Some set ups availible for AA50

[Imperious Leader]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17222181#post17222181

check it out.

[FieldMarshalGames]

WOW!  Thanks!  Looks like the CHINA set-up for 1941 is just as slim as we discussed.

[Krupp Steel]

Interesting, America starts with a bomber in the UK in the 1942 setup, that gives them 3 to start with for that setup, very interesting. Thanks IL for another great find.

Cannot wait for the Axis set-ups.

[dpdlc]

Is it just me or does China in 1942 look a lot stronger than in 1941?
 It seems to me 4 inf + fighter,  is alot weaker than 8 inf + 1 fighter (the fighter is now protected by 2).

I don't see how in 1 turn china can go from 4 => 8. Most likely it will go from 4 => 0. Unless of course the Japanese set up is wrong =P

[Imperious Leader]

actually they have 9 infantry in 1942.

[Stockus13]

I wonder how many other changes there will be from the BGG pics, to the actual setups. Especially in Europe and the med.

[Imperious Leader]

I think the Soviets would have more fighters and possibly bombers in 1942.

Germany should have 2 bombers at least in 1941

[Perry]

It seems like the Setup for US in 1941 was actually correct then..
Anyhow, for you who couldn't be bothered to read through all those setup charts, I've mapped up the setup in Abattlemap files.

Now updated with the following country setups:

- US/China

[Perry]

I got to say that I was quite surprised to see the US/China setups...Especially those for -41.
I don't expect much news from the Soviet setup, but at least I hope that Japan & UK has some tweaks, from the setups that we knew earlier.

[Subotai]

What does it mean: Yunnan: 1 infantry, 1 fighter (US). It means that the fighter is owned by the US? So China does not have any own fighters?

[Perry]

What does it mean: Yunnan: 1 infantry, 1 fighter (US). It means that the fighter is owned by the US? So China does not have any own fighters?

Hmmmm...
It sure seems like it is owned by the US, and if that is the case, then the ftr can't help any chinese units on attack (since China & US has different Combat Movement phases AFAIK).

China is truly hosed in the -41 setup 

[Subotai]

As we were told, the gencon setup was not correct, but it was not much different from the real setup, according to C. Yope.

I'm curious to know the differences in Europe, will axis get more units, or do we need a big axis bid to balance it out?

[Perry]

Subotai -
you & me are maybe holding opposite beliefs here ..
I played three games of AA50 (41 scen), using the Gencon setup. We found that the AXIS held the advantage, not the Allies..
Of course three games between the same two players doesn't give enough information as to wheter the game is balanced or not. But we sure had a hard time handling Japan & Germany both at 50+ IPC after round 3..


EDIT: No, make that, after round 2, btw

[Subotai]

Subotai -
you & me are maybe holding opposite beliefs here ..

You are from Sweden, arent you?   

Let me guess, you didn't go all out KGF? And you were playing with tech, which means that you cannot judge game balance if playing with tech, this has been confirmed by the official play testers.

I have also played with the gencon setup, without NOs/tech, allies had BIG advantage, but the triplea map did have some inaccuracy, allies got bonus ipc at the start of the game, which they shouldnt.

IL must change the AA50 fact sheet, in the 41 scenario, US starts with 40 ipc.

[Perry]

Yeah, if we're talking w/o NO's, then I'm with you - hands down!
We played tech - but I don't think that it had an actual impact.

However, wheter or not to do NO's, is of course huge..

Maybe a no tech, no NO game, Axis definitely need a bid....

What about:
- Each player bid how many NO's he want in order to play the Axis..
- NO's are selectable after the bid is won..

Can't judge wheter or not this is a satisfactory bid system, but it would be interesting to test...