Posts made by MP84

@Imperious:

no NA but we have house rules.

Would house rules do you use in the vein of NA’s?

@Constantinople:

The pieces in AA50 are fine, my goodness!

OK so the colors may be too similar, I know that myself becz I have

trouble with colors, but other than that the units are fine.

Not just OK but fine for this game.

Why all this drumbeating about the “alleged” deficits of this game!

I’ve played it and it is fun with 5 players!!

Italy is great as a spoiler.

Can’t wait for the 2d game to try all these new ideas about how best to play

this brand new exciting game with a great map and a ton of plastic tanks battleships

cruisers etc

It is a great value for less than $100 and the replay value is even higher!!

You’ll make money if you keep replaying it!! :lol:

So relax and just play it and enjoy it!!

Testify!  :-D

@Richter:

WAHHHHHH!

this game is favoring the Allllllieeeeeess! :evil:

Haha. I think the game favors the people with the better strategy.

@Krieghund:

There are two reasons why Alaska is not included in that NO.  First, it was not yet a state at the time.  It was still a territory, so it was not part of the US “home territory”.  Second, at the time it wasn’t a huge part of the USA’s economy.

As for it being “too easy”, it creates more of an incentive for the Japanese to take the fight to the USA.

You’re right on the money here Krieg. I’ve heard many US players whine that they don’t have enough IPC’s even with that easy NO. Some have even talked about bidding on the allies, especially the US. I feel that the NO is fair enough, and for the record, I like the idea of playing with them in general.

I think it is worth it. As a kid, i would day dream about Italy being in the game. And even though some question the figure quality, i still marvel that the units are in most cases nation specific. I never even thought about something like that when i was enjoying Classic. Overall I’d say….

Artwork:10
Board: 8.5 (needs clearer borders in Europe)
New Rules: 9.5 (very exciting changes)
Pieces: 8 (not the best quality, but to have a pea sized fighter and go, “yea, thats definitely a Spitfire/zero/hellcat etc” is impressive, and a nice touch)
Trays: 10
Inclusion of Italy and China also makes for great fun

I’m not sure that a surefire USA pacific strategy exists. If you are lucky enough to make it out ok from initial japanese attacks, you still need to build many transports and destroyers to even threaten the pacific. It sure seems like fighting a delay action in the pacific while pushing into Africa or massing for Overlord is the only successful strategy.

If anyone has found a way for the US Navy to be a consistent threat in the pacific while picking off island IPC’s, I would be very interested to learn from you.

While I agree the figures are a bit lacking, they don’t seem any different to the Classic figures i’ve had for ages. Is there any newer iteration of AA that people felt had better pieces than AA:50?

@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.

Greetings everyone! I have just joined the forums here, but I have been playing AA Classic for over a decade, and I just got my AA:50 version! Of all the gripes with the figures, i thought the color similarities btw Italy and the USSR were a shame. You are quite correct in that Russian units wore brown. However, with Italy also colored brown (even though their uniforms ranged from beige to grey), I decided to go with a symbolic change that would give some readability to the board.

I went and bought some red spray paint and did just like you said. I also bought a tube of Naphthol Red acrylic paint and a small detail brush to get the hard to reach areas.  Now i have a striking looking Soviet military that stands out nicely from the Italians.

Also, I must point out that the Red Army was not called that simply because the flag was red. It was not a simple chromatic choice. There was much more to it. Red was seemingly the official color of the worldwide workers revolution, and the Red army was the armed wing of the proletariat that would facilitate the destruction of bourgeois capitalism. With a NO being the acquisition of new “buffer” territory in which to spread the Worker’s State, it makes sense to me to play that up. This war involved ideologies, and it just so happened that one such ideology could be represented simply with a color change that would also solve the contrast issue in the pieces. Two birds, one stone.  Anyways, thanks for the tips, and good work with that phase 2 map.