Cool

Thanks man

I think its always better for game pacing if you split the Axis team (Germany_Italy and Japan) instead of splitting the Allied team.

The reason is basically that the Allies require more coordination, which results in more pauses in the action so that they can discuss strategy, which in turn causes the pace to drag. If you have 4 players then this isn't an issue, but if you only have 3, I think its better to just have a single Supreme Allied commander. Japan and Germany_Italy are set up such that they only need a very minimal amount of coordination, and even then only durring the endgame. The Allies by contrast, need to have a plan worked out from the get go.

In previous versions of the game, a split Allied Team also made the need for an Axis bid a little less critical, because invariable someone on the Allied side goofs a key coordinating move somewhere along the way.

Also, if they are optional, are they needed for a fair and balanced game.

I wish the NO rules were just mandatory, because leaving them out doesn't really make the rest of game any easier to learn or any faster to play. 



The basic patterns of the game are completely different when the National Objectives are not included. The 41 and 42 sub-forums already need sub-forums of their own: "With NOs" and "Without NOs", because the effect of these rules on the basic strategies is that dramatic. For example, I don't think an Allied Pacific game is adviseable without the NOs (in either scenario), but with them its almost a necessity. Without NOs Germany is considerably nerfed in comparison to Revised, but with them it, can go Monster quick style. Without NOs the USA is so low on cash that it really drags the pacing down, with them its still a little slow on the uptake, but has much more incentive to go after early action in the Pacific.

I don't really agree with Krieghund about the added complexity. I think they actually introduce a lot of unecessary stats tracking into the game, which players then have to manage. But, that said, I still think the game is more interesting with NOs, so you should use them. AA50 was never going to be very friendly for new players anyway. Its much more rules intensive than Classic or Revised, so chances are the kind of people who play will be the kind who want to use NOs, even with the extra overhead. I get the feeling that Larry surrounded himself with the hardcore veterans, and rules junkies while designing and playtesting this game. Not that that's a bad thing for people like me, but did strip away some of the simplicity.

I wonder if they will re-issue Revised, with new rules once all the AA50 boards are sold out. I think they should really pick a more newb friendly name for it though. Words like 'Revised' or 'Advanced' don't really help to pick up new players. Instead it should be something more like 'Axis and Allies 'Starter Set' or 'Core Game' or 'Basic Game'. Just looking at the product list to the right of this screen, I imagine it would be hard for a neophyte to know which game is the most basic/general/current Axis and Allies board game.

I think National Objectives are indicative of a broader trend towards increased nuance and sophistication, which has been going on for a while now. Its cool in some respects, but I miss the simplicity of the earlier rulesets. With each new iterration I feel like it gets harder for me to explain how to play the game to my friends. With the exception of my online crew, I only have one friend who is down to play A&A. We've tried to get the others to join in, but its such an uphill battle to explain the rules that we've never finished a game. There's a lot a preliminary set up and explanation before anything too exciting happens, you can tell when people start to lose interest. Usually we just give up and resort to playing Risk, because its less involved, but I can tell that people really want to play A&A. You can see it in the way they oggle over the pieces and the map and the markers, its just that they don't usually have the patience to learn how its played.

Don't get me wrong, I'm really happy with AA50 and the NOs and everything else. Its just that next time I would like to see a tutorial game, or a streamlined ruleset, geared specifically for new players.

Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck.  In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone. 

I think people are going to become annoyed with Cruiser bombardment.

The 1 inf per shot rule does help to prevent the cheapshots like you used to see with the Destroyer tech in Revised, but for the mass invasions, I have a feeling that Cruiser bombardment is going to make the German defense of Europe a huge pain in the a**.

JTDTM wont work in AA50--'41 or '42. That strat is dead now, IMHO. Not enough time for Japan to build an army capable of threatening the Russian backdoor.

Well no one ever said the ��� tank drive has to go along the Northern route. Even in Revised the Northern route was usually the least effective, with most players pushing South or Center rather than North. All I can see is that there are still 5 Russian IPCs to be had up North, and not much to deter the Japs from going after them.

The Axis still don't have a real way to win that doesn't involve Moscow/Caucasus, so I don't see the JTDTM strategy going anywhere anytime soon. It might take on a more India focused dimension, but the Japs will still be hurling tanks at Russia and pressuring the back door. Its pretty much unavoidable, given the way the game is set up.

We'd need a much more substantive change than a few extra territories between Moscow and Manchuria, to prevent this from happening. Also, if you unload into Soviet Far East directly from sz 63 instead of through Bury, its still only 5 moves to Moscow via the Northern Route (same as the South or Center) so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a regular ��� stack in Evenki, even if it is a little smaller this time around.

[Who cares about the numbers or the historical timeline?]

Who cares about the numbers or the historical timeline?

We all know that the game is essentially anachronous and abstract. Trying to figure out a correct ratio between turns and dates is pointless. The best we're ever going to get is a loose approximation anyway, so it might as well be designed around the gameplay.

-The Germans should have had a battleship in sz 5 to make their naval game more fun, especially in 1941, and even more especially because the Regia Marina is no longer under German control. I don't like specific rules that only effect a single unit, battle, or territory on the board. Germany should just have a battleship straight up, for good gameplay.

-The Italians should have started in East Africa, so we could give them the extra ipc, and to make that part of the map more interesting in 1941. They should control Greece and Yugoslavia for basically the same reason.

-Brazil should be under American control, so that the South American continent isn't completely irrelevant. Though honestly if you're going to let them control Brazil, then why not Colombia as well?

Also, while I'm at it... units should not have been co-located in the same territory at the beginning of the game (Libya/UK). Why break with tradition on that after all this time? We could have just as easily given Germany another transport, or some more tanks in Algeria. Or better yet, why not put an extra space in Africa? Oh well, map changes are beyond us at this point.

To be completely blunt, the Anniversary Edition has made me re-evaluate many aspects of this game, which I used to think were intentional, but which now seem rather arbitrary. The distribution of IPCs across the board primarily, but also other stuff as well. The ratio of units to real world armies, the relationship between factories and production, the map projection itself, and the various rationales for including some territories but leaving others out. Basically just a lot of things which I used to accept as dogmatic, because of some grand design necessity, but which now seem open to question.

Oh yeah and you didn't mention Finland for 41, but who cares right? 

I think the new turn (with J going before UK in both scenarios) order really works against a British Factory purchase.

An Aussie IC seems doable, but I don't know, its still feels pretty shabby as an island at only 2 ipc. I mean if you have to buy a transport, that's only one other ground unit in the first turn. Unlike India or S. Africa where you can eventually get those tanks to Russia, Australia requires you to transport everything. It seems safer in 42 than 41 probably (41 feels risky to me, unless your transporting units from India to Australia in the first round), but in 1942 you have the issue of no starting fleet in sea zone 42, which make the whole investment seem a lot less worthwhile.

If the UK was meant to have a second Factory they should have built the Colonial Garrison into the game. With all the other rules floating around, it would have been relatively simple by comparison. Its really the hefty price tag at 15 ipcs that kills it for me. If it was one extra factory for free, or all factories were only 12 ipcs, things would probably work out better.

I think its annoying that the Russians are always required to defend India for the British. Revised was essentially the same way, usually requiring 2 inf and at least 3 tanks in range out Caucasus, to prevent the all out rush by Japan.

It seems like we have basically the same pattern going on here, at least in 41. The 'Rush' might take another round, which buys the British 3 more tanks, but the Russian commitment makes it just that much easier for Germany to put early pressure on Moscow. Right now I'm going to have to vote No to the India complex.

 In 42 the IC is a bit more viable, still pretty costly though.

Maybe their marketing budget was all wrapped up in mortgage backed securities and Bernard Madoff investments.

Seriously though, Avalon Hill's marketing of this game has been a total joke. They should have given half the money to us, since no one at AH seems to be very interested in promoting their product. Or maybe they don't even have a marketing budget, just a distribution one.

Yawn

I think if you buy a carrier in the first round, it will be dead before it does you any good.

An extra destroyer is maybe doable, if you're just trying to deter a round one air strike by the UK. You might even be able to sneak in a second cruiser instead of a destroyer, but whether that's advisable or not I couldn't really say. I certainly wouldn't waste the money on Subs though, thats for sure. Carriers are still expensive even at 14 ipcs, and once you buy it you then have to protect it with fighters, which locks you into a much more defensive posture. I'm sure it would deter the British from attacking you, but at what cost to the overall war effort?

If I was going to make a commitment like that, I would try to factor in a second or third transport, so you can at least threaten UK with invasion. The people in my playgroup will usually just trade aircraft for ships in rounds 2 or 3 regardless, so it tends to be a losing proposition for G. Add to that the fact that if Germany buys ships, you're basically calling down on yourself the mother of all KGF strats, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be. If they wanted Germany to buy ships in this game they should have done more to bolster the Baltic fleet, added convoy zones, or subs that do economic damage. The way its set up right now, I can't imagine why anyone would try for it. Germany is never going to win the Battle of Jutland in this game, let alone the battle of the Atlantic, so what would be the point?

Sorry for the pessimism, but I'm still irked that Germany wasn't given a battleship in sz 5. If it was a battleship instead of a cruiser then at least they'd have a chance against the Royal Air Force. 

I think they're a little light.

I would have given them a starting income of 12 or 14 instead of 10, but with the NOs its not so bad. I think you could say the same for a lot of the other players as well though. The issue is not so much that Italy was modeled poorly, but that Germany was not given enough in compensation. Again, I mean without the NOs in play. With NOs the Axis seem to have a much easier time of it, which makes me think that they really shouldn't be optional. I get the feeling that this game was play balanced with NOs in place, and so we should probably be playing it with NOs in place.

The way it looks to me is that if the US doesn't go into the Pacific on US1, they never will; no matter how much pressure you try to put on them.

Yeah, that was my thinking exactly.

The only problem I could see with the idea, would be if you don't attack sz 53 and then the USA player just pulls out and sends everything to the Atlantic anyway. Of course, if that happens, then at least you'd be in a better position to race towards Africa and meet them in the center of the board.

By concentrating on India/China/Russia instead of sz 53, and offering a little trash talk to the Americans in the process, you have a pretty good chance of drawing the US player into a Pacific purchase. If nothing else, it would be a sporting challenge to the Allies, to play the game in a more entertaining and historically sensible way.

 

As the allies I wouldn't be very impressed by a German factory purchase. France, Norway, Poland, none of them look all that promising.

Every time a new world map comes out we go through this same thing... Can Germany buy a Factory?
Nope, sorry. Either you or your opponent would have to be batshit crazy to let something like that happen. 

Now if Industrial Complexes were cheaper, or if you had the ability to destroy your own factories to prevent them from falling into enemy hands, then we'd see all sorts of factory purchases. But so far the designer has come down against this idea. I'm not sure why though. To me the factory unit has more potential than any of the other units currently in use, and yet its continually neglected. When Revised first came out I was hoping for a reduction in cost down to 12 ipcs. Then again, when AA50 was announced, I got my hopes up, only to have them dashed once more. Under the current rules Factories don't seem analogous to anything all that meaningful. They are just too expensive, and too dangerous if captured, to justify buying new ones. Maybe for the Japanese or the British, but certainly not for Germany.

I've recommended to Larry a Scorched Earth rule (destroyable factories) which I think would make IC purchases more viable, but who knows if it will get any serious consideration. I would hope that he waits a little while to gather actual feedback, before putting out any tournament rules for AA50.

Here are some extra roundel designs that I made a while back, in case anyone wants to use them. 

For my WW2 Italians I used the triple Fasces with a red and green band around it. There is also a WW1 style Italian roundel in there, for fans of Victor Emmanuel

Looks pretty cool so far. I especially like the set up in India.

I think it would be cool if Germany had the capability to reinforce the Afrika corps via the med though. Historical arguments aside, the game is usually more entertaining if Germany has a more lasting presence in Africa. I'd say the USA fleet in 56 is still a little large. Again discounting the importance of San Diego for the home fleet, I think 56 is just too close to Panama for comfort. If more of those ships were based at Pearl it would make a pull out move to the Atlantic more difficult. Other than that though it feels pretty sweet. I especially like the new location for the Flying Tigers in China

Couple general points

1. The opening round should be playbalanced using low luck rules. Personally I don't like Low Luck and will always remain a dice man, but a set up balanced under LL will also be balanced under standard dice rules... with added benefit that the set up won't go bust for LL players later on. Basically this is to prevent an overly one dimensional LL game like you usually see in Revised. Play testing with LL is relatively simple to do with tripleA, so it should be no problem. As soon as we know what the starting set up is going to be, I'll go ahead and build a new AA50-43 xml file for beta testing purposes. I'm sure we could do the same with the other programs as well, to ensure broad based feedback.

2. After the initial set up is determined, we should allow for a period of review (say 2-3 months of serious playtesting and feedback) after which point we can take suggestions and make final adjustments to the set up, in case any game breakers slipped through. Its important that we allow for this sort of public review, because you can be damn sure we won't catch everything that our players will. By taking a more open and flexible approach to the set up design, we can ensure that it will be as balanced and entertaining as possible. This should also help us to reduce the necessity for a bid, or at least it will make sure that its a low bid, if we do end up needing one.

3. Scripted Attacks, these should be avoided whenever possible. What I mean by "scripted attacks" are those sorts of moves (like the J1 attack on Pearl in Revised, or the G1 attack on the British Battleship in sz 13) where the advantages to attacking are so  obvious that it becomes an unavoidable engagement. Not that we don't want to have interesting battles in the first round, just that we should make sure that these aren't so overwhelmingly one sided that they become a given.  We should avoid major round 1 battles where the outcome is just a foregone conclusion (60-75% or more) and especially we should avoid battles which are supposed to be a given, but which can tank the entire game if they go poorly (the Primo example being the German attack on Egypt in Revised.) Instead we should try to put things into more of a 50/50 arrangement, so that a wild swing in any single battle, is less damaging to the overall set up. Does that make sense?

4. Finally, we gotta get you a thumbnail sized map to work with Imperious Leader, that PDF is just gigantic hehe 



Great Work everyone. Lets keep kicking the ball forward