Cmdr Jennifer Hijacks “Enhanced” – How do you really feel about it.



  • This is AA50J which is being called AA50E because what, Jen’s got a patent lawyer on speed dial? Or so we are to believe. Ya know it should be painfully obvious to anyone who’s been here a while that the real game Jen wants to play with her faux AA50E ruleset has little to do with A&A. You do realize that to continue threads like this one is exactly the game she’s after at this point, don’t you?

    Ya know if Jen’s the only one on the planet that truly believes she’s developed “the official” AA50E ruleset then she loses at the little power trip game she seems so fond of playing. She can call herself queen of the universe too and that doesn’t make it so. So if you care about and respect the work of Cousin Joe and the Enhanced team don’t post anything in these silly AA50J related threads. Realize you’re only lending creedance to this absurdity by it’s debate!



  • @Zero:

    This is AA50J which is being called AA50E because what, Jen’s got a patent lawyer on speed dial? Or so we are to believe. Ya know it should be painfully obvious to anyone who’s been here a while that the real game Jen wants to play with her faux AA50E ruleset has little to do with A&A. You do realize that to continue threads like this one is exactly the game she’s after at this point, don’t you?

    Ya know if Jen’s the only one on the planet that truly believes she’s developed “the official” AA50E ruleset then she loses at the little power trip game she seems so fond of playing. She can call herself queen of the universe too and that doesn’t make it so. So if you care about and respect the work of Cousin Joe and the Enhanced team don’t post anything in these silly AA50J related threads. Realize you’re only lending creedance to this absurdity by it’s debate!

    It’s not so much those “in the know” I am worried about.  It’s those new to the site, who come here through a search engine, find the AA50J rules set tagged as “Enhanced”, trying these rules and then discovering that these rules do not have the same level of quality game play as the AARe we’ve grown to love.

    I believe to just look the other way at someone’s highjacking a name under false pretenses is the easy way out.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    BadSpeller:

    In response to the question asked again, and answered again in the same fashion as the first time:

    The name AA50:Enhanced (AKA Anniversary Enhanced, AA50:e, AA50e) was used because it is a direct result from Revised Enhanced.  Since all the same concepts are brought over from Revised Enhanced, the same balance, the same rules and the same ideas, it makes no sense what-so-ever to invent a new name.

    You might as well ask why AARe is still called AARe and not something else like Axis and Allies: axis_roll.

    AA50e is AARe on the Anniversary Map.


    Axis, I asked the community numerous times for volunteers, you even responded in the thread, but never once volunteered.  On numerous occasions drafts of the rules were posted and I begged and pleaded for you guys to review them and toss out questions and comments, but the only response I got from you, and I am paraphrasing, was “too many changes.”  Never made a specific comment on what change was too much, not that you could since the changes are extremely minor, bordering on virtually non-existent.

    Just because you have a selective memory does not make it my problem.

    Personally, I hope people find the AA50e rules, try them out, and realize that they’re just as good, if not better, than the AARe rules.  They’re up to the same standard (if not higher, since they’re more recent and thus, take into consideration more experience than was available at the time AARe was created.)


    Zero Pilot:

    AA50e has been play tested, it’s been developed by numerous people, it’s been copyrighted and it is the official version.  If someone wants to make a similar game, they’ll just have to use a different name.  If they attempt to use Anniversary Enhanced or any derivative thereof, they’ll be criminally liable for copyright infringement.

    Sorry, I just got sick of axis_roll (primarily) and a few others pissing and moaning because they thought they could kill AA50 Enhanced by refusing to participate in it’s creation and by responding with a stock reply “too many changes” to every request for assistance in its creation.



  • Still waiting for that list of numerous people who have play tested these rules.
    Your failure to list these people and from the lack of quaility in the Rules, I can TELL that list is small.

    Still waiting on those Emails from Cousin_joe that he’s proud you’re working on AA50 “Jen”

    Still waiting on your response to the game breaking strategic decision that BREAKS these rules:

    INSTANT GUARENTEED TARGETTED TECHNOLOGY.

    This BREAKS the game.  I do not even need to game play test.  Hell you might as well hand out light sabers to the guys who can buy them.


    I keep waiting and waiting but all we get are more posts on how wrong we are, without responses to our questions/inquries.


    @Cmdr:

    You might as well ask why AARe is still called AARe and not something else like Axis and Allies: axis_roll.

    Because I helped mold the rules thru discussion and game testing, I was not the originator of the rules nor did I try to high jack any rules or someone elses work and try to call it my own.

    @Cmdr:

    AA50e is AARe on the Anniversary Map.

    This is where you are wrong, but yet you do not seem to be able to see the error of your ways even though it is just not me saying this.  You can not compile a set of rules from one game and mix them into another game and think those old rules will be just fine.  Sure, you made a few tweaks here or there (naming conventions or other similiar things like Chinese territory names, etc).

    There’s a context that all rules must work within.  The ONLY way to decide if something works is to play many games with those rules.  We learned this in developing the original AARe.  This has not happened yet for AA50, let alone this version of the rules.

    Top AA50 players need to be brought into the development of these rules.



  • Thank you for your answer.
    Now for Questions #2-6 (or maybe part B #1-5)

    @Cmdr_Jennifer:

    TESTERS:

    1. Who are they?
    2. What are their playing levels?
    3. How many games of AARe and AA50 have they played?  (Because you are incorporating both sets of rules)
    4. Who have they beaten?
    5. What side(s) do they play (Axis, Allies, both)?

    Again, direct answers please



  • Since we are back on the name topic, here are my thoughts.  While it may be mere semantics, to me the AA50e is misleading from the standpoint that it truly isn’t AA50 enhanced.  AA50 was not the foundation for the enhanced rules.  AARe was.  So, really, wouldn’t the rules being called something like AARe:Anniversary be more appropriate?  It is closer to how they were created.

    Again, just my 2 cents.

    @Cmdr:

    What AA50:Enhanced does do is build off of AARe in a way to apply the rules of AARe to AA50 without ruining the balance and without making huge and drastic changes to AA50 or AARe.

    @Cmdr:

    The name AA50:Enhanced (AKA Anniversary Enhanced, AA50:e, AA50e) was used because it is a direct result from Revised Enhanced.  Since all the same concepts are brought over from Revised Enhanced, the same balance, the same rules and the same ideas, it makes no sense what-so-ever to invent a new name.

    AA50e is AARe on the Anniversary Map.



  • Jennifer, I think I see what you mean
    its mostly AARe so you didn’t call it AA50J
    but AARe crowd would be happier you simply call it Jennifier’s adaptation of AARe

    @Cmdr:

    Sorry, I just got sick of axis_roll (primarily) and a few others pissing and moaning because they thought they could kill AA50 Enhanced by refusing to participate in it’s creation and by responding with a stock reply “too many changes” to every request for assistance in its creation.

    are you actually looking for feedback anymore?
    you were saying its the “final version” already with only erratas planned

    as for responses of “too many changes”, it happens in discussions
    ask yourself what is the very most important change and talk about that first
    its easier for the audience to take in



  • @tekkyy:

    are you actually looking for feedback anymore?
    you were saying its the “final version” already with only erratas planned

    as for responses of “too many changes”, it happens in discussions
    ask yourself what is the very most important change and talk about that first
    its easier for the audience to take in

    I already gave you one game breaker:

    Instant guarenteed tech.  Breaks the game.



  • @Trisdin:

    I’m new to this conversation but if I were asked, I would say that unless it came from Larry Harris himself, they are all unofficial house rules.

    I totally agree! Either Larry Harris has to make the rules himself, mandatory rules or optional rules, or he must approve of any rules regarding any A&A game, be it AARe or any other rule set. With the two new optional rules of AA50, there is actually 4 optional rules in AA50, and all of them are official rules.

    Personally I don’t use house rules, but some rules have evolved because a large number of players would rather have it their way, like almost all TripleA AAR players will not use tech, and lots of other players also play without tech. So Larry decided to make tech optional.

    Unless Larry Harris, teh main man, has personally approved of the rules, I will not accept such rules!



  • i do not think that the name of the project has a bearing on the finished article,

    i would call it axis and allies / enhanced house-rule set /

    i would use the 50th anniversary rule set as the base,

    taking into account the mechanic’s of all unit’s of the axis and allies edition’s,

    if an individual would want to write a rule set, it is not mandatory to use that ruleset,

    if i do not want to use a rule, i do not use that rule, whether it would be axis and allies / or enhanced
    tournament’s and online would be the time that i would use an official rule set,

    otherwise to change the layout, pace or direction of the game, i would invent rule’s, or take advice given by other player’s


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @axis_roll:

    @tekkyy:

    are you actually looking for feedback anymore?
    you were saying its the “final version” already with only erratas planned

    as for responses of “too many changes”, it happens in discussions
    ask yourself what is the very most important change and talk about that first
    its easier for the audience to take in

    I already gave you one game breaker:

    Instant guarenteed tech.  Breaks the game.

    It’s no more broken in AA50e as it is in AARe, dear.  It’s the same rule.  You may purchase all 6 tech dice in the same round and be guaranteed to get the technology or you can buy only four dice and hope to get it at a discount.

    Furthermore, it’s equally as damaging as rolling Yahtzee on Round 1 by any nation.

    Another thing, in AA50e we removed the ability for the Axis to roll Yahtzee on round 1 and win the game by Victory Cities.  It’s no longer possible to get enough victory cities or National objectives to win in the first round, guarantying that the game will have a round 2 now.


    And yes, Tekkyy, if there is a serious flaw that needs correcting because it unbalances the game in some way (ie: Axis can win by rolling Yahtzee and getting all the VCs needed like they could in AARe or Getting LRA on Germany 1 gives you a good shot at taking London Round 1 and thus, almost guarantee an Axis win like in AAR) then yes we’re looking for feedback.

    But we’ve pretty much ironed out all those game breaking things.  There might be a few things that should be clarified in the rules: ie: Paratroopers have to stop at the first hostile nation in non-combat moves might be confusing, but once clarified, makes total sense (you cannot cross hostile territories with Paratroopers in NCM, you have have to find a route with all friendly territories or drop them somewhere else.)

    Anyway, yes, we worked up from the current rules and over laid the others in an attempt to maintain the integrity of the game.  There were no serious rule changes.  As mentioned, things like Western Europe being changed to France or allowing friendly forces to join the D-Day invasion from NW Europe were pretty standard things and in line with AARe rules to begin with.  CRD and Submarine combat were brought over and I can hardly imagine those are unbalancing rules any more than they were in AARe.


    PS: axis_roll: guarantee has two ‘a’s’.  Doesn’t your web browser have a spell checker function?  If not, may I suggest FireFox?



  • @Cmdr:

    PS: axis_roll: guarantee has two ‘a’s’.  Doesn’t your web browser have a spell checker function?  If not, may I suggest FireFox?

    @Cmdr:

    It’s no longer possible to get enough victory cities or National objectives to win in the first round, guarantying that the game will have a round 2 now.

    Apparently your spell checker sucks. Seems it can correct ‘guarantee’ but not ‘guaranteeing’.

    Now could you please get off your high horse for a second to address this, instead of continuing to ignore it:

    @BadSpeller:

    Now for Questions #2-6 (or maybe part B #1-5)

    @Cmdr_Jennifer:

    TESTERS:

    1. Who are they?
    2. What are their playing levels?
    3. How many games of AARe and AA50 have they played?  (Because you are incorporating both sets of rules)
    4. Who have they beaten?
    5. What side(s) do they play (Axis, Allies, both)?

    Again, direct answers please


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    It did correct gauranteeing, I just didn’t see an alternative spelling I liked.

    The game testers, AGAIN, were anyone who volunteered from here, real life gamers at Saluki-Con in Carbondale, IL, they were gamers who were directly invited from FOE and AAMC and a couple of buddies of mine who stopped by one Saturday and played it once. (They were not really “game testers” but they ended up testing it with fresh eyes.)



  • @Cmdr:

    @axis_roll:

    I already gave you one game breaker:

    Instant guarenteed tech.  Breaks the game.

    It’s no more broken in AA50e as it is in AARe, dear.  It’s the same rule.  You may purchase all 6 tech dice in the same round and be guaranteed to get the technology or you can buy only four dice and hope to get it at a discount.

    Um no, it’s NOT the same rule.  AARe techs became active (like the base LHTR) at the end of a players turn.  AA50 tech is instantaneous, that means I can buy Long Range or Heavy Bombers, or Paratroopers or whatever WEAPON you want to use this turn (if you have the money).

    I didn’t see in AA50Jen where techs are changed to be deferred.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Unlike in AAR, instant tech does not mean instant win.  So what’s the point in making a huge, game changing, change to the rules?

    Heavy Bombers can make Egypt go almost 100% for Germany each time, but it also takes your entire pay check AND that means 3 rounds with no reinforcements against Russia.  Not worth it.

    Long Range Air same thing, you can take Egypt easier, but three rounds without reinforcements pretty much means a win for Russia.

    Japan has no use for any tech in round 1, not that they could afford to buy it even at the reduced cost of 4 dice.

    England could maybe use LRA to sink the Italian fleet early, but honestly, that’s still a crap shoot even with LRA (2 fighters, bomber vs 2 cruisers, battleship….not really good chances.)

    Instant tech does not break the game.  It’s consistent with the rules.

    And hey, unlike in AARe, the Axis can’t win in round 1 because of really good dice!


    PS:  AA:Jen will be posted soon.  It’s a completely new, and unique, set of house rules that are not based of Enhanced, Historical or any other rule set.



  • @Cmdr:

    Unlike in AAR, instant tech does not mean instant win.

    I never said it was an instant win.  I said it breaks the game.

    I would forgo a G1 ground unit buy to eliminate both UK transports (and a BB) AND take Egypt.  Sz2 with Super subs and 2 ftrs on a BB & tpt is the weakest battle Germany would face.  Western europe need not be protected the first round of battle.  Germany could play conservative out east to where Russia could not counter anywhere.

    That great of an ADVANTAGE for Germany would be VERY hard (if not impossible) to over come.  And this is only the beginning of the pay to play game that would be AA50Jen.

    @Cmdr:

    So what’s the point in making a huge, game changing, change to the rules?

    HOLY SHIT! that is EXACTLY what I have been saying about AA50!  WHY make all these changes to the AA50 rules?  But you insist your GAGGLE of copy-and-paste rules from AARe is exactly what AA50e is all about.

    Even YOU admit you’re wrong….


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Super submarines don’t exist in AA50e, axis.  More proof you didn’t even bother to read the rules before going on your crusade.

    Some rules had to be changed to make an AA50e.  Some people happen to enjoy CRD and submarine detection rules, etc.  To incorporate those rules into AA50 (and others people liked like D-Day and Non-Aggression Treaty, etc) we had to bring all the rules in.  But making huge, ground shaking changes like making tech wait until a full game round had passed before you can use it didn’t make sense.  The board was not set up in such a way that getting tech at the start of your current turn made it an instant win like it was in Revised. LHTR and AARe only made tech come into play after a full game turn because it was an instant win on that game board map.

    Anyway, let’s look at your option:

    Spend all on tech, save 1.

    You have the bomber going to Egypt, so it is not available.

    So you have 4 Fighters, 2 Submarines to clear SZ 9, SZ 12 and SZ 2.  Sorry, impossible.  Even if super submarines existed, and they don’t, you’d never have a chance in hell.  Especially since you said 2 submarines and a fighter went to SZ 2 (I’ll ignore the impossible move of the second fighter to SZ 2, the one in NW Europe cannot reach, you were going for SS, not LRA.)

    You don’t have the firepower.  Not possible.  You need the bomber to do it, and that means Egypt is probably not falling into Germany’s hands in round 1.  That means you have 3 rounds with no reinforcements, you have no Egypt, England and Russia will absolutely crucify you.

    No offense, but dumb move.  It was tried during testing.

    Smarter move was attempted, getting LRA and trying for Sea Lion, but that’s 50/50 if you don’t include the AA Gun, it’s 30/70 if you do include it.  But it’s a smarter move.

    Anyway, no, in your phrasing, instant guaranteed  technology is not broken.  There’s no way it can be used in Round 1 to adversely affect game play to your advantage, it can be used round 1 to absolutely destroy your chances to win the game though.

    However, if you wish to prove me wrong, we can always play a game.  Unless you’re too afraid to stand behind your accusation.



  • @Cmdr:

    Super submarines don’t exist in AA50e, axis.  More proof you didn’t even bother to read the rules before going on your crusade.

    Hmmm.  Germany cannot take Wolf packs on G1?  It is one of their NA’s, correct?  So I mislabeled this incorrectly, but the end result is a sub attacking at a three (when undetected)

    I have read the rules, I have made a post about all the problems

    @Cmdr:

    You have the bomber going to Egypt, so it is not available.

    So you have 4 Fighters, 2 Submarines to clear SZ 9, SZ 12 and SZ 2.  Sorry, impossible.  Even if super submarines existed, and they don’t, you’d never have a chance in hell.  Especially since you said 2 submarines and a fighter went to SZ 2 (I’ll ignore the impossible move of the second fighter to SZ 2, the one in NW Europe cannot reach, you were going for SS, not LRA.)

    You don’t have the firepower.  Not possible.  You need the bomber to do it, and that means Egypt is probably not falling into Germany’s hands in round 1.  That means you have 3 rounds with no reinforcements, you have no Egypt, England and Russia will absolutely crucify you.

    This is not the move I proposed.  I never suggested sinking the entire UK navy, just the key ships in sz2 (tpt) and sz9 (tpt) so as to not have to worry about not buying any ground units on G1.  Also, 90% win in Egypt is pretty damn strong in my book, considering most top players believe Egypt is almost a must take for Germany on round 1.

    @Cmdr:

    No offense, but dumb move.  It was tried during testing.

    yes, you are trying to be offensive, please don’t patronize me.


    Anyways, please show me the game where my proposed move was tested?

    @Cmdr:

    Anyway, no, in your phrasing, instant guaranteed  technology is not broken.  There’s no way it can be used in Round 1 to adversely affect game play to your advantage, it can be used round 1 to absolutely destroy your chances to win the game though.

    Right, absolutely destroy Germanys chances of winning the game.

    Again, instant guaranteed tech breaks the game.  Period.  I never said I would win the game in round one because of it.  I didn’t say instant guaranteed tech WINS the game, I said it breaks the game.

    Who wants to play a game where you have to defend against every possible tech (if your opponent has the money)?  THAT sort of game is NOT the Enhanced game I know and love.

    Oh yes, and America can do it alot cheaper.  Tech investment for US allows guaranteed 4 dice techs.  That is sickening.  The US player should buy a tech a turn. $20 heavy bombers?  $16 long range (yep, UK would buy long range before USA).  So for $36, US will have long range heavy bombers? for USE ON US2?

    THINK about that huge hole in these rules

    So for $36, US will have long range heavy bombers for USE ON US2

    OK, who used that in play testing?


    @Cmdr:

    However, if you wish to prove me wrong, we can always play a game.  Unless you’re too afraid to stand behind your accusation.

    Why do I want to play a beat such a weak opponent?  I am not sure what crushing you, with rules I have never played, prove?  Wait, in true Jenny-like fashion, how about some off the wall ultimatum:

    When we play and I win, you have to remove your post about the ‘OFFICIAL’ AA50e rules?

    If you are so confident that my G1 move is so “dumb”, if you are so sure that my move “can be used round 1 to absolutely destroy your chances to win the game”, put your Rule-making reputation on the line.

    You have a distinct advantage:

    • I have never played the game of AA50Jen (I never wanted to, rules do not appear balanced to me)

    • You know what Germany will be doing on G1

    • You are so confident that my critique is “dumb” and Germany using it round 1 would “absolutely destroy your chances to win the game.”

    Just to make it fair, we’ll make it a three game series.
    Each player gets to play each side once.  If a third game is needed, we’ll bid for what ever we agree is the weaker side for game three.

    Do you accept my proposal?  I win, you take down your ‘official’ rules post.

    You win, I post no more about AA50Jen.



  • This thread just got a whole lot better.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    First off, the National Advantages are additional optional rules, not part of the core rules.  They’re akin to the optional rules released by WOTC including escorts and segregated SZ 16.  I don’t expect a lot of players using them, most of the play testers did not, but there was a strong movement to keep national advantages to offer uniquness to the different nations.

    Per your link, let me take them one at a time:

    1)  National Advantages are optional, see above.  If they are incorporated at all, then the method of incorporation will be decided between the two players.  I suspect, all national advantages will be in play, or none.  But that does not mean it couldn’t be limited to four per side, or one for each nation, or whatever the players want.  It’s completely optional.

    2)  Paratroopers are a minor technology because they are not as powerful as the major technologies and we wanted a balance, 50% major, 50% minor.  Honestly, I wanted Major, Minor and Intermediary, but I was organizing a democracy, not an autocracy.

    Anyway, Paratroopers didn’t make it easier or harder to win naval battles, they negate SBR runs and they can really only help turn the tide of the battle in your favor, not change the tide of the battle like Heavy Bombers, Jet Fighters, Super Destroyers (I call them Heavy Destroyers), etc can if enacted late in the game just before a conflict.

    3)  Italy’s second NA is actually much broader than either of their National Objectives.  They have to own pretty much everything connected to the Med instead of just a couple of territories.

    As for why they got that instead of something else, it is pretty powerful if you collect for it and it brings them in line with the other major nations on the board with 3 NOs basically.

    Whether or not there is a better second NA for Italy, I don’t know.  If you think of a better one, I’m sure some of the testers won’t mind trying it.  But since it’s an optional rule anyway, I don’t think it’s a huge deal.

    4)  The extra bump in the war bonds was to bring the technology up in power to be like the rest.  It was deemed too weak for anyone to purposely try for it (kinda like Russia buying a battleship, happens sometimes, but not very often.)  Yes, there is a lot of randomness too it, but 83% of the time you’ll be earning 1 to 5 IPC a round off it, the other 17% of the time you’ll get 7 to 12 IPC.  It’s not a huge difference, but it can be nice when it lands in your favor.

    5)  New Technologies are acquired when you buy them.  Obviously this can be run to your advantage and this does require your opponent to be much more careful about what s/he does.  But it’s equally powerful for each side, therefore, it’s in balance.

    Just because Japan has 12 destroyers that they upgrade to Super Destroyers just before a battle does not mean America couldn’t have done the exact same thing.

    Just because Germany can turn their bomber into a heavy bomber does not mean England couldn’t do the same thing.

    6)  Technically speaking, everyone can build undetectable submarines.  Literally speaking, players generally get technologies to undo the enemy’s technologies.

    For instance, if Japan gets Heavy Bombers, America can get Radar.  Radar would basically eliminate 33% of those heavy bombers from even getting a first attack.

    Or let’s say Germany goes for Improved Shipyards making their submarines undetectable, England can counter with Long Range Aircraft and restore the detection value.

    1. I don’t know why Germany would put the Artillery in Germany and transport it to the Baltic States for an attack, but yes, you could.  Wouldn’t it be smarter to put it in Poland so you don’t use up a transport spot?

    8.) I agree with you on China’s NA.  But since NAs are completely optional, I don’t think it’ll be huge.


    Sure, we can do three games, figured one would be all you would be up for, if you would be up for any.

    It’ll be AA50e with no optional rules, just core rules.

    As for taking down posts, the forum doesn’t let you.

    As for AA50:Jen, that already exists, it’s a pure, new set of rules. (Obviously I didn’t invent every new idea in AA50:Jen, some of them were discussed in other places and other times, most in regards to AAR; but it’s new and pure because it’s not based on someone else’s house rules.)

    How about this, you edit your posts to read that the game is up to the standards of AARe and is balanced if I win 2 of three, and if I lose 2 of 3, I’ll say that you showed there was an inbalance.  Though, our game history shows you winning more games than I do, so you have a distinct advantage there.  As for experience advantage, there isn’t any, you have more experience with AARe than I do, and since the rules are almost a direct copy of AARe, you have the advantage there as well.



  • I presently have three games ongoing.  That is my limit.

    But I will let you know when I free up to play our game 1.

    I also have to defend my current AARe title over at AAMC soon in the final match, so that will take precendence whenever that game is ready to be played.


    The funny thing is that (AARe) Enhanced had the national advantages as standard, here they are optional.  Probably better that way anyways, I never thought they should even be included in AA50.


    I really think going shopping for a weapon is bad bad bad.

    I am sure there is a certain optimal sequence for buying tech for each side that could be found through a few games of play testing.  And by optimal, I mean game breaking strategies.

    The key to the success of AARe was that there was no such thing as a game breaking strategy.  When one was found, things were tweaked to fix the issue.  This version of the rules can not have been game play tested enough to tweak out those game breaking strategies.


    BTW, it appears I can ‘remove’ a post in this forum.  At least it’s an option on my threads.


    I will go over the rules {again} to try and find any gaps.  Did you fix the gaps I found in my first go round?  Please do so and repost.  I want to review an updated version as to not duplicate my previous work.

    The rules should be clear enough in a stand alone version.  There should be no gaps/assumptions (like it worked like that in AARe, so you should know that’s how it works).


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    My bad, you are correct, in this forum I do have the option to remove posts.  I must have been in a forum that did not allow it before, perhaps a game forum when last I checked.


    As for your original post of issues, I responded to them each individually.  Most of the issues were related to National Advantages, but those are optional.  As you said, there’s really no valid reason for them in Anniversary, but they were in Revised Enhanced so some players wanted to bring them over anyway.  Their argument was along the lines of “we are working up from Revised Enhanced and NAs are in Revised Enhanced, so you cannot take them out without making huge changes to Enhanced and violating your own rule of minimal changes, Jennifer.” Well, not word for word, but you get the gist of it.  So we included them as completely option with the hopes and dreams they’d never actually be used by the gaming world. 🙂

    As for an optional way to go shopping for technology, in regular Anniversary I advise certain nations to invest 5-10 IPC a round for tech.  Lately I’ve been playing with no tech for myself while letting others go for it because it was pointed out to me that tech is completely optional in Anniversary and I wanted to get a feel for playing without it.  In Anniversary Enhanced, I think tech is brought into play about the same as it was in Revised Enhanced except that you can use it instantly instead of waiting a game turn.  This really helps for major battles where you want to upgrade your destroyers right before a major engagement.  The counter to this, I have found, is that most players will assume your destroyers are super destroyers and factor that in to their movements.  It’s like assuming the enemy will have radar the round before you attack and factoring that into your purchases.  It’s more a planning and strategic thing than breaking technology.

    Also, I think you should note, that submarines are able to be undetectable and they are able to be detectable 100% of the time given technologies controlled by each side.  Also, they have been reduced to 1 IPC CRD when adjacent to a complex (this is because bombers are so much cheaper and when coupled with rockets, you can already do incredible damage to the enemy, also because submarines are so blasted cheap in Anniversary it didn’t work out to be fair to have them doing so much CRD.)


    As for Revised:Enhanced, I really enjoyed it.  There was only that one issue where the Axis could roll “Yahtzee” and win the game in Round 1 that was a problem.  It was never fixed.  (A simple fix would have been to require there to be a second round to any game.  This could hardly be seen as breaking Revised Enhanced and it would permanently end the “Yahtzee” win to which I mean: Germany takes Karelia and Caucasus on round 1, Japan takes Hawaii and India on Round 1, thus, game over.  It didn’t happen all the time, but I can remember two games I lost because the Axis did really well with the dice and got the VC before I had a chance to even do America.)

    I will attempt to reword some of the rules so they are less confusing, without making any changes.  I don’t think it would be fair to make changes without going back to at least some of the testers and asking for input.



  • @Cmdr:

    As for Revised:Enhanced, I really enjoyed it.  There was only that one issue where the Axis could roll “Yahtzee” and win the game in Round 1 that was a problem.  It was never fixed.  (A simple fix would have been to require there to be a second round to any game.  This could hardly be seen as breaking Revised Enhanced and it would permanently end the “Yahtzee” win to which I mean: Germany takes Karelia and Caucasus on round 1, Japan takes Hawaii and India on Round 1, thus, game over.  It didn’t happen all the time, but I can remember two games I lost because the Axis did really well with the dice and got the VC before I had a chance to even do America.

    That’s poor play by the allied player… allowing 4 VCs to fall round one is bad.
    They SHOULD lose then.
    UK should know how dire things are before their turn and know they HAVE to hold either India / Australia.

    Taking the appropriate NA to ensure that they could hold India would be the proper thing to do.  I am afraid I have to disagree with you here, AARe has no yahtzee wins.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Didn’t have to do with good play on anyone’s side, it had to do with the axis playing rolling “Yahtzee”.

    As the saying goes, Good Dice Rolls beat Good Tactics Anyday.



  • @Cmdr:

    Didn’t have to do with good play on anyone’s side, it had to do with the axis playing rolling “Yahtzee”.

    As the saying goes, Good Dice Rolls beat Good Tactics Anyday.

    I disagree that this is a problem with Enhanced.

    Did you read what I wrote, when UK realizes the game is on the line, they should make prudent moves to prevent 4 VC’s from being lost at the end of Japans first turn.


    As for crazy dice, that’s a problem with A&A, not just ‘Enhanced’.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 36
  • 34
  • 323
  • 16
  • 1
  • 44
  • 17
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

46
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts