41?…42?..Nos?....Tech?....



  • @Funcioneta:

    @Driel310:

    A lot of the tech’s breakthroughs can be a killer. Heavy bombers can lopside a big fleet battle or long range aircraft can cost you your invasion fleet or para’s even your capital……

    That’s why I personally hate techs. I like to win a game because one plays a better strategy not because one dice roll for 5 IPC. On the contrary, I don’t like low luck, the dice are part of the game and is something you need to take into account when making up your strategy. Against tech you can’t defend.  😢

    You must take in count the possibility of LRA and paras, so protect England and over-protect your fleet. Against HBs or rockets, there are 4 techs to counter this: Improved industry, Radar, Warbounds and Shipyards (that’s good against naval HBs). You can also have your own HBs and rockets. I think this new system enforces a tech race, if you don’t spent something in tech, you can get obsolete and have no counter. I like it. I’d say if you are losing the game because of paras, you are getting careless, so you are not playing so good. You can still mod HBs and preserve the other techs

    This sounds ridiculous to me. You say the game encourages a tech race, but that if you are losing the game due to an imbalance in tech, its a fault in your strategy.  :?  Well i have played only one game, but i have found that some countries have more room to invest in tech as others. no surprise!! Russia cannot. They start with virtually no high end piece (tanks/planes). they need to accumulate some, and replace all the dead inf!! Tech is still a gamble!! SO if the game mechanics encourage a tech race as you say, now the game hinges on whether you roll a “6” or not. In my game, UK and US both bought tech tokens early, but took forever to hit anything, then UK got super subs!!! and had no subs!! US got radar. umm useless!  Can you imagine the let down when it take 5 turns to roll a 6, then get radar with the US!!! ugh!   You have implied that there are tech counters. Well ok, you are now implying a strat in which tech you develop. But its random which tech you get. So you can keep developing in a branch until you get the “counter” you are looking for, but this could take ALL game to achieve!! It isnt a viable “strategy”. Id like it better if it had the revised way of picking which tech you were going for. This would add more of a strategic approach to tech. But tech may be a change of pace for the game, in that it changes the dynamic of the game. But it is a randomizer, and I just cant buy the notion of turning into a strategic approach to winning.



  • After two games, and much thought, I hate the NO rules because they are far too many of them to track, dragging down the game with everyone evaluating 6-10 extra territories a turn. Think about it, pretty much every nation has to not only track ~5 territories for their own NO, but has to keep an eye on the ~2 enemy nations around them to make sure they aren’t getting all of their NOs. Boooo, sorry, too much friggin work.

    They went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overboard with the NOs. Instead, they should have made each nation have one obvious NO and there should have been a way to track each of them on the board with some sort of marker or plastic flag.


  • 2019 2015 '14

    Yeah P-unit, I feel the exact same way.
    National Objectives were a good idea, but the implementation was not what I was hoping for.

    I feel like they made the same mistake with National Advantages in Revised. There are just too many, and as a result people find them too hard to integrate into the casual game. I think the AA50 NOs just raised the bar a bit too high for most players. There should have only been 1 per nation, and they should have been engineered to compensate for the disparity in production (especially in the S. Pacific.) Simplicity and ease of use is the most important element of this game, and 1 per nation would have been much easier to track.

    I think the problem is that Larry just gets all these people throwing nuanced House Rules at him all the time, and pushing him to increase the complexity of the game beyond what it should be. Almost all of the posts in the AA-50/Deluxe and AA-Advanced section of his website seem to be heading that direction. I don’t dig it though.

    Axis and Allies was never that kind of wargame, and it shouldn’t be twisted into one.
    If they really do move to anything other than a 6 sided die, the game will lose all its charm for me.


    Right now I like the 42 set up, with no Tech and no National Objectives. 🙂



  • Even if there was a local AA50 playgroup in my vicinity, with 1 game pr. week it would take several months before we remembered all the rules. AA50 is not a very good design as a board game imo. AAR was not so different from Classic. AA50 with all its complexity should be considered a PC game, and for my part thats exactly what it is.



  • really? i read the rulebook from cover to cover when i first got it, and have played two games, and i feel like i know the rules well enough (after checking one or two things in the forum of course)

    mind you, i’ve even had dreams about this game, so maybe i’m just obsessed? …  :roll:



  • @P-Unit:

    After two games, and much thought, I hate the NO rules because they are far too many of them to track, dragging down the game with everyone evaluating 6-10 extra territories a turn. Think about it, pretty much every nation has to not only track ~5 territories for their own NO, but has to keep an eye on the ~2 enemy nations around them to make sure they aren’t getting all of their NOs. Boooo, sorry, too much friggin work.

    They went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overboard with the NOs. Instead, they should have made each nation have one obvious NO and there should have been a way to track each of them on the board with some sort of marker or plastic flag.

    If you find keeping track of the NO’s too much work, maybe you shouldn’t be playing A&A but chess?

    Come on, if you play a few games you know all the NO’s by head. At least our playgroup does… 😉



  • @Driel310:

    @P-Unit:

    After two games, and much thought, I hate the NO rules because they are far too many of them to track, dragging down the game with everyone evaluating 6-10 extra territories a turn. Think about it, pretty much every nation has to not only track ~5 territories for their own NO, but has to keep an eye on the ~2 enemy nations around them to make sure they aren’t getting all of their NOs. Boooo, sorry, too much friggin work.

    They went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overboard with the NOs. Instead, they should have made each nation have one obvious NO and there should have been a way to track each of them on the board with some sort of marker or plastic flag.

    If you find keeping track of the NO’s too much work, maybe you shouldn’t be playing A&A but chess?

    Come on, if you play a few games you know all the NO’s by head. At least our playgroup does… 😉

    I totally agree. After playing a few games, my group pretty much has the NOs memorized.



  • So guys, have some thoughts about the question?

    I just played once….41 with NOS…Favor the Axis but i did make several mistakes…but the NOs favoeur the Axis this is sure

    SO 1941 with NOs and no Tech = Favour Axis



  • I’m not sure i really favor either a 41 or 42 setup, but I absolutely love the inclusion of NO’s and the new way techs are handled. It makes the game more fluid and organic, and less predictable. Buying naval units is actually possible now without people questioning your sanity. You can field a decisive field army, and still be able to fight it out on the sea and air. Who would have thought? A WORLD war with conflict in every battlespace.



  • Ok lets count

    • 41 without tech and NOs = Seems more balanced but not this much if KGF
    • 41 with NOs and no tech = Favor Axis if no Full KGF
    • 41 with tech and no NOs = ?!?!?

    -42 without tech and NOs = Balanced
    -42 with NOs and no tech = Favor Allies
    -42 with Tech and no NOs = Balanced?

    I would like to listen to people about the length of the game….how long are these options…is 41 longer than 42?

    1941 = Very long? about 5 to 8 hours?
    1941 = Short like revised

    NO’s and Tech favour a long game?

    And what about the VC’s…Is 13 a good way to play for a shorter game?

    Im Planing to play on december 12…and i want to play…a good game wich can last for maximum 5 hours and some balance…not a perfect balance but some sort of…


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

36
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts