The real set-up



  • Thank God  for making sure they made a destroyer guarding that transport. Also kgf = japan to strong i have figured that when you ignore a certain som1 (usa ignoring japan)  the allies tend to lose since japan kills russia and germany can just mass inf.!

    Anyways nos, are gonna make the game more different you will only fight were they tell you also weres the ones like example taking moscow in 5 turns gives you 10 bonus income once?



  • @Lynxes:

    The real setup should favor axis more than our speculation setup, the BGG setup favor allies with OOB rules. A Russian ftr + a few more allied units must be compensated somehow. Its not enough to remove the extra US bmr. I don’t think an extra Jap trans is enough either. Maybe Italy is stronger than we thought. It seems like Italy is practically useless if allies go KGF, Italy should perhaps get another transport + an inf and/or a tank? If the real setup favors allies more than the BGG setup, then AA50 is even more unbalanced than AAR.

    I think NOs will be standard play for the game, whereas some will choose techs and some will not. So, given NOs Axis are way too strong in the GENCON set-up.

    After looking at the AAP map and the actual historical naval situation, I expect the following additions (now only naval):

    East Med: 1 UK destroyer
    East Indies: 1 UK cruiser
    Caroline Islands: 1 Japanese cruiser
    Sea of Japan: 1 Japanese destroyer & transport
    West coast: 1 US cruiser

    item: I would agree with all of these Naval placements, except the Caroline Islands CA, add 2nd Japanese BB.
    item:where are the Pacific SS submarines, add 1 for each power.
    item:Rule Chg all CT trannys covered by a warship, Add German DD in Med, Japanese DD to CV in Midway Sea Zone.
    item:Agree with Funcioneta, all Japanese Islands should have INF.
    Item:Add Japanese BMB, deployed in Manchuria, maybe.
    I will start a Group Speculation map on this setup, and one for Lynxes.
    http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=db7389213b434449ab1eab3e9fa335cae9fc2a6a9099e97f
    I would as, Lynxes and others have previously stated add more China INF,
    hell they had been fighting for near 10 years already.
    and USSR FTR in Russia.


  • '10

    @JohnBarbarossa:

    @marechallannes:

    Why should there be a bomber?

    Japan got 8 figthers!

    The allies have to build their tanks and artilleries, too. Look at the russians…

    So japan is forced to build bombers and ships.

    I am not saying the bomber should be there. I am just saying when setting up the board, it is easy to forget the bomber on Japan. And we are assuming here that Larry forgot to set up some units.
    When our playgroup forgets something to place it has been units on Japan many times. They are more easily overlooked. Same goes voor IC’s and AA guns.

    …or german infantry.



  • Let’s hope so, saves the axis player buying infantry all day long.  😄



  • ya really (i think that a helpfull thing would be if usa had a few more ships and so did japan like japan 2 destroyers 1 cruiser, bship and transport while usa gets 1 destroyer, transport and 2 cruisers  (not including acarriers)



  • ok edit required for start up,

    Since, we can not rely on the pictures.  I have reread the after action reports at Morey’s swamp.  I used these player reports in my original recon for the AA50 maps. 
    I must edit my proposed missing unit setup to reflect quotes from the game players.
    item:remove USSR FTR -player flatly states no USSR FTRs.
    item:remove extra INF from Japanese Islands-Japanese player says he was surprized no INF on those ISlands at start.
    other game items I had not changed but have been called into question by posters in several threads;
    item:verified Qty 3 CV carriers and 9 ftrs for Japan-player stated.
    item:verified Qty 4 FTRS for Germany as German player stated.
    item:verified qty 2 BMB for USA, its odd, but Quoted by players in game.
    item:verified qty 10 USSR INF in soviet Far East territories.

    I have a hunch the most likely units Craig says are missing;
    this would be a lite, add on for missing units from pics
    items:Subs, completely absent from Pacific theatre.Add 1 for each power.
    item:DD in Eastern Med.
    item:BMB from Japan. everyone has one, except Italy and China and now Japan, less likely?
    item:CA, for USA Pacific Fleet, WUSA?  new unit missing from USA setup.
    item:if China generates qty 1 INF for each territory, S/B at least 1 INF in each of the Chinese territories to start?  Again, the Sino-Japan war was in full swing.
    item:ARM unit for Eastern USA, as noted in prior post-USA start w with no ARM unit?

    Last item, my own Lust, the Second Japanese Battlewagon in the Sea of Japan with CT,
    not likely, its an emotional need-LOL.



  • Hey, bluestroke, great work! I think we’re getting close here. I especially want to quote this sentence from one of the “Smorey Swamp” GENCON reports:

    China begins the game with one fighter and a respectable number of infantry.

    So, maybe even 2 per front territory is too low. I don’t think you will see either a second Japanese BB or a bomber, that would be unbalanced. Cruisers are a safe bet in the Pacific I think, maybe subs as well. The big question is if the UK will get a CV at India. Historically, in early -42 UK had at Ceylon:

    HM Battleship WARSPITE, HM Aircraft Carrier ILLUSTRIOUS, HM Aircraft Carrier INDOMITABLE, HM Cruiser CORNWALL, HM Cruiser ENTERPRISE and HM Cruiser EMERALD, plus six destroyers.

    Translates to 1 CV+ 1 ftr, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 trs, maybe?

    PS. This website shows the location of US Navy ships at the time of Pearl Harbor:

    http://www.navsource.org/Naval/usf.htm

    That US cruiser should maybe be together with the carrier, considering that 6 heavy cruisers escorted them? Yes, I’m getting nerdy, I’ll stop it…  😉 DS.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    the scale from previous threads are as follows:

    game unit to –- quantity of represented in the war

    BB=4-6
    CV=4-8
    CA=8-12
    DD=24+
    SS=24+
    AP=300



  • That scale can’t be right for BBs. If correct, UK would have several (they started the war with 9 battleships) and US one on the East coast. It ought to be 5-10.

    And CVs can be represented with one or two fighters;

    CV + 1 ftr: 2-3 carriers
    CV + 2 ftr: 4-8 carriers

    Probably we will have one cruiser at East Indies or Burma sea zone to represent Repulse and Prince of Wales at Singapore as well as the five cruisers destroyed by the Japanese in the Battle of the Java Sea and then CV+1ftr, DD, trs at India.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    That scale can’t be right for BBs. If correct, UK would have several (they started the war with 9 battleships) and US one on the East coast. It ought to be 5-10.

    you have to look at what they had available in 1942 rather than 1939. The numbers are based on Revised and MB editions.

    Hood
    royal oak
    Ramallies
    Prince of whales

    that’s 4 BB’s sunk right off the top of my head before spring 1942 start date as quoted as the starting point for the games.

    Also, you have to qualify some of the older BB’s into a somewhat diminished value.

    The Tirpitz was immensely more potent than some of the British modernized/retrofitted ww1 battlewagons, but the shliehen holsten ( spelling) would not be a BB at all qualitatively.

    The most of the American ships at Hawaii were old ex- WW1 junk barges and the 8 ships should be counted as one piece, but i think they should have added a destroyer to Hawaii.



  • Well, to the 9 battleships and battlecruisers of the Royal Navy sep -39 in the Atlantic, there were also 4 at Alexandria for combined number of 13. Barham, Royal Oak, Hood and Repulse were sunk, but the following were added:

    HMS Valiant feb -40 (refitting)
    HMS King George V dec -40
    (HMS Prince of Wales may -41, sunk at Singapore)
    HMS Duke of York dec -41
    HMS Queen Elizabeth march -41 (refitting)

    So in spring -41 RN had: 4 BBs Queen Elizabeth class, 4 BBs Royal Sovereign class, 2 BBs Nelson class and 2 BBs KGV class, as well as 2 battlecruisers.

    (In dec -41, two BBs at Alexandria were immobilized by Italian frogmen)

    In spring -42: 2 BBs Queen Elizabeth class, 4 BBs Royal Sovereign class, 2 BBs Nelson class and 2 BBs KGV class, as well as 1 battlecruiser.

    Even if you rate those of WWI classes (Queen Elizabeth, Royal Sovereign, Nelson) at 0.75 or something like that, you wouldn’t arrive at 4-6 battleships for one A&A BB. You could argue that UK should have 2 BBs at-start, but that could be a bit too much for play-balance. In AA50, cruisers might represent not just heavy cruisers but also smaller concentrations of battleships, and this would make it logical for UK to have more than one cruiser at-start.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Sept 1939 start: 15 battleships & battlecruisers, of which only two were post-World War 1.
    Five ‘King George V’ class battleships were building.

    Sunk:

    http://www.naval-history.net/WW2aBritishLosses01BB2.htm

    total of 5 sunk before game start, leaving 10 functioning BB’s and most of these are WW1 junks.

    according to the figures that perfectly fits the Axis and Allies setup of 4-6 BB’s per piece with 5 on average used as the range. Both Revised and MB feature 2 BB as i have stated.

    BB=4-6
    CV=4-8
    CA=8-12
    DD=24+
    SS=24+
    AP=300

    So these figures are fitting just perfect.

    I am sure UK had 2 BB in the 1942 setup or they should. IN 1941 they should have 2 as well, but my figures are going by as i stated the last two global AA games and not the upcoming game.


  • '10

    @Bluestroke:

    I have a hunch the most likely units Craig says are missing;
    this would be a lite, add on for missing units from pics
    items:Subs, completely absent from Pacific theatre.Add 1 for each power.
    item:DD in Eastern Med.
    item:BMB from Japan. everyone has one, except Italy and China and now Japan, less likely?
    item:CA, for USA Pacific Fleet, WUSA?  new unit missing from USA setup.
    item:if China generates qty 1 INF for each territory, S/B at least 1 INF in each of the Chinese territories to start?  Again, the Sino-Japan war was in full swing.
    item:ARM unit for Eastern USA, as noted in prior post-USA start w with no ARM unit?

    Last item, my own Lust, the Second Japanese Battlewagon in the Sea of Japan with CT,
    not likely, its an emotional need-LOL.

    Sounds nice, but where to place the japanese Sub and the US Sub?

    I don’t agree with the second US carrier. In 1941 the US Navy had only two Essex class Carriers (Yorktown and Essex I think). At the time of the attack on pearl habour they had left the pacific fleet for maneuvers.

    …and I want this second jap BB, too!


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    no Essex. that came latter like 1943. US had 4 carriers with CV Ranger regulated to Atlantic Duty. CVL langley was a joke and cant be counted as anything but a pigeon landing strip.Its our first carrier made and still in service for some reason. Its like the Japanese Hosho…target practice.

    Saratoga
    Hornet
    Enterprise
    Yorktown
    Wasp- sunk late 1941

    Essex only launched in second half of 1942



  • I have a question for Krieghund or Craig Yope, can you confirm the names and the ipc values on the map done by Blustroke?


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I am not sure what source is being used for the US, but is is badly incorrect.

    I was going by memory, but i do know Essex was not available in 1941. Left out Lexington

    The carriers i listed were available after spring of 1942. I am not looking at what was available at any other time, because AAR and AA Milton Bradley use “SPRING 1942” as the start date. Thats why Lexington is not available because i figure Larry is starting his game just before Midway which is the turning point. So to make the point again the exchange rate of Carriers posted is accurate considering the Carriers present by theater.

    so the Americans had 5 real carriers in pacific –consistent with the exchange rate. Ranger was never in Pacific and cant account for a unique carrier piece for the Atlantic.

    IM glad we got the BB issue resolved.



  • @marechallannes:

    @Bluestroke:

    I have a hunch the most likely units Craig says are missing;
    this would be a lite, add on for missing units from pics
    items:Subs, completely absent from Pacific theatre.Add 1 for each power.
    item:DD in Eastern Med.
    item:BMB from Japan. everyone has one, except Italy and China and now Japan, less likely?
    item:CA, for USA Pacific Fleet, WUSA?  new unit missing from USA setup.
    item:if China generates qty 1 INF for each territory, S/B at least 1 INF in each of the Chinese territories to start?  Again, the Sino-Japan war was in full swing.
    item:ARM unit for Eastern USA, as noted in prior post-USA start w with no ARM unit?

    Last item, my own Lust, the Second Japanese Battlewagon in the Sea of Japan with CT,
    not likely, its an emotional need-LOL.

    Sounds nice, but where to place the japanese Sub and the US Sub?

    I don’t agree with the second US carrier. In 1941 the US Navy had only two Essex class Carriers (Yorktown and Essex I think). At the time of the attack on pearl habour they had left the pacific fleet for maneuvers.

    …and I want this second jap BB, too!

    Item:Marechallannes;
    No, I did not mean/say a second USA-CV carrier.  That was a CA for USA cruiser.
    Happy to hear, the thunder of battlewagons are heard by others-LOL.

    Item:Subotai, great question;
    Krieghund/andor Craig can you guys comment on IPC values of Territories? 
    I could not see several territories IPC values, as I drew the map, so, stated on map.
    I used derived totals for the territories I could not see. 
    So, I would second, the request, to verify, IPC values if possible.

    item:IL, Lynxes and timeover51 great posts as usual;
    nice touch with numbers on vessels and the individual ship names and classes
    -sweet as my grandson would say. 
    One caveat, I think Larry stated, on his web site, Naval units, of all A&A units, could not be extrapolated/translated to numbers?


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I think Larry stated, on his web site, Naval units, of all A&A units, could not be extrapolated/translated to numbers?

    no he never said this. He said it varied and rough estimates were possible, but he was talking of infantry and tanks.

    I exahnge rate was established by people interested in making new scenarios for the game which prompted the discussion.


  • Official Q&A

    @Bluestroke:

    Item:Subotai, great question;
    Krieghund/andor Craig can you guys comment on IPC values of Territories? 
    I could not see several territories IPC values, as I drew the map, so, stated on map.
    I used derived totals for the territories I could not see. 
    So, I would second, the request, to verify, IPC values if possible.

    Sorry, we can’t go there.  😞



  • @Krieghund:

    @Bluestroke:

    Item:Subotai, great question;
    Krieghund/andor Craig can you guys comment on IPC values of Territories? 
    I could not see several territories IPC values, as I drew the map, so, stated on map.
    I used derived totals for the territories I could not see. 
    So, I would second, the request, to verify, IPC values if possible.

    Sorry, we can’t go there.   😞

    Ok, fine, you can only do what you can do, we understand limitations. 
    You guys have been a great help in promoting the game and info about it. 
    Its like you guys are the entire promotion/marketing dept. for AA50 game-less one official release of the game at Gen Con, lets give em credit,
    when they do promote-LOL.
    Wait, there was a second pictured release-fair credit given.
    I, just hope someone over at AH/WOTC isn’t over their claiming credit for viral promotion techniques.
    Whom ever gets their game first, we request you share the wealth,
    spill the forbidden info on 1941 setup and bless my lusty soul, the 1942 setup.



  • @Perry:

    I’ve said a few things about what I felt was strange/in error , in this thread:

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12584.15

    Anyhow, if there are only a few pieces that need to be added, and no pieces deleted, I would hope for the following (based on three games playing the GenCon setup), sorted from in order of importance to play balance:

    1) Addition of US naval units in the Pac!
    I’m afraid we’ll see few/no US Pac games, unless this one turn out to be true…

    2) Addition of starting Infs to China
    'Nuff said…

    3) Some more addition to UK navy
    Don’t quite know where, but maybe the Pac…Just feels a tad bit weak, right now.

    4) Some more land units added to WUS and EUS
    Not of very big importance. I just think that there are an Inf left out in WUS and an Arm left out in EUS…

    5) Redistribution of Infs on The Jap Pac Islands
    Don’t know, they just feel wrong now…
    1 Island empy (Iwo)
    1 Island has 1 ftr (For)
    1 Island has 1 inf (Oki)
    1 Island has 3 inf (Car

    Actually, that’s just about it…
    1 & 2 are important. The rest are minor issues.
    Hope I’ll be correct  🙂

    I agree. This would make the game better. And Bluestroke, I agree. The one who gets A&A 50 first must spill their guts to all of us.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 14
  • 2
  • 5
  • 20
  • 29
  • 3
  • 3
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

157
Online

14.2k
Users

34.6k
Topics

1.4m
Posts