Posts made by Telamon

Vegryn - you’re absolutely correct.  I haven’t heard any good justifications for bidding placed units.

The beauty of the bidding concept is that the market will eventually determine where the game is balanced.  This can be more accurately done by bidding cash.  It is more fine tuned and has a less dramatic impact.  It is also equal from game to game (and hence more measurable over the long term), unlike the placed units which changes the game fundamentally as you point out.  It uses the regular mechanism of the game - cash gets pumped into factories and comes out as units.

An extra point, it’s also best managed if the other player chooses how the cash is distributed among your teams.  That should lead to even better fine tuning. Obviously german and russian cash is most valuable.  You’ll get more “measurement points on your ruler” if the money is given to the teams in least need. (same principle as placing units - the less impact each point bid has on the game, the more precise the measure).

I’d be interested to hear how people decided on bidding units in the first place.  I would imagine it was a clever idea at the time (better than nothing!), people went with it and then it just became standard.  Definitely time for a rethink.

Thanks for raising this Vegryn, +1  :-)

Thanks once again Krieg.

I’m happy with that outcome.  The whole thing is very intuitive, but I can appreciate it’s very difficult to explain it as a set of written rules.

@Krieghund:

No.  You must clear the sea zone of all defending units before the amphibious units can land and attack.  The only exception is if there are only subs and/or transports in the sea zone at the time that your ships enter it, in which case you can choose to ignore them and conduct the assault.  However, if you choose to attack them, they also must be cleared in order for the assault to proceed.

Let’s suppose a DD and a loaded TR launch naval combat and amphibious assault against a defending DD & TR.  If the two DDs knock each other out, leaving only the transports, does that mean the amphibious assault fails because the defending transport was not cleared?  Seems a little rough if that’s the case  :|

And would the attacking transport be forced to retreat or could it choose to remain in the same zone with the defending transport?

Rolling for sides, new game: anchovy vs telamon, 1942 with NO, no tech

1,2,3: anchovy = axis
4,5,6: anchovy = allies

Rolling 1d6:
(1)

@ithkrall:

New Zealand

I had to tick “elsewhere asia” even though we are in Oceania

You should definitely get a voting box, given you have a space on the map! (well, at least your north island…)

Australia here  :-)

Krieg, i’d be grateful if you can answer this one.  A fighter moves 4 spaces to a seazone in the combat move.  A carrier also moves to the zone in the combat, the player declaring the fighter will land on the carrier if it survives.  If the carrier is destroyed but the fighter lives, will the fighter drown in the sea or be allowed to move one extra space to land as a defending fighter would?

Thanks  :-)

Good thinking Chi Chi, +1  :-)

It’s elegant in its simplicity, provided the two premises are true (that 41 +NO favours axis and -NO favours allies).

However, it would impact on the strategies and flow of the game in ways that are not immediately apparent.  With reduced NOs, the US is far more likely to focus on Germany rather than the pacific.  German strategic options would also be limited due to lower funds and Italy would have an increasingly marginal effect on the game (they really rely on NOs to be able to build the fleet or produce land troops).

The generally increased cash levels of all the teams makes the game far more interesting and strategic IMO.

Good topic Moses, +1.

I think unit bids have a yucky effect on the game - changing the set-up completely alters the dynamic of the game.

What I would prefer is bidding away an amount of cash - your opponent chooses how the pain is distributed among your teams. And here’s why…

One of the best inventions of AA50 is the effect of NOs, basically having more cash.  It opens so many interesting strategic options.  With more money you have the flexibility as russia to move away from [8 infantry, plonk. 8inf, plonk…], as US can fight wars in two theatres (with difficulty, but done well it’s powerful rather than suicide), Germany can think about having a fleet… etc.  It also opens many interesting decisions when your cash exceeds your ability to place cheap units (i.e. inf), which happens frequently when any power does better than average.  Do you place additional factories so as to pump out more cheapies closer to the frontline, or invest in more expensive hardware?

By bidding down your cash you’re making a painful choice - that initial buy is really important for each of Germany, Russia and UK (and to a lesser extent italians - not so much US/Japan).  It doesn’t disrupt the innate game dynamics as much as placing units, which makes the initial combat decisions so different it could be another revision of the game.

An alternative would be bidding extra cash for the opponent, you choose how it’s distributed.  This may even prove to be better as each bid increment has a much finer influence on the game (thus keeping the original flavour, and allowing the final optimum bid to rest at more precise point).  It would be in keeping with my arguments in the third paragraph above, as well.

/Subotai - completely agree with you on the KISS principle.

//Not such a fan of closing the Dardanelles - the italians are marginalised quickly enough anyway against a strong allied player.  I rarely find it attractive to send scarce italian resources to russia in any case, so it would have little effect in my games.

I think you’re right that France is the juicier option for all the reasons you describe, plus its closer to UK and US (and transport is time is money).

But all that is by the by; you go for whichever is less defended.  One of the great strengths of the fleet sitting there with men ready to land is that they can land anywhere.  So the Axis have to make the choice, or spread themselves thin.  Then you grab the low hanging fruit.

8-)

Hey HolKan,

I certainly didn’t mean to criticise people who’d play low luck.  I totally respect that it’s a different game and can be enjoyed in its own right (on reflection I probably should have said that originally).  It draws the game much closer to chess where to be really good you need to look at every possibly move the opponent can counter with, and look down the chains of moves to see where you want the game to end up.  For those who enjoy this type of game more, that’s cool - of course each person has their preferences.

But I wanted to persuade that the possibility of terrible luck doesn’t detract from the game, it actually adds to it.  Which I obviously didn’t do very well as I seem to have offended.  But bear with me…

My main point was that there is nothing wrong with taking a calculated pot shot (with say a one in five chance of success) in the appropriate moment.  If there’s a juicy pile of bombers sitting like ducks, or a risky attack on a capital, or a chance to smash the british war fleet and transports together… you should have the opportunity to do so and be rewarded if you make it.  If it’s a bad risk then that will show up in that you’ll lose a lot of games.  But the consequences of failure may not be so bad.  Sure, if germany loses 5 planes it hurts. A lot.  But you can pump out infantry and hold off the allies for a long while before its good night - and you may have calculated that japan can apply enough pressure to keep a lifeline for the axis.

It definitely changes the strategy if these risks can be ignored.  It means you can be sure that italy won’t crack the caucuses if you leave ‘just’ enough troops there and march the rest to berlin.  I feel like you lose part of the game if you don’t have to make these calculations, and you only have to make the ones at the front line.  It just seems to simplify the strategic choices, but complicate the mechanics.  I guess that’s really the essence of the issue and probably explains why people’s preferences divide on that line.

A funny side note: I guess I’m a bit hypocritical in this becuase I don’t really like playing with tech.  I feel like it unbalances the strategies and places a greater emphasis on luck.  I think its different degrees of the same issue, as I see people arguing “you should be forced to take into account that your opponent might get lucky with paratroopers and take your capital”.

The only explanation I can give for my apparent hypocrisy is that I think techs actually reduce the strategic sophistication of the game, because some of them are so good that it’s a clear choice to be rolling for them as they provide big advantages.  And in general the player with the better luck will generally win.

But as long as you have fun, that’s all that matters.  Sorry for provoking, it wasnt my intention.  I just wanted to make the case that bad luck isn’t necessarily bad  :-)

For those who choose low luck, fine.  But just make sure you aren’t missing out on half the game!

A&A has two exciting aspects - the strategy and the chance.  I suspect that those who choose low luck haven’t learnt to appreciate the latter aspect, or find it too difficult.  The key is that luck can be managed.

Sure an infantry could attack a stack of tanks.  It might win one in a million times, but the player who does this regularly will lose.  You can choose your battles and manage your risk.  If you can’t afford to lose a stack of russian inf - don’t put them in the line.  If you don’t want to lose 7 bombers in an SBR raid, make sure you can deal with a pile of pips looking up at you after your roll.

Reducing luck also has a big impact on the strategic aspect of the game.  It doesn’t make it more ‘pure’, it changes it fundamentally.  For instance, the German luftwaffe might have an attack on the british navy where they have a 20% chance of success, and an 80% chance of being swatted like flies.  If the germans crack it, they probably win as all the pressure is off their backs while UK rebuilds.  If they lose, it hurts them but they can pump out the infantry and wait it out till Japan rescues.  Denying these type of risks alters the strategy: the UK can afford to buy ‘just enough’ naval protection and spend a lot more on transports and infantry.  Really they should have to be a little more cautious.

Don’t give up on dice.  Learn how to master them  :wink:

I’m glad for the errata on this, no tech should be insanely strong.  Two US factories in Algeria and Libya pumping out 6 units into the Med/Nth Africa spells game over for the western axis.  Just park a couple of CVs in sz13, building more DDs as you need them and you can get 6 troops attacking France or Italy every round.

Equally, Japanese factories in Sik and Nin = goodbye Russia, who just can’t afford to fend off 6 new tanks on Moscow’s doorstep each turn (not to mention the 5 tanks aimed on Caucasus from India, that Japan can easily afford too - total purchase = 45, with cash to spare for the pacific.

Well done on this rule I say.

Advanced artillery is such a weak tech, and IFP such a strong tech that personally I’d be happy to see IFP broken down further into two techs: damage repair on one hand and increased production on the other. H bombers are still way too good…

@Trujew:

I like the new transport rules, but I think the cost of the transport and the sub should be switched. 7 for sub and 6 for transport

Absolutely, the new rules improve the game immensely. Transports were way too strong as fodder and combat units.  Even 9IPC is a bargain price.  I think the new pricing structure is pretty much spot on for making naval purchasing/combats balanced and interesting.  Though I do agree with the above comment that subs are pretty cheap, given the fearsome punch they pack.  Don’t know I agree with 6IPC transports, but I’d still buy subs for 7 (though admittedly fewer).

@Danger:

The new transport rules are perfect (even though its cost me)

Poor Danger Mouse took an unlucky blow as Japan in our S01 game.  Japan attacked philipines with the BB and 2 loaded transports.  The american DD miraculously defeated the BB, and then got a free chance to clear the 2 loaded transports (+ another empty one) after they had to retreat. Painful and very unlucky…

@a44bigdog:

Telamon, I prefer playing games with tech because in my opinion they are much more interesting and have a greater variety. While I think AA50 has some more options than Revised I feel that playing non-tech games will lead to most of the games playing out the same way.

Thanks for your view a44.  I can certainly see where you’re coming from, though for me the infinite variations in each game make me enjoy it enough as is.  After a lot of games, i take your point that the strategies probably play out the same way so it could get repetitive.

I still feel ignoring Japan is a huge mistake.

This may be true, though I havent played enough games of AA50 to be sure.  To make the alternative case: if you fight the pacific as US, you prevent otherwise losing a UK and probably 2 US NO’s plus some unreliable island dollars from turn to turn.  Lets say 20 bucks a turn for the allies, which I acknowledge is significant.

On the other hand, the US (in concert with the UK) is capable of projecting some serious power into Europe and north africa.  And it can be delivered much cheaper without the need to invest in as much navy infrastructure to wage a sea war with japan (debatable perhaps, as you do need to buy the transports and a couple of boats to protect them).

Remember that even a rich Japan has trouble making itself relavent.  Its sheer distance from the key areas (russia and italy’s tender bits) makes its $$ hard to deliver.  If they go into infrantry, its sunk money walking across siberia/china/persia.  If it goes into ICs, there’s a lot of cash sunk right there.  If you attack america, sure you disrupt the troop pipeline, but you’ve also sunk money into transports and troops doing little.  My current view is that you’re right - the IC–>tank option seems the best way to stay relevant.

Thanks Krieg, obliging as ever.

@TimTheEnchanter:

I THINK I’M SENSING THE SAME THING!!  :wink:

Haha, this is hilarious.  +1 karma if I could.  Can someone please explain to me what this karma thing is all about?

@Krieghund:

The only rulebook is the one that came with the game.  However, in order to play by the proper rules, you need to also include the errata from the FAQ, the latest version of which can be found on Larry Harris’ site.

It saddens me a bit that such a beautifully designed game was released with a rule-book that can’t be used out of the box.  You can read the errata on the net, but a lot of players will not do this and will probably play the game wrong and probably not enjoy it as much.  The real shame is that the painted areas of  Manchuria and Kiansu are the wrong colour (should be Chinese).

@a44bigdog:

I will even make an exception to my policy of not playing no tech games as this is a test game and techs can greatly change and influence strategies.

a44bigdog, I’ve read quite a lot of this forum (despite not many posts) and often find myself nodding in agreement when I read your posts, but I wanted to ask you… why you like techs so much?  Personally I don’t play with them, because I don’t really enjoy the strategies the make you employ.  Though I can see how they would keep the game interesting after you’ve played it to death (can’t see that happening!  :-D).  How do they improve the game in your view?

cheers

Many games can still be won with the opponent having 13VCs. So I agree with loser conceding… Just don’t hold out when there’s no hope.  The leader with 13VCs can certainly ask politely for an honourable surrender if they think it’s inevitable.  But who knows, they may get surprised - have seen this on enough occasions to warrant playing games a few more turns to see.

Can anyone give me any tips how to see the very far south and east of the ABattlemap '41 map?  I cant see central USA & mex, or all the info at the bottom of the board. Thanks!

I’ll play :)

1.  Mr Morden   
2.  Jennifer
3.  Uberlager
4.  flesh_pile
5.  Danger Mouse
6.  Lynxes
7.  Questioneer
8.  a44bigdog
9.  eudemonist
10. MatildaMike
11. Perry
12. Funcioneta
13. anchovy
14. BigRedOne
15. Bardoly
16. Ogrebait
17. tcnance
18. Botider
19. atarihuana
20. P@nther
21. DY
22. Dutchmand
23. d142
24. DM
25. Zygmund
26. Bigbadgoo
27. Gargantua
28. Demolition Man
29. OperationTorch
30. Telamon
31.
32.