Is there any chance for an upgrade kit for those who own the 1st edition but do not wish to buy the complete 2nd edition 1940 games?
Might FMG/HBG/others be putting one together? This would mainly be the new artillery AAA/AAA pieces I guess. Perhaps also with a sticker to correct the board (Korea SZ), but that might be pushing some copyright limits?
I realize that the AA guns are more effective when definding in the west against Allied “liberation” attempts. The big question is whether the tempo gain of bringing them east is worth it, and ultimately more efficient.
What I mean is: Yes, an AA-gun is better at defending a stationary stack than advancing with the aim of possibly taking some very random pot-shots at enemy planes. That is pretty obvious. Â BUT they happen to start on the board in round one, and they typically won’t be needed in the west for the first several rounds. Bringing them east from the beginning will add some momentum to Barbarossa, but at the cost of a less attractive puchase mix during the mid-game if they are to be replaced by newly purchased AA-guns or their equivalent in infantry. Is the boost worth that downside?
I like to bring 3 to France, 3 toward the Russian front… the 3 in France will end up in Normandy or 2 in Normandy/1 in S France, to make things a little tougher for the Allies.
Although I could see the charm in sending all 6 to the East.
So I take you are stationing infantry along the coast as well? Otherwise the Allies can just land 1 inf, and take out your AA guns automatically. Does that strategy work for you?
So in Alpha+3 Germany starts with an awful lot of AA guns (6). How to best utilize them?
I haven’t seen this debated much. Is that because it is a no-brainer or because it is an overlooked issue?
Anyway, assuming this situation:
No Sea sealion
Standard Barbarossa(one main stack headed for Moscow, some smaller groups taking territories for IPC’s)
No KJF
No tech
Some USSR plane buys (presumably in order to trade territories)
…how would you deploy the German AA guns?
I guess there are a few basic options:
West:
Integrate in Atlantic wall (Normandy etc.)
Keep in Germany (probably Western)as a second line of defense and to deter sniping of Wester Germany
East:
Use to make über stack less vulnerable to counter attacks
Spread out to make it more difficult for the Russians to trade territories using planes
Split
Some combination of the above
Some musings:
East
I’m pretty certain that at least some of the AA guns should be brought east, but there are many options. The Russians are probably not going to have enough planes to require the use of more than one or two AA guns to “cover” the stack. Of course they could all be added to the stack anyway just to give it more staying power in the face of a counter attack (as cannon fodder obv.), but I have a feeling that there must be more cost-efficient uses for them.
An option would be to equip some small groups of say 1-3 infantry with 1 AA gun; they would be tricky for the Russians to attack because they would either have to expose their planes to AA fire, or to commit tanks/artillery which could then be smashed by a German attack using overwhelming Luftwaffe support, which in theory should be beneficial for Germany. On the other hand this seems like wasting the AA guns, as they are overly likely to hit anything and are nearly as expensive as a tank. (Mind you I’m not suggesting buying additional AA guns, so this comparison can’t really be made.)
West:
The AA guns just seem to be unimpressive on the Western front. Defending on the coastline (Atlantic wall style) just seems hopeless because there are so many territories to cover, and the AA-guns aren’t really useful in an in-land counterattack-based defense (ie. stationed in France).
I guess one could justify stationing some AA-guns in Western Germany to deter sniper-landings there, but that just seems rather situational.
Perhaps shipping an AA gun or two to Norway might be a good way to make early British landings there more difficult.
What are your thoughts on the German AA guns, and how are you using them?
How about using those tabs for the amount of IPc’s that the particular goal gives? That would make it easy to sum them up. The other numbers aren’t really that important during play.
Very nice I have been waiting for these to get reprinted for a while but is axis and allies global better then the Europe engulfed and Asia engulfed games (they combine as well)?
The 'Engulfed games are certainly great games, but they don’t combine as smoothly as Global does. I like both, but just get to play A&A more.
So AA50 plays very well OOB and is fairly balanced, so it probably shouldn’t be tinkered with….
…BUT perhaps some of the changes introduced in 1942 2e could potentially improve AA50? I can think of a couple:
Starting IC in India?
The new Anti Air Artillery piece (and the general AA changes)?
Australian IC (From 1941)?
I’m just thinking a few years from now, when we are all used to the new rules, perhaps AA50 will begin to feel dated, and thus start to fade, and that makes me sad  :|
Would it be worth the effort?
Is it sacrilege?
The latest setup changes of the fleets in northern Europe made me thing during my latest game. You can’t hit the UK/Fr Cruisers with the Kriegsmarine and cover survivers with a newly built Carrier anymore. That makes it difficult to position the German boats in a good way.
That made me think long and hard, and one option I considered was an airbase in Benelux. This would allow the Germans to bring out the Kriegsmarine from the Baltic sea, and cover any survivors with planes. I’m just not sure this investment will be worth it in the long run, and in the end I ended up not building the base.
Would it be worthwhile for the Germans to have an air base there? What additional options would basing the Kriegsmarine in the English Channel open up? You would get a longer reach into the Atlantic compared to operating off of Hamburg, and you also have an IC adjacent when you take Normandy. I’m not sure this extra reach is worth the investment, and it is a double edged sword as you will also be closer to US warships when they become large in numbers. you could snipe south America with a single move from the Channel, but that is about the only interesting target comes within three SZ’s due to the relocation.
In the mid-game having the AB in Normady would be more desirable, but then you can’t make the attractive first round attack with the KM as you don’t control Normandy from the beginning.
Thoughts?
After Action Report:
I decided to order a printed poster as adviced above. it looks pretty good, but the dark areas are a bit too dark, and I even increased the gamma slightly before i submitted the file. Unfortunately they made a horrible cropping of the image, and it is basically useless. The entires US west coast is missing :? See the attached image.
I have now contacted the printer’s customer service, hoping they will redo the poster….
@Imperious:
OK you should contact HBG and get some grafics made as well as new replacement boxes made of plastic. I would find an accommodating plastic container that is the same size to offer an entire replacement of the cardboard, then have the dividers configured to fit perfectly in the new box. A decal sheet of each nations logo and identification could round out the product.
At BGG they got some guy who already has made these dividers and people are selling them on ebay.
http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/66868/diy-tuck-box-insert-letter-format-printing
I made those! :mrgreen: Are people seriously selling them on Ebay :?
Can anyone recommend a good source for setup charts and income & tech track for this?
I’m trying to print IL’s “AA50” variant map on several A4 labels to attach to foldable game boards I bought from a German game supplies store.
It is proving much more tricky than I thought. Acrobat reader has this poster printing functionality, but I can’t seem to make the overlaps work properly. The game boards are roughly 1cm (1/3 inch or so) smaller than the A4 labels, so it should be possible. It takes like an hour for Acrobat to generate the printout tiles, so it is rather difficult to experiment… :?
Any help or tips would be much appreciated. Has anyone done this before, or are you generally printing posters instead?
The tiles need to be 277 x 190 mm as that is the measure of each part of the foldable map. I do realize that it is going to be a lot of pages.
Thanks in advance.
I don’t get it. 1942 was the entry level game. Then they announced 1941 with shorter playtime. Then they announce 1942 2e…?!? Makes no sense with the currently given information, but perhaps it will eventually…
Well, AA50 is going for crazy amounts on Ebay, so finding a way to sell the board without actually reprinting AA50 itself (limited edition which WotC normally takes serious…) would make perfect sense both from a marketing perspective and a fan-base perspective. The board is really the only component for AA50 that you can’t salvage from other editions of A&A (still missing dedicated Italian tanks etc. but then AA50 would retain some appeal, so that is ok). If people are willing to pay several hundred USD for AA50, they will most likely also be willing to get the 1940 games and this new 1941 game to be able to play AA50…
Also, the 1941 scenario seems to be the deafault for AA50, which would allow them to use the AA50 board without modification (except for the “Anniversary” logo obv.). This might explain why the new game is called 1941.
However it is conflicting a lot with the wish to shorten play time. More areas = longer playtime, generally speaking. also starting the game in 1941 would suggest longer play times that a 1942 game… Weird.
knp7765 @
Interesting game report, but I don’t think we should evaluate this strategy based on a scenario where the invasion of France failed.
What about UK support to the US? Could that mess with the odds? I mean once the Germans land in C.US the UK should realize that they are off the hook. They could pump out quite a few units (tanks?) in Canada and send planes from the UK.
Should the Germans divert rosources to take out Quebec early to prevent this?
Try a Naval base in Iceland. A bit expensive to set up but you then have the option to keep going with Sealion or you can make it to EUS or somewhere in Canada.
You can reach at the same interesting territories (and more) from SZ 91 assuming you hold Gibraltar, so I don’t really think this has any merit.
@special:
Downside for Germany of the Nenetsia thing is that their fleet is totally out of position for the next 2 turns.
Note that if they take and hold Leningrad/Novgorod they will be served by a naval base and can be back in SZ112 in one move.
Edit: Sorry this came up later in the thread.
I just thought of another possibility. Suppose the Axis do this and attack Washington. Then, say the US has just enough defense to hold out, or the Japs get bad dice, whatever but the result is the invasion fails, the US keep Washington and stay in the game. What if some US troops, or even possibly ANZAC troops, managed to re-take the Panama Canal? Then, here is Japan with all of their navy trapped in the Atlantic with no land troops or air force left. What a DISASTER!
Assuming neither Germany or Italy was in the position to reopen the Panama Canal, by the time Japan got it’s fleet all the way around South America and back into the Pacific, I bet most of their possessions in the Pacific and Asia would be gone. Plus if they built any more navy, it would be small because they wouldn’t be making that much money yet and that large US Navy could float around and smash anything that Japan managed to build. If I were the US in that situation, once I knew my capital and homeland territories were secure, I would rush over some bombers to someplace close enough to Japan – perhaps Iwo Jima if the US could take that or even Korea if the US or USSR could take that – then SBR Japan to keep them from building too many defense units. Meanwhile, US builds some transports, men and tanks, floats them over a couple of rounds and WHAM! Japan is in the bag. By the time the Jap fleet gets around South America, their capital is gone and US can dust off the remains of the Jap fleet at it’s leisure. Or not, since that fleet doesn’t include any transports it’s not really a threat anymore, more of a nuisance.
What happens after the invasion fails is a moot point as the game is lost with 99% certainty. I think the Axis’ only chance is to aim a European victory with the aid of the Japanese navy. Heavy IJN presence in the Atlantic would make it difficult for the Allies to threaten landings in western Europe, and the Germans would thus have their back free for Barbarossa.
A lot of people are saying a weaker Russia would balance the game. Do you think this would do the trick. I think it would at least go a long way.
I still don’t see how people can claim a weaker Russia would balance the game.
The problem is still not killing Russia, but killing Russia “fast enough”. By making the game faster (weaker would all things equal mean faster kill), you do not balance it - you just remove any other need than going after Russia fast for the win.The key to this strategy is actually very much in tune the strategy of going full Pacific (as per Jennifer’s posts) and therefore only substantiates the claims from that strategy.
And that is that a (near) 100% involvement by the (combined) USA is enough to turn over the power balance for either side of the map fast enough that neither Axis board-side can win. Axis just need to be contained for Allies to win.A weaker Russia would kill off this game IMO. The issue with a combined USA is the key IMO.
This is precisely the way I see it too. It’s already a race to Moscow beore the Allied industrial might becomes too much. Currently, if the Germans attack Russia on turn two, and focus on Moscow, they are most likely advancing on the city with one area per turn no matter what.
The US income is calibrated for a divided effort, and if they focus on one side, they have the power to tip the scales with near 100% certainty. THAT is the reason for the race situation.
In Alpha+2 the attempted fix is to allow the Axis to win the game by gaining a certain position in one of the two theatres. In other words to create a counter-race situation. If calibrated right this could force the US to commit significant forces to both theatres, as the Axis should be able to win easily if one theatre is neglected. This last bit is what seems***** to be broken, if Japanese victory can be prevented simply by sending a few fighters and infantry to Hawaii. I think it would be healthier to address that issue than to unbalance the Eastern front area even heavier towards the Axis.
*****Now, I’m not saying it IS broken, as I haven’t played that many Global games myself, but it’s what I’m guessing based on the experiences you are posting here.
I’m not sure how this could be fixed. Perhaps the seazone around Hawaii should be the Victory Area instead? :?
I don’t think making the US spend a certain amount of IPC’s in one theater solves the problem. The US can always move units from one theater to the other. They can do this faster by building an NB in Smx or Panama. By doing this US units can go from Hawaii to Gib in two turns. Or, go from SZ62 to Gib or Haw in one turn.
I actually think splitting the US income would go pretty far towards fixing the issue. A two-turn delay in the arrival of units is huge. Also it is certainly easier to calibrate this solution right, than to balance the victory conditions perfectly.
Here is our idea: if a strategic bomber is hit by the AA gun, you can STILL roll a die for damage but do NOT add the +2 damage. The hit bombers just get the die roll worth of damage. After all, you figure the bombers are dropping their loads WHILE the AA gun is firing at them. These things happen simultaneously, like the regular combat (which is why defender hits still get to roll).
As for the HIT bombers not getting the +2 damage, you could say they didn’t drop all of their load or accuracy suffered from being hit.
This way you don’t just lose a 12 IPC bomber with no return, you still get some damage to the factory. Plus the defender gets a little break in the damage by not having to add the +2 for the bomber he/she hit. This could make SBRs a little more attractive.
From a mathematical return on investment point of view, it makes SBR’s less attractive:
You are reducing the average damage done by (5/6)*2 = 1,7.
You are also increasing the average damage done by (1/6) * 3,5 = 0,583
BUT it makes them less dicey, which is good. The inherent problem with SBR’s is the extreme luck dependence. It’s essentailly a high risk - medium reward operation, which is why is it not being used much.