Yes, they will send 6 additional japanese Tac bombers free of charge. They may or may not require a receipt, but in general it’s been “no questions asked”.
When I first got Pacific 40, I didn’t even realize the game was short of Jap Tac Bombers. I e-mailed them for a new battle strip and they sent it to me with an extra 6 Jap Tac Bombers. At the time I thought it was just a little bonus, but I guess it was sort of an automatic thing they set up. If someone asks for one thing, they get both automatically.
I don’t have much advice, have not been to GENCON since its been to Milwaukee.
Play games you like, make SURE to see the artwork, watch all the weirdos walk around, by swords, roll dice, drink alot of beer, roll some more dice. Go see a sci-fi show, participate in a sci-fi show, you know, have fun.
Another question, who’s going to be there, and who’s in the AA50 tourney?
I have not yet played a single game of AA50 with tech. I choosed the 6-10 games option, but I think almost as many games I played have ended rnd 5 or sooner. So for me it’s about 50%-50% split between up to 6 rnds, and more than 6 rnds.
My record for “long game” I think is 9 rnds, maybe 10.
With NOs I would be suprised if games takes longer than 10 rnds. NOs are a mechanism for shortening games, b/c one side will get substansially more money than in a game w/o NOs, as soon as they start getting the upperhand.
Sorry for posting in the wrong area…I’m still learning my way around this forum. 😛
I can’t take full credit for my suggestion. There’s another game that I occasionally play that has a both a technology angle and fits within a historical context. The game is structured so that certain additional capabilities that become available to the opponents are tied to both a continuous investment of resources and a turn-based timeline.
Technological developments had a major impact on the conduct of WWII. B-29’s, Me-262’s, V-2’s, fast carriers, Tiger tanks, etc. all changed the nature of the battle, but none of them were available in the early years. I’d like to retain the concept of weapons development, but I would also like to see them roll out in a more logical and historical sequence.
p.s. If you want to make the game real interesting, create a viable tech pathway that allow the development of a limited number of nukes late in the game! Talk about a game changer…. :evil:
I like AA50 better. We actually succeeded with a Kill Japan First strategy in the 1941 scenario, which I didn’t initially think was possible, which made for an exciting pacific game, for once. I love the inclusion of Italy, and the way research is conducted means that people buy it and inevitably a couple players will get technologies, which makes every game different.
AA50 is a sight better than Revised in my opinion, and is worth the money. I can’t think of any changes from Revised to AA50 that I wouldn’t consider an improvement.
The page 7 reference is to the chart at the bottom of the page called “Spaces on the Game Board”. It defines an island group as a game board space. A land territory is also defined as a game board space, so the definition on page 8 of an island as a territory located inside a sea zone also defines it as a separate game board space.
There’s also this FAQ entry:
Can a fighter take part in a naval battle in a sea zone and then in a battle for the island in that sea zone?
No. The island is not part of the sea zone; it’s a different map space that is adjacent to the sea zone but not part of it.
I used to use macs. They were frustrating. Some people like them. That’s fine. Some people like self-fladulation too. Some people like Rocky-Road Ice Cream. On both accounts, I do not like them.
As for ability to pick battles, you were the one attempting to make someone look stupid by picking out two quotes that exactly compliment each other and attempting to show a contradiction. Not my fault you chose poorly. Perhaps you’re the European leader who understands the basics of combat but who chooses the wrong target?