Posts made by Vareel

@MaherC:

I’m not really all that fired up to post the moves to a group who dumps negative feedback on me for posting my opinion on a game.  I obviously won’t “win you over” to my belief that the game is horribly unbalanced, because I haven’t been on these forums for years, I must not know how to play A&A.

No, it is just that when you add more people you see more things.  It is far too early to cry imbalance is all we are saying.

Oh and we are not saying you don’t know how to play, we are saying the allied players in your group don’t know how to play  :evil:

Yes, the abattlemap works well now, show us a map of the board after J1 if you do not mind MaherC, or even right before J2.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@oztea:

my real question is what will the turn order be in the global game? will france even get a turn?

1. Germany?
2. Russia?
3. France?
4. Japan?
5. UK?
6. ANZAC?
7. Italy?
8. China?
9. USA?

Based on AAP40 this is my guess, the turns should alternate between sides evenly.

1.Germany
2.Soviets
3.France
4.Japan
5.US
6.China
7.Italy
8.UK
9.ANZAC

No, the one smart thing that they did with the pacific, that most people don’t even realize, was eliminated the can opener crap.  With the US being the first allied power to go, UK and ANZAC cannot can opener for them.  This is the #1 reason in my mind why aa50 '41 is bugged.  Ideally, it would either be Germany/UK/Italy/Russia.  Any other order is just asking for trouble.  But no matter what, germany must go before Italy in relation to russia’s turn.

@MaherC:

printing IL’s map is costly, kinkos quoted me $159

Wow, i got a 4x2 of his 42 map printed out laminated and everything for 60 from a local sign store, they quoted me 90 for the native size of the aa50 map.

@Subotai:

What many posters seem to forget is that when an A&A game starts, Japan and Russia are at war….   :roll:

You need more than a non-aggression treaty between Japan and Russia to make a practical and good solution, if the goal is that Japan and Russia are not allowed to attack each other. You need a completely different design within the aspects of the relations between different powers.

Also, the premise of A&A is that once the game starts, we can alter the history. If you don’t agree with this premise, then I’d suggest you design a game that is completely different from what every A&A (global) game is now.

I agree, but the big thing is Japan needs a target other than moscow that is almost as difficult to achieve as moscow is for germany.  With the way the pacific is laid out in the new game, the indies are worth alot of money and the UK/ANZAC/China/US can really put up a fight for 'em, unlike in old aa50.

What is the email address?

Not my fault you guys are no good with allies :)

Best UK buy turn 1 is 1 CV, 3 Trans, 1 inf, 1 art for SZ2.  This is only viable if the subs are not in SZ 2 of course.  Then UK2 either start the shuck to Karelia, or take france.

And yes, 1 cv isn’t alot of fleet, but if you goto Kar there typically are no G fighers in range, if you goto france your turn 2 build can reinforce, if going after africa, well don’t do this turn 1 purchase :).

I just don’t see a point in a 3/3 unit that becomes a 4/3 for 1 more buck than an always 3/4 unit.  I’d rather just buy an extra sub at some point for the bit more punch if I need it, or on ground a strat bomber for the range, or an art if range isn’t an issue.

Allies would still outproduce and then proceed to smash you :)

And since you end your CM in that SZ with an island containing an airbase, they can scramble 1 tac fighter to rob you your shore shots,  not sure how that changes the odds though.

I just don’t seem them as worth it myself.  A fighter is always a 4 on defense, and the purpose of my navy is to defend my transports.  If my goal is to sink your boats i’m using subs and DDs primarily.

Now who’s the chimp eh? eh?

Just kidding, it took me awhile to figure out why on earth the US started with 17, forgot that they still controlled phil lol.  Was just about to post a topic on it too when i figured it out, even had it typed out!

@miragehunter:

Neither can I!  I’m sure the chimps will be scratching their heads to come up with an answer for that one.  Most likely they’ll say “you need more pieces? we need more bananas!!!”  :lol:

I offer 5 pds of bananas for double the pieces, just PM me if any chimps want to take me up on the offer.

PS: I make no promises as to the condition of the bananas.

@MaherC:

honestly, i tried to use abattle whatever and the thing is so small I can’t see anything, plus I feel like i’d need a degree from nasa to get it working for this version of the game.  and then when i hear i’d have to “fix” things to make it work….ugh.

Yeah I personally vastly prefer tripleA but it won’t be up for this game for about 6 months.  To get it working tho is easy, download it to the proper place, then open it in the main menu.  The ‘fixing’ is just setup fixes, takes less than 2 minutes.  And as far as the size, yea, it irritates me as well.  But to play pacific against someone who is really good requires me to use it so i’ll do what I gotta do.  Those I play with F2F really aren’t that good sadly.

I think it would be wrong if he was selling several copies of your map and just your map, but it seems he is just getting rid of his entire set and as such, has no future use for the map so why not just include it.  But I can see how it would offend ya.

Come on its all in good fun.  Honestly for the most part i’m playing devils advocate  :-P

@Uncle_Joe:

Yep, I agree that’s too early to tell. The first step would be to identify IF a problem actually exists before it would be possible to start to define a solution.

That said, my initial inclination would be to limit the number of aircraft that can ‘scramble’ to 3 minus 1 per damage. But even that I would not want to implement until I feel we’ve exhausted Allied options to winning.

I actually like that idea alot, perhaps even allowing for a major airbase or some such with a larger capacity.  This would even work with coastal airbases to scramble for adjacent sea zones without being too broken.  Although I think I would prefer a limit of 5, increasing the SBR capacity to 10, I guess this is house rules concepts though.

I think its a bit too soon for this kind of a discussion, but when in doubt use the bid system.  As in i’ll play allies with a 6 bid, then you decide the nation to get the IPCs and they spend them to place units on the board before the game starts.

No, nothing in range, not an AC/BB/DD/Cru/SS/Trans, not 2 strat bombers from Australia, nor the figs/tacs that would be on the islands nearby, none of that could reach on US2.  Nor the added carrier or DD/trans whatever on US3.  Nor whatever ANZAC had purchased.  Not to mention loosing a single ANZAC dd/transport turn 1 effects allied plans in such a significant way that I mentioned other than 5 extra IPCs for ANZAC.

Max potential attack for US vs carolines with optimum positioning on US2 would be 1 Inf, 1 Arm, 2 Strat bombers, 1 tact fighter, 1 reg fighter, 2 bombards (depending).  Max potential attack on the SZ would be the AC/BB/DD/Cru/SS/2 strat bombers, 3 tact bombers, 3 fighters.  No, I cannot take it US2, but I could US3 if I held the SZ.

And that doesn’t even take into consideration you are diverting 2 transports worth of inf to hold carolines just to kill 1 ANZAC dd/transport.

But if we are going to go to such lengths to describe turn 2, 3, etc in such detail, why don’t we just play a game?