Amphibious assaults can be done in two steps, consisting of a sea battle and a land battle. In your example, both the cruiser and the transport would attack the destroyer. If the attackers win, the transport can offload and the land battle will occur. If the transport ends up retreating (or being sunk), the land battle will not occur and the transport may not offload.
AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A
-
With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3. So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.
I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2). I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says). What do you think about my house rule? (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)
Many gamers have adopted similar rules. I allow 1 extra unit for a 2 ipc tt w/IC, but no extra units in a 1 ipc tt w/IC.
I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).
That’s one reason. The other is that increasing an IC’s production capacity by 100 or 200 percent seemed a bit excessive. Your house rule certainly solves the problem that you mentioned, though.
Kreighund,
You seem to agree that bombing/damage is answered above giving 2 ipc tt w/IC +1 for unit placement.
I was wondering why the Errata didn’t give a 2 ipc tt w/IC +1 for unit placement. This would only give these tt a 50% increase in production. Would be the same as Caucasus getting +2 (50% increase in production). I know a line had to be drawn but I just thought there was room for +1 for these tt. Karelia, Egypt, SA, Aus & Phil would all benefit. As it is it’s hard for the US to establish its self in Pacific, but 3 units in Phil would be great with this development. I do agree with no extra units in 1 ipc tt @ 100%-200% increase in production. I normally wouldn’t place an IC on a 1 ipc tt anyway. I’m sorry if you have already covered this. -
If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there? Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10? The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms. As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.
-
If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there? Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10? The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms. As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.
I think the designers opened up the can of worms when they gave us the +2 bonus for these very strategic tt, then took it away. For example if you are UK or Japan do you place an IC on India @ 3 ipc (5 units), E.Ind’s @ 4 ipc (6 units), or Aus @ 2 ipc (2 units). Its just silly to think India & E.Ind’s could produce 2-3 times as much as Aus. It changes the game mechanics of where to put IC’s. Another option (we came up with last night) is to give +2 to capitols only +1 to all other IC’s worth 2 ipc or more. Its simple doesn’t create a complicated step system and more important it includes these very strategic tt. I think a change was needed, but I don’t think the designers thought this one out when they made the change there were other options.
The last part about still getting damage repair - I can’t think of another weapons dev. that gives only part of the tech to certain units and not all. This is it’s own step system, but its better then nothing. -
@WILD:
If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there? Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10? The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms. As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.
I think the designers opened up the can of worms when they gave us the +2 bonus for these very strategic tt, then took it away. For example if you are UK or Japan do you place an IC on India @ 3 ipc (5 units), E.Ind’s @ 4 ipc (6 units), or Aus @ 2 ipc (2 units). Its just silly to think India & E.Ind’s could produce 2-3 times as much as Aus. It changes the game mechanics of where to put IC’s. Another option (we came up with last night) is to give +2 to capitols only +1 to all other IC’s worth 2 ipc or more. Its simple doesn’t create a complicated step system and more important it includes these very strategic tt. I think a change was needed, but I don’t think the designers thought this one out when they made the change there were other options.
The last part about still getting damage repair - I can’t think of another weapons dev. that gives only part of the tech to certain units and not all. This is it’s own step system, but its better then nothing.I’d like to go on record as favoring a revison to this rule. Include the 2IPC territories, the way it stands most of the strategic locations are left out (Egypt, SAF, Australia, Karellia, FIC\Burma). I hope you guys will revist this.
-
@Emperor:
I’d like to go on record as favoring a revison to this rule. Include the 2IPC territories, the way it stands most of the strategic locations are left out (Egypt, SAF, Australia, Karellia, FIC\Burma). I hope you guys will revist this.
Nicely said, Emperor Mollari.
I too, would like to see 1 additional build for these small territories. -
Thanks guys for backing me up on these 2 ipc tt w/ imp factory tech. Maybe we should start a pole or its own tread? I’d do it but maybe someone with more clout should. Looks like we lost Krieghund on this one. He most likely can’t give up to many details. Maybe it was brought up and voted down in the process?
-
You haven’t lost me. I’ll bring your concerns to Larry’s attention when the opportunity arises, but I can’t guarantee that anything will come of it.
-
I agree with Wild Bill… the cut off of >= 3 units seems arbitrary to me, no rhyme nor reason
-
I agree with Wild Bill… the cut off of >= 3 units seems arbitrary to me, no rhyme nor reason
Agree with the others. The tech should work for Australia or South Africa too.
-
@WILD:
Thanks guys for backing me up on these 2 ipc tt w/ imp factory tech. Maybe we should start a pole or its own tread? I’d do it but maybe someone with more clout should. Looks like we lost Krieghund on this one. He most likely can’t give up to many details. Maybe it was brought up and voted down in the process?
I agree with Wild Bill… the cut off of >= 3 units seems arbitrary to me, no rhyme nor reason
What’s with you guys who want to change the game the way it was created? what makes you think you know better than the guy who invented the game?, have any of you ever created anything as creative as this game is? you don’t like a certain aspects of the best game ever made and you want to start a poll to get things changed your way.This game is as well thought out as any game I’ve ever seen , I don’t want ANYTHING changed in it , that’s my poll vote.
-
@WILD:
Thanks guys for backing me up on these 2 ipc tt w/ imp factory tech. Maybe we should start a pole or its own tread? I’d do it but maybe someone with more clout should. Looks like we lost Krieghund on this one. He most likely can’t give up to many details. Maybe it was brought up and voted down in the process?
I agree with Wild Bill… the cut off of >= 3 units seems arbitrary to me, no rhyme nor reason
What’s with you guys who want to change the game the way it was created? what makes you think you know better than the guy who invented the game?, have any of you ever created anything as creative as this game is? you don’t like a certain aspects of the best game ever made and you want to start a poll to get things changed your way.This game is as well thought out as any game I’ve ever seen , I don’t want ANYTHING changed in it , that’s my poll vote.
I think the problem was that the Tech was changed AFTER the original release via an errata change.
@http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf:
Page 12, Breakthrough Chart 1 – Increased Factory Production: The first sentence should replaced with: “Each of your industrial complexes in a territory worth 3 or more IPCs can now produce two additional units beyond its listed IPC value.”
So we are not agreeing with the errata change. Maybe if we understood the reasoning behind it, that might help a bit.
-
I explained the reasoning behind the change in this thread.
-
I explained the reasoning behind the change in this thread.
Yes. The reasoning was this…
There were two problems with Increased Factory Production as written:
-
Production was doubled or tripled in low-IPC territories.
-
One-IPC territories were impossible to shut down with SBRs, since the maximum damage that can be applied is two points (1 IPC - 2 damage + 2 for IFP = 1 unit produced).
Rather than make complicated rules for the effect of IFP on low-IPC territories, Larry just set a lower limit on the IPC value of the affected territories. All factories still get the reduced cost of SBR damage removal, though.
This analysis ignores game reality though. If you place an IC in a 1 IPC country, and its bombed, you ARE going to fix it. You are not going to let the factory sit with damage, and just build one unit. That is a waste of the 15 IPC you used to build the factory in the first place.
Second, if you did build one in a 1 IPC country, that placement would 99% of the time be critical to getting forces involved in the fight. Being important, its an easy target. So you would not let that factory only produce 1 unit.
Finally, I doubt anyone seriously would place a factory in a 1 IPC territory just in hopes of getting the tech. Australia (worth 2) I can see, but in that situation you can still bomb it for 4.
I just dont see the value of the restriction for most games.
-
-
As big dog suggests in the referenced Thread by Krieghund, we will just ignore this errata change.
It serves no purpose in game play, except to limit the use of the tech. And as Tim the Enchanter said in that same thread…. IFP is nerfed, but HBs are not?
-
As big dog suggests in the referenced Thread by Krieghund, we will just ignore this errata change.
It serves no purpose in game play, except to limit the use of the tech. And as Tim the Enchanter said in that same thread…. IFP is nerfed, but HBs are not?
If you ignore that errata change then why not ignore any official rule in the game, because it is an official rule, made by Larry Harris, I mean after all you are much more qualified to decide what’s a better way to play the game he invented, right?
-
As big dog suggests in the referenced Thread by Krieghund, we will just ignore this errata change.
It serves no purpose in game play, except to limit the use of the tech. And as Tim the Enchanter said in that same thread…. IFP is nerfed, but HBs are not?
If you ignore that errata change then why not ignore any official rule in the game, because it is an official rule, made by Larry Harris, I mean after all you are much more qualified to decide what’s a better way to play the game he invented, right?
It’s called a house rule.
-
Krieghund,
I would like to say thanks for hearing us out & passing on our feed back. What this tread and the previous tread shows is that people seem to like the new imp factory tech a lot as they started to use it. It is a great tech for the UK or Japan. More play testing showed some problems especially with the lower ipc tt. I get that! I also think the reasons for the changes are valid. With that said if I build an IC on a 2 ipc tt then later get this tech it just annoys the hell out of me. So instead of having most of us making up house rules to over ride this change continue to lobby for us to get a better solution. Sounds like the consensus is that a +1 for these strategic 2 ipc tt would make about 90% of the people that responded here very happy. The last time the Errata was updated was in March. I’ve seen you refer to “updates to the Errata” in other posts as to the future. Do you know of a time table on that? I would hope this issue will make it to the table for discussion. Will there be an update before AA42 comes out? -
I agree. Larry comes up with simple but creative rules. Sometimes they don’t work out too well…. Feedback relayed via Krieg, game gets improved next time. System works. :-)
My 2 cents with this tech is it’s not so much the value of the territory, but it’s strategic location. India, East Indies and North Africa are always going to be ideal spots to put a boosted factory, whatever their original value.
Game on!
-
@WILD:
The last time the Errata was updated was in March. I’ve seen you refer to “updates to the Errata” in other posts as to the future. Do you know of a time table on that? I would hope this issue will make it to the table for discussion. Will there be an update before AA42 comes out?
I can’t be certain when the next update will occur. Unfortunately, it seems that the longer a game has been out, the harder it is to get the FAQ updated. That’s why I try to get necessary updates in as quickly as possible. I seriously doubt there’ll be an update before AA42 is out, but it’s possible that I can get one “piggy-backed” on when the AA42 FAQ is published. If so, I’ll see that this issue is brought up.
Larry comes up with simple but creative rules. Sometimes they don’t work out too well…. Feedback relayed via Krieg, game gets improved next time. System works. :-)
I think so. 8-)
Don’t forget, you can also give feedback directly to Larry on his site. That’s what it’s for!
-
As big dog suggests in the referenced Thread by Krieghund, we will just ignore this errata change.
It serves no purpose in game play, except to limit the use of the tech. And as Tim the Enchanter said in that same thread…. IFP is nerfed, but HBs are not?
If you ignore that errata change then why not ignore any official rule in the game, because it is an official rule, made by Larry Harris, I mean after all you are much more qualified to decide what’s a better way to play the game he invented, right?
It’s called a house rule.
I know it’s called a house rule , that’s what I’m saying , keep it in your house not mine. You go ahead and play how you want to play , but don’t try to force your idea on how to change the game into the rule book, because if we did that then it’s your game not Larry’s and I for one want to play his game not yours. I understand perfectly the reasoning behind this errata change and it makes more sense than your opinions do.
Suggested Topics
