Posts made by scampb

Well maybe I am just a bit sensitive on the issue then, who knows.

I must retract my statement about the IC in Alaska.  I did not realize this was the AAR board and assumed we were talking AA50.  Not sure if it would make a difference or not but…… I have done it in AA50 but not in AAR.  Sorry.

Some day I am sure we will be playing on boards like that.  How sweet would that be.

Well I guess the good thing is that I speak my opinion only.  I totally understand how some don’t see a problem with the A-bomb being implemented into the game.  Does anyone know of a game that includes the A-bomb in it?

I wouldn’t call it silly, I would call it an opinion.  There is a difference between soldier vs. soldier, tank vs. tank, plane vs. plane and the likes of the A-bomb.  That is why in today’s wars we still have these face-offs.  You don’t see A-bombs being dropped in Iraq or Afghanistan do you?  There is a reason for it right, there is no place in war for it, period……IMO.  Today’s new tech’s focus on better accuracy, longer range, heck the U.S. even has a weapon that does not kill but makes people feel like they are on fire…rendering them useless.

Even though AA is game based on WWII I am glad the A-bomb is not part of it.  I just can’t see it being accepted with open arms.  Maybe a good poll to put out there and see if the general AA community would like the A-bomb added.  Maybe I am way off base with my assumptions.

And you never know, it could end up being my game of choice too after playing the new combined global game.  But, I hope not because it sounds very exciting and promising.

I don’t know.  The A-bomb, even in a game, seems to sensitive to be part of the game.  I don’t know if I want to be dropping an A-bomb on my opponent and then being happy about it.  It would be like adding a gas chamber tech for Germany.  Some things, in MY opinion, are best left out of the game.  I am sure Larry felt the same way when creating his games or we would definitely have seen it as a tech, I would think.

And besided, once you drop the A-bomb you should win the game, no?

Once you are in a position to utilize the IC in Alaska it is great.  An extra 15 IPC’s for the ability to put up two super subs, a carrier for two planes and a destroyer, or a battleship and carrier, with immediate striking ability into Japan, you will see what I mean.  If Japan does not count on those types of builds and thinks that only infantry & artillery are being built to shuck over to the mainland you can surely surprise her.  If Japan does realize it and starts defending against it the pressure is off the islands/Africa/India.  I personally like it as does enemy, when they are playing the Allies.

Try something new, you may be surprised how refreshing it is to mix your games up a bit.  That is why I love these boards. I can pick up different ideas and try them in my games.

@ABWorsham:

I thought of attempting to train a Chimp to play A&A but after watching Monster Quest, forget that!!!

LMAO!!

@WOPR:

@Omega:

Although I will get AA40E, I might not be interested in playing it at all! If Japan is the only “bad guy”, it will be really boring to see the X people gang on you!

But the global game is very promising. I hope they can playtest it enough so that there aren’t too many balance issues!

Robert

I feel the same way. I didn’t buy the original AAP and AAE because I prefer a global contest. The ability to combine the new games into one global game was stroke of genius by Larry Harris. Clearly though, the global game is only for the most dedicated of A&A players. I know I won’t be able to convince my playgroup to sit down for a game of that scope. Getting them together for a game of AA50 is hard enough. We need software versions of these games!

I think I will still like to play Japan.  Nothing better than being the sole Axis player and taking out the rest of the Allies……on your own.  Now that is satsifaction.

I feel very fortunate that my F2F play group will be able to get together once a week to play this game.  You guys don’t think you can convince your play groups to do one day a week so you can play?  Beg if you have to.  Let them have choice of powers too if you have to.  This is going to be awesome.  You can’t possibly buy the two games and NOT play.

Hey Deathwinkie, welcome to the boards and to AA50, it truly is an amazing AA game.  A few points.

*  a second IC will not help you if they are throwing 5 bombers per turn at you.  They will simply have both IC’s needing repair every turn and you just wasted 15 IPC’s.  The second IC strat has been argued on this board at great lengths.  Building the second IC is all dependant on what the Allies are doing.  But I GUARANTEE you if they are focussing on strat bombing it is a bad idea, waste of IPC’s.

*  if you are in that bad of shape with Germany where you cannot build but one or two men per turn, then skip the purshase new units phase on one turn and then pay off the damage and put out as many units as possible on the second turn.  No sense in paying 15-20 IPC’s per turn to put out 1-2 units.  Pay off 15-20 IPC’s every second turn and put out 10 units.

*  Japan in 1941 can be up to 27 IPC’s on J1, depending on how you play it (this is without NO’s though).  And they grow from there, quickly.

*  the comment that one made about not taking you seriously was out of line but I don’t think they meant it in a bad way, really.  There are some very serious players on the forum and if your comments don’t meld with their own beliefs they think it is strange.  What they have to remember is that you said this was your first time playing.  I think it is great that you found your way to the boards to get some advice and put yourself out there asking for it.  Every game will change for you until you have played 20 or so games, 10 as each power before you start to figure out YOUR own best opening moves and what works for YOU.

*  after a few more games please post again about your feelings on the strat bombing because I think they will change.  You just have to figure out your strat to combat that in advance, if required.

*  the interceptor rule works well except you also have to keep your fighters at home to defend which means they cannot stray to far in combat (unless you get long range tech  :-D )

*  read the child boards for the anniversary threads and you can pick up some good info.  And do read through the game logs on the forums, it really helps.

Yipeee, I cannot wait, that is a big map indeed  :-o  I am going to go eat a bowl of cereal now cuz I am so excited.

I have used it.  It is helful in both getting infantry over to the Soviet far east quicker and also for a quicker build up of navy if you want to attack/threaten Japan.  I still do it in about 75% of games where I am the Allies.  It really takes the pressure off of Africa and India as Japan has to focus on her own protection.

Has the idea of snipers ever been tossed around?  My buddy and I were thinking it would be a great addition to the game.  First strike against other infantry, higher defense due to hidden position.  Could be a 1-3-1-5 with the 3 being for the first round of defensive fire only before going back to a 2.  First strike capability on first round attack only or every round?  Any feedback, ideas?

@Real:

Maybe WOTC hasnt given a price list yet and board game makers are just speculating to ensure they have all the sales after its been unveiled shortly.

Not likely, they have some sort of information.  If they have not been told specifically what their costs will be they have been told ‘no more than’….There is no way a retailer is going to guess what their costs will be.

@WOPR:

@Captain:

@WOPR:

You think so? The way I explained the logic is a little confusing maybe but my variation itself is not too far off the official rule. It just switches the order of the steps and adds one exception. Certainly it’s not as complex as China’s rules are and we can handle those.

That is exactly the point, ‘we can handle those’ because we are already familiar with the game as it is.  New comers to the game trying to decipher all the rules and exceptions could make it very stressful to learn.  Otional rule in the game for SBR is interceptor……attacking fighters do this, defending fighters do this, but if fighters don’t defend then they do this, bombers can’t do this…and so on and so on.  Larry has made the optional rule very easy to understand and implement.  You also have to remember that a power would have to leave fighters close enough to home in order to defend against the SBR.  This means they are not in a battle elsewhere.  It is not all bad.

Now that sounds better, and I could agree with that.

I agree, it’s not all bad. Like I said, I think the existing intercept rule is better than nothing. It can be better in terms of balance however.

Perhaps, simpler but slightly less balanced variation than the one I already proposed would be this: AA guns fire at both escorts and bombers if interceptors are sent up. If no interceptors are sent up, AA guns fire at bombers only. That’s the same as it is now only that AA guns don’t fire at escorts if the defender chooses not to send up interceptors.

@Funcioneta:

@WOPR:

If the Axis have the economic advantage against the Allies, you’re not playing the Allies right.

If allies have the economic advantage against axis, you are not playing axis right or you are having extreme luck (probably a combo of both)

WOPR, I would like to know how you are keeping an economic advantage with the allies if you suggest we are not playing them right.  Any insight you can give would be much appreciated because I for one have a difficult time holding the economic advantage in 1941.

@WOPR:

You think so? The way I explained the logic is a little confusing maybe but my variation itself is not too far off the official rule. It just switches the order of the steps and adds one exception. Certainly it’s not as complex as China’s rules are and we can handle those.

That is exactly the point, ‘we can handle those’ because we are already familiar with the game as it is.  New comers to the game trying to decipher all the rules and exceptions could make it very stressful to learn.  Otional rule in the game for SBR is interceptor……attacking fighters do this, defending fighters do this, but if fighters don’t defend then they do this, bombers can’t do this…and so on and so on.  Larry has made the optional rule very easy to understand and implement.  You also have to remember that a power would have to leave fighters close enough to home in order to defend against the SBR.  This means they are not in a battle elsewhere.  It is not all bad.

WWI for sure.  Might be more difficult to set up but I think it would awesome.

@WOPR:

@squirecam:

Fighter Escort rule worked very well at Origins. Some bombing was still done, but it wasnt the overall “strategy” it is without the rule.

Well put. It’s only logical that fighters should be able to defend against SBRs and it fixes a problem that needs fixing. The fighter escort rule, or a variation of it, should be made standard in my opinion.

That said, I feel the official fighter escort rule may deter SBRs a little too much. Say for example the Allies conduct an SBR over Germany with 2 escort fighters and 2 bombers and the Germans send up 2 fighters to intercept. Under the official optional rules the Germans would have 4 rolls at 1, and 2 rolls at 2 or less against the Allied planes. Chances are decent the Germans are going to score a hit costing the Allies 10 IPCs (the cost of one fighter). Meanwhile the chances are not so good the Allies are going to do 10 IPCs worth of damage to the Germans with 2 SBR dice rolls and 2 escort fighter rolls at 1. Thus, in this example the SBR becomes too unattractive for the Allies!

A more balanced variation of the fighter escort rule I prefer is as follows:

1. Defending fighters intercept incoming bombers and escort fighters. Escorts have an attack value of 1* and interceptors have a defense value of 2. Bombers cannot fire. One round only. Remove casualties.
2. AA fires at the remaining bombers only, not on the fighter-escorts**. Remove casualties.
3. If any bomber is left, conduct strategic bombing.

• Jet fighters have an attack value of 2.
  ** In the event that escorts are present and the defender chooses not to send up interceptors then the AA fires at both bombers and escorts. The logic behind this is that if interceptors are present they are going to engage the enemy before they get to the target while AA guns engage the enemy only when they’re directly over the target. In this scenario the escorts engage the interceptors before actually making over to the target and therefore should not be subject to AA fire. If no interceptors are present the escorts must protect the bombers all the way to the target (due to uncertainty of potential interception) and are therefore subject to AA fire.

My variation is a tad more complex but I think it’s more balanced.

WOPR, I can understand where you are coming from.  However, with the escort rule in effect you must choose the right time to do your SBR’s.  If you are closing in and you really need to limit production then losing a fighter just might be well worth it.

Your variation would work well as a house rule but not an oob rule because, as you stated above, it is more complex.  I bit too complex for an oob rule IMO.