version 1.1.1 was corrupted or something, go back and try downloading 1.1.2
we are making updates quite a bit, so check back often
anything to do with the engine will not be updated so quickly though… so don’t expect many of the known issues that involve the engine to be fixed soon
well, as of right now, it is Pacific 1940 with all units and map done correctly, just not many of the rules since they require changes to the engine
if anyone ever wanted to play Pacific 1940 with AA50 rules, here is your chance!
(naval and air bases do not work, escorts and interceptors do not work, etc.)
go check it out: http://n2.nabble.com/Project-WW2-Pacific-1940-tp4225367p4225367.html
i just think that carriers have been gimped way too much
first it was increasing their defense while removing offense (taking hits doesn’t help when you launch aircraft to attack something farther away)
then it was increasing cost
now it is increasing the range of everything else except the carrier…
so they can?
i agree, but this makes coding it for triplea 1000x harder now
i think more people would buy tac-bombers if it didn’t need another unit with it to have that 4 attack
i always thought it should just be a plain 4/3/4/11 unit, no conditions
so back in aa50 and all other aa games, All naval ships could project power 2 spaces away from where they were, BUT loaded carriers could project power 3 spaces away (the fighters fly 3 spaces then return 1 space after fighting)
now with the new naval bases, the fighters DO NOT receive the bonus from the naval base even if they are ON the carrier… right?
this means that ships now project power 3 spaces away, and carriers still only project 3 spaces away also (because their fighters need 1 more movement to project 4 spaces away to be able to return 1 space to the carrier to land after fighting).
just want to make sure I understand this correctly…
what do people who have played the game think of this?
thx to krieg for answering all my questions all the time…
version 1.1.2 of the pac40 map is out….
shit loads still wrong with it though… but it doesn’t crash any more :)
maherC… I can connect to the 1.2.0.0 lobby and see people there… what is the problem you are having? make sure you have the latest tripleA version: https://sourceforge.net/projects/triplea/files
yes, just a question about 4 here
about winning:
1 Japan has to hold their VC until the end of the round…. so that means til the beginning of their next turn?
2 the allies have to capture and hold Japan island for 1 turn. since all of the allies go AFTER japan, I am guessing it means they have to hold it until the END of the next japanese turn? Or they have to hold it until the beginning of the turn of the country that took japan?
can I take japan as america, Japan retakes their island during their turn, then I retake it during my turn, does that count as a win? what if I take it as ANZAC, japan retakes, then America retakes?
could i, pretty please, ask that someone scan their own personal copy of the rule book and post it here…. please?
i know their are typos, but i am sure i can still read it with them in it.
ok, so i am a little bit confused about the new mech infantry and the new blitzing ability,
during aa50, blitzing worked like this:
Blitz: Tanks can “blitz” by moving through an unoccupied hostile territory as the first part of a two-space move that can end in a friendly or hostile territory. This complete move must occur during the Combat Move phase. By blitzing, the tank establishes control of the first territory before it moves to the next. The second territory can be friendly or hostile, or even the territory the tank came from. A tank that encounters enemy units in the first territory it enters must stop there, even if the unit is an antiaircraft gun or industrial complex.
because of this, you could for example:
Q. Bombers carrying Paratroopers must stop moving in the first hostile territory they enter. If a tank is blitzing through an unoccupied hostile territory, does a bomber entering that territory during the same Combat Movement phase have to stop there, or can it keep moving?
A. Since the territory is captured as soon as the blitzing tank enters it, the territory is considered friendly at that point, and the bomber may continue its movement.
so now….
with pac40,
question 1) can you take an empty territory with a single tank, then move 10 mech infantry through it to attack the enemy territory beyond it all during the combat phase?
question 2) can you take an empty territory with say, 3 tanks and 3 mech infantry, move through it and attack the enemy territory beyond it, win that battle, then during the non-combat move, back up that territory by moving 10 mech infantry there through the now conquered enemy territories?
bumping this to get an answer to the second part of the question:
does it have to be ANZAC that conquers/controls the originally Japanese territory? (or can it be any of the allied powers?)
originally Japanese territory means places like Iwo Jima, Siam, and Paulau Island, BUT does NOT include places like Kwangsi, Manchuria, right?
and of course, the one that is already answered, that this NO only happens once, and subsequent turns that ANZAC controls such territory do not do anything…. why?
just curious if the capitol rules are still in effect, that if i a capitol is taken the taker gets the IPCs of that player along with the territory?
and what are the capitols for each player?
obviously Japan’s capitol is Japan
and China has no capitol
is Anzac’s capitol New South Wales?
is the UK capitol India or England (no capitol on the board) in this version (non-combined game)?
is the USA capitol Western USA or Eastern USA (no capitol on the board) in this version (non-combined game)?
thx
veqryn
also remember, that AAE will release with a axis that are powerful enough to win 50% of the time WITHOUT the japanese
so this means, perhaps, that in the combined game a japan that attacks russia big time may just make it an axis win all the time combined game
if all he did was print your board, then i think it would be wrong…. but he is selling the board and ALL pieces, which means whoever buys it is going to be able to play AA50… so isn’t this a good thing? Someone took your artwork and did what you are intending with it, to allow more people to play aa50 (which is discontinued).
(edit: mistakes or fixes that do not cost money / would not up the price should indeed be fixed obviously, and since i do not have the game yet i do not know how many or how bad these kinds of mistakes are)(edit 2: after looking at the FAQ i can say there are a lot of pathetic mistakes that would have been caught had someone proof-read the damn thing before pressing the mass-produce button. what a shame)
i am still waiting to get home from my traveling to get my copy of Pac40, so i can not comment yet on the quality,
but i do want to say this…
would you rather have better quality for $10 more, or $20…
or would you rather have more people purchasing this board game?
I am for the second option… keep the board game as cheap as possible (within reason) in order to encourage more people to go out and purchase it
you have to remember, while this forum may be full of people who have played with board games, war games, and miniatures their whole lives, many people who buy the game have no other experience with A&A, and their war game experience may be limited to Risk and monopoly that turned violent after someone stole money from the bank / would not trade.
Let the hardcore players buy extra pieces or custom pieces online for an extra $5-20, rather than scare away fickle consumers.
I can and do see people playing the first turn of the first round (ie: russia turn 1) the same every time…. but after that it starts to get pretty different. Germany turn 1 can be pretty different every game, depending on how russia’s turn 1 turned out, how aggressive you feel today, what you have been drinking, and if the moon is out, etc.
Why not just use LHTR for bombers?
(larry harris tournament rules)
if attacking:
roll 2 dice and accept the lowest one
if SBR:
roll 2 dice, accept highest one, then add 1
veqryn asks why Razor speaks in 3rd person?
@Brain:
Japan needs an ally.
I’m curious to know if there were any other minor pacific countries allied with Japan?
i don’t think so, some of them may have surrendered like the french and had a few units that went on to fight with the japs, but i do not think they had any actual allies. All the other countries really hated the japs back then (and quite a bit now still), and I really can not blame them either, as the japanese were more ruthless than the germans or russians had ever been. The Japs attempted genocide on every chinese population center they controlled, the only thing that prevented there from being another holocaust was that the japs were complete disorganized and that the genocide was perpetrated from the ground up instead of being orders from the top down.
