego, where each side has a 50/50 chance from winning from the outset.  Balance has its place, like when you are playing a stranger on line, or in a tournament or something.

But maybe imbalance has a place, too.  Take the 1941 scenario with full NO’s.  My experience so far has been that the Axis steamroll the Allies if the OOB rules are used.  And for the first time, I’m thinking maybe that is OK with me.  You know, if you took the Axis position and 1941, and took away the technology differences and the politics and some natural climate conditions (Russian winters, to name one), oh and the Nazi infighting, and the brilliance of various field commanders, and a lot more - then the Axis would romp and take over the world from the 1941 point after they had been gearing for war for almost 10 years.

Yes, if you really oversimplify WWII and make it into a “beer and pretzels” game you get A&A.  So, I admit, I’m pretty slow but I’ve finally come to terms with what this game is, and now I think I am ready to appreciate it that much more.  First, (and I’m talking about playing OOB with no house rules) you must accept that the sides will not have a 50/50 chance of winning and that this is a game made more for the purpose of having fun than proving that I am a better strategic game player than you are.

I am also into the house rules.  There is a huge board of house rules on this site, because many players are not satisfied with OOB and they agree with my statement that A&A greatly oversimplifies the realities of WWII.  I guess a player has to figure out how much “realism” and “historical accuracy” you want, and then you can make AA50 into that.  I applaud the gamemakers for creating a game that allows us to do that.

Oh, and thanks for ditching the “blow-up boxes”!!

You’re right, as the OOB rules say 15 is the standard game, so VCs are a non-factor because if you have all but 3 of them, it’s been over for awhile.  Even the 12 or 13 (projection) seems to be quite decisive, since you have VCs in places like Honolulu and Ottawa.  If you have 12 or 13 it’s normally pretty much locked up.

So far I’m like takerwwe5849 and Subotai and yourself - VCs are a non-factor.  However, there do seem to be possibilities with them, since they’re marked on the map and we have the tokens.  For example, you could scrap the current NO’s and make your own, involving victory cities.  Just brainstorming.

In my solo game, the UK amphibious assaults France and takes it over.  Then Italy takes her turn, and I thought it was crazy that Italy could bombard the heck out of France from the Riviera (from the Med), when in reality the allied units would be in northern France, like Paris, etc.  No way cruisers and bship could help the attacking Italian units from the Med.

That got me thinking about this a bit more.  There are some other shore bombardments that make no sense.  For starters, from Northern or Western Australia.  There’s nothing there.  If you’re landing troops there, they would be making there way inland, especially to SE Australia where they would engage the home troops.  Bombarding NW or N Australia would just kill some wallabies.

So I’m thinking for my own house rules, I won’t allow bombardments:
From Southern French coastline, North or West Australia, the Coastal Chinese province (not HongKong), Western Canada, Eastern Canada, either of the two Eastern Russia territories.

What do you think?  Any territories you would add or subtract from the list?  I don’t think any significant amount of troops would be defending within 20 miles of the coasts on the above named areas.  Again, this issue became glaring to me when Italy was bombarding the heck out of France - from the SOUTH immediately after the UK had landed on the Northern shores of the same territory.

Thanks in advance -
Love this game.

German tanks, artillery, and bombers are “da bomb!”.  Not to mention, they are jet black!!  So for the first time - I think the German nation is the coolest.

Imperious leader has shown, with his house rules, etc. that this game leaves a lot to be desired.  I mean, I love AA50 and I like it much, much better than revised (transports as cannon fodder?  come on).  However.  Why have the “flying tigers” when they just get smashed immediately and maybe take out one infantry unit, never being able to attack?  A lot of people agree with me about the flying tigers, because there’s a lot of talk on these message boards about putting more infantry there or moving the plane out of reach to start the game.

Which leads to my subject title.  Was this game play tested at all?? :?

I agree with the optional rule of closing the Dardanelles strait not just because of history but because it seems ridiculous that Italy could bombard the Caucusus with 2 units and in round 2, 3 units in conjunction with the Germans.  But if you’re going to close that seazone, why aren’t there optional rules for Gibraltar (have to own it to pass through) and Denmark/Baltic Sea?

The list goes on.  I’ve only played this game about 3 times solo, but it’s obvious this game is begging for house rules.  Didn’t take me long to realize that the NO’s heavily favor the Axis (in the 1942 scenario especially), namely because they pretty much start the game with all of them met.  In 1941 they have such a vastly superior military position, and with bonus income and all the territories that are there for the taking, can match the income of the allies after round one.  I fail to see how this game does not heavily favor the Axis (if there is no bid or house rules or anything - rules out of the box).  And that’s why I ask - was this game really playtested like they say it was??

I have yet to play a game (solo) where the Allies don’t get steamrolled.

Side note - I think the NO’s make it that much easier for the Axis in 1942, so I have reduced them by 1/2.  First NO met, 2 IPC’s, second NO met, 3 IPC’s (total of 5), all NOs met, 7 IPCs.

I like the NO concept that encourages you to play historically, but come on, Italy getting 22 income after turn one is ridiculous.