Mine arrived today from coolstuffinc (with a few other games to get free shipping).

AA50 was a better buy given how much more stuff it had, but I really enjoyed the original AAP and this game looks nifty… anyone in western MA looking to play?

@Cmdr:

I believe it was the intent too keep the extremely low priced submarines from being too powerful.  I think this might make submarines way too powerful again.  After all, we are talking about a potential 5 IPC unit that attacks at 3 or less and cannot be hit by the target it sinks in the water.  No other unit has that ability, nor that price.

That’s a good point, though it assumes two techs and I don’t think it’s as powerful as heavy bombers (and certainly it’s not as bad as heavy bombers + long range aircraft).

@Cmdr:

Now, admittedly, I think in most games submarines are virtually useless.  They’re more of a way too keep your opponent honest and protect his transports than anything else.

Right, subs are too weak but I don’t want to mess up the game balance.

@Cmdr:

What the designers did was add in a unit to replace the submarine: the destroyer.  It costs the same as a submarine in Revised did, it has the same attack/defend abilities as a submarine did (except it can also defend against air attack, which submarines could not do before) it moves as far as a submarine, it can block enemy movement like a submarine.  In all respects (except defending against air attack and not getting a sneak shot) destroyers in AA50 are identical to submarines in Classic/AAR.

I believe your best option would be to just use destroyers as you did submarines before.

Even with AA50’s long-overdue unit cost reductions, fleets are still expensive so I don’t like the idea of having to use DDs as fodder instead of subs.

@WILD:

When I started playing AA50 two things took some time to get used to. 1st was transports. I could see why a transport shouldn’t get a shot at a plane or war ship. I didn’t like losing them at the end of a sea battle or when the enemy could just do flybys and kill them without firing. I’m warming up to it though.

I like that trns aren’t in the battle.  In fact, so far I like all of the AA50 rule changes except for defending subs not being able to be used as fodder against planes.

@WILD:

Its like why would the enemy bring a destroyer into the battle, it would be a penalty.

Exactly.  Sure there are some scenarios where sending in a destroyer makes sense, but there are many in which an attacker would choose not to send in a destroyer to ensure that planes hit only non-sub defending units.  It doesn’t make sense to be penalized for bringing destroyers into a battle and also allows for loophole-ish manipulation.

@WILD:

My son pointed out however if you captained a sub and your fleet was attacked by only air units would you stay on the surface and wave your arms in the air and say here I am ignore that battleship and shoot at me.

Keeping subs on the surface to give planes something else to shoot at isn’t as far fetched as it might seem; sacrifice for the sake of delaying/distracting an enemy from more important objectives isn’t that uncommon.

I may try my house rule next game… it shouldn’t diminish the role of DDs as sub hunters and I don’t think it’ll make subs too powerful.  But given the amount of play testing that takes place, I assume that the game designers kept the rules the way they are for a reason.  Perhaps I just haven’t played enough and this isn’t as big a problem as I think it is.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback!

@Krieghund:

Both the manual and the FAQ are correct.  The key concept is that subs can be ignored during movement.  From the FAQ:

Q.  Let’s say I attack a sea zone that contains both enemy subs and surface warships.  If at some point during the battle, all of the enemy surface warships are sunk and only subs remain, can I ignore the subs and end the battle?
A.  No.  Subs (and/or transports) can only be ignored during movement, and you can only ignore them when there are no surface warships in the sea zone with them.  When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the enemy units in that sea zone.

So if there are only enemy subs and/or transports blocking your amphibious assault, you can choose to ignore them and they won’t block it.  However, if you choose to attack them (or if there are also surface warships there and you are forced to attack them), you must defeat all of the defending units before your amphibious assault can proceed.

In a nutshell, subs will only fail to block your assault if you never attack them in the first place or if they submerged after you attack them.  Once you attack them, they will block it until they are destroyed or they submerge.  Does that make sense?

As a side note, there is a pending erratum to change the wording of the passage you quoted from the manual to make it a little more clear.  The corrected wording will be “If there was no sea battle or the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy units except transports and submerged submarines,”.  I don’t yet know when this will be published.

Thanks for the reply.  That’s exactly how I interpreted it, except that I think the FAQ is correct and the manual is wrong since it says that an amphibious attack takes place in the step after a sea battle “If the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy warships except submarines and transports”.

Had that wording been “is clear of” instead of “has been cleared of”, it wouldn’t seem like they meant that subs could be there after a sea battle took place.  Good to know there’s updated errata on the way.

Do subs block an amphibious attack after a sea combat?

The manual clearly states that subs do not block transports from conducting an amphibious attack.  Additionally, page 17 specifies that even after a sea battle, subs do not block trns:

Step 3. Land Combat: If the sea zone has been cleared of all defending enemy warships except submarines and transports, and the attacker still has land units committed to the coastal territory, move all attacking and defending units to the battle board and conduct combat using the general combat rules (on the next page). Remember to put casualties from bombardment (if any) in the casualty zone.

However the FAQ states:

An attacking force consisting of two bombers, a destroyer and two loaded transports is attempting an amphibious assault.  The sea zone is defended by a destroyer and two submarines.  In the first combat round, all of the attacking units fire and get one hit.  The defender takes the destroyer as the casualty and returns fire, missing with his destroyer but rolling snake eyes for his subs and scoring two hits!  The attacker must take his destroyer for the first hit, since subs can’t hit planes and transports must be taken last as casualties.  The second hit must now be taken on a transport, since that’s the only eligible unit remaining.  The attacker is now in a sticky situation.  He has only two bombers and a transport remaining against two defending subs.  Since the bombers can no longer hit the subs (the attacker doesn’t have a destroyer), and the subs can’t hit the bombers, the only effective firing going on will be the subs firing on the transport.  It’s only a matter of time before the subs sink the transport, but the transport can still retreat before it is hit, so it’s not defenseless.  The attacker’s only real option at this point is to retreat before the remaining transport is destroyed.

So according to the FAQ, a defending sub that survived a sea battle blocks a trn.  That seems to contradict the manual, but I didn’t see anything in the Errata section correcting the manual.  So unless I missed something, either:

• The manual is correct and the FAQ is wrong, or

• The FAQ is correct, the manual is wrong, and the errata is incomplete.

IMO, if there are defending not-submerged subs after a battle, the trns should have to retreat before the amphibious landing or be destroyed (since if the battle continued, they’d be sunk by the subs).  But if defending subs submerge, then the amphibious attack happens.  I believe this is in line with the spirit of the rules and the FAQ (which states “When you attack a sea zone, you attack all of the enemy units in that sea zone”), but what do you think?

IMO, subs are too weak if they can’t be used as defending fodder (I know some other user agree as I read posts complaining about this).  To illustrate, suppose USA approaches Japan with an invasion force and Japan strikes first:

Japan (attacker):
8 ftr
2 bmb

USA (defender):
2 CV
4 ftr
8 sub
2 dd
4 trn

The rules are fairly clear that in this battle the USA can’t choose to take subs as losses, which means Japan has a ~90% chance of victory (killing everything except for the subs).  I’m contemplating a house rule that states:

Defending subs can be hit by any air/sea units regardless of whether or not an attacking DD is present.  However, if no enemy DD is present, the subs may submerge before any rolling.  If subs attack and no defending DD is present, then defending air units can’t hit subs (even when they’re on the surface).

(I believe that the last two sentences are how it already works, but I included them with the house rule for clarity)

This way subs’ current capabilities are preserved, but they can now be used as defending fodder.  Does that seem reasonable to the more experienced players here or does it throw off the game mechanics? (I’ve only played AA50 a couple times)

@Craig:

@Imperious:

Shogun was not reprinted

Actually, Shogun was reprinted.  But the name was changed to Samurai Swords.

Yeah I mentioned that in the thread about this thread 

@Imperious:

It was not Shogun then.

Bah!  I have the reprint; it’s identical and even has “Originally Sold As Shogun” on the cover 

BTW everyone, AA42 is available online for pre-order for $19.99 at coolstuffinc.com (spend $100 for free shipping).

@critmonster:

Posted by: deslock
How about limiting each IC to being attacked twice per turn? (by bombers and rockets)

If I understand things correctly, that is how the rules work already, you can bomb and rocket each factory in range: max damage double icp value

My understanding is that only one rocket can be fired per turn at each IC while there is no limit to the number of bombers that can hit each IC.

Because there is a limit to how much damage each IC can have, heavy bombers aren’t as broken as they could be.  So I’m more concerned with making rockets more powerful (than with weakening heavy bombers).

@TimTheEnchanter:

each IC may only be hit by one AA/rocket during a turn

We mistakenly played that multiple AA guns could fire rockets at a single IC.  Like heavy bombers, it was too
powerful.  However, only being able to to fire one rocket at each IC is too weak.

How about limiting each IC to being attacked twice per turn? (by bombers and rockets)

Another idea is to reduce rockets’ range to 2, but allow an unlimited number of rockets to fire at each IC. That’s more interesting, though it doesn’t fix heavy bombers.

@Imperious:

Ok back on topic:

Is the name Deslock a reference to Space Cruiser Yamato, the young general of the Gorgon Empire?

Yeah.  When I was 9, I rushed home from school everyday to watch Starblazers.  It’s actually Desslok (or Dessler in the Japanese version), but I didn’t know that until years after picking Deslock for a call-sign.  Never bothered changing it.

P.S. That’s on topic? 

I was about to reply to that thread when it was moved.  FYI Shogun was reprinted (as Samurai Swords).  I don’t expect AA50 to be reprinted, but then again I won’t be surprised if it is.