OK, thanks for the update. I figured it was only a matter of time until this got changed. The potential for abuse is just far too great IMO. SBR is already deadly enough. Allowing it for risk free annihilation of your opponent’s production capability (even on a lucky roll to get the tech) is just too much.
Thanks again!
Is 2 extra IPCs really worth 2 spaces and at a decrease in defense by 3
I think so, yes. Its 33% more ‘firepower’ and 50% more range for 2 IPCs. Thats really a bargain. Throw in that you can turn enemy econ into mush on occasion and whats not to like? ;)
The big thing is the range for me, though. With Bombers in England, you can threaten anything west of the central Med at sea. In the Pacific, Bombers based in Western US can hit the Japanese homewaters and then land in China/Russia (until those fall). On the island, they have a huge sphere of attack as well. In those situation (and many others), the decreased defense is almost meaningless.
Whether or not they are ‘too good’ remains to be seen, but they are existing in large numbers in most of our games so far.
In AA50 bombers are my favorite naval unit so far
Yeah, unfortunately, I think they are a little bit TOO good at sea combat (for the new cheaper, price). They hit harder than anything but a BB and they have a LOT of range. They make it difficult to keep fleets alive and they kind of obviate the need for fleets of your own for the attack.
I really think Bombers should attack at a 3, not 4, at least for naval combat (and in keeping with simplicity, just go with 3 and be done with it).
Maybe in a few more games I’ll start to see some reason not to build bombers, but at the moment they are a VERY strong unit for 12 IPCs.
Yes, so far it looks like once again there is little incentive for the US to fight in the Pacific. As noted above, Japan starts with a MASSIVE advantage in fleet firepower (made worse because they can kill off the only US BB while it is alone). In addition, there is little the US can do in the Pacific (that I can see) that will have anywhere near the same impact that European operations would have.
I think the situation is made worse because after 2 turns (which the Allies cannot contest), Japan is making as much if not more money than the US! The Brits have no chance to contribute that I can see either. They can build an IC in India or Australia, but Japan can take either if they commit to doing it. MAYBE with a heavy Soviet commitment to India the Brits could hold it long enough, but my experience is that Russia needs those infantry desperately in the first few turns.
Dont get me wrong, I dont think the game is a ‘gimme’ for the Axis (at all), but I just dont see much of a reason for the US to do anything other than what they’ve always done in A&A - ignore the Pacific and throw the kitchen sink at Germany. Hopefully we’ll be able to come up with some strats that might pay dividends in the Pacific for the Allies, but so far they arent obvious.
Yay! Actual tips and suggestions rather than calls to change it already. :)
I agree with most of these as well. And its interesting that most of them are the ‘historical plays’. I would imagine that the game was designed to encourage historical strats while still allowing for the a-historical options.
About the only thing I would like to try and break out of your ideas is a Brit IC in India. I’m not sure if its viable or not yet. I think it depends on what Japan does on J1, but I imagine that they dont have the resources to prevent both an Aussie IC AND an Indian IC without slowing themselves down getting to their NOs.
Thanks for the ideas so far! :)
Interesting. In our first game, Italy had no problem whatsoever taking over all of Africa for a while and also relieving Germany of French garrison duty. They were making 20-25 IPCs per turn for a while which really helped them out. Short of investing in an IC in Africa I dont see how the UK really holds onto Africa if the Axis are commited to taking it. The Axis can easily reinforce while Britain cannot.
In any case, yes, it sounds like a few lucky tech rolls ended that game before it got started. Considering the time investment for a full game, I’m leaning away from using the tech - too game changing and based far too much on luck.
Ok, with this rule in mind, can you please clarify the following situation:
Example:
Japan has 3 Subs, a CV, and 2 Fighters in a sea zone. The US player attacks with 4 Fighters of his own. The US player scores 3 hits so the Japanese player must select the CV and the 2 Fighters as casualties (because according to the above, aircraft without a DD present cannot hit subs). Ok that makes sense. BUT, now lets assume the US player sends a DD into the same fight. Does that really mean that the Japanese player can now apply the Fighter hits to the subs instead of the CV/Fighters because the destroyer’s presence allows it? If so, that makes it a DISADVANTAGE to bring to the extra piece along.
Is that really the way this situation works out or am I missing something?
Thanks!
Hi all,
Just picked up AA50 today and I’m looking forward to playing it. In reading through the rules, I see one thing that immediately stands out to me concerning Rockets (research). In AAR (initial release), there was no limit to the amount of damage scored by Rockets on enemy Industrial Complexes. In our first game of AAR, one player was able to easily abuse that by getting Rockets, building a few AA Guns (1 per territory in range of Brit/Russian Complexes) and getting 4-5 d6 damage on England and Russia each turn. This quickly was identified as a game screw and the errata (and LHTR) put a cap on the number of times an IC could be hit by Rockets to 1/turn regardless of how many AA guns were in range.
Looking at the Rockets rules in AA50, it looks like its right back to where we were with initial AAR Rockets. Granted there are some other changes made (you no longer choose tech, but roll randomly and SBR has been slightly overhauled with the reduction to capacity rather than IPCs), but it still seems at first glance to be very abusable. Sure it will take a good roll to get the tech, but the ‘all or nothing’ risk is gone from research so that sort of balances back. Also, yes, it will likely take a turn or two to reach the point where the Rockets are costing real money, but it will reach the point eventually.
So, is it intended that ICs can be hit by multiple Rockets each turn as in original AAR? If so, are there any safeguards that I’m overlooking on this to prevent it from being as badly unbalanced as it was in AAR?
Thanks!