@P@nther:
Since Jet Fighters increases fighters’ attack values to equal their defense values in normal combat, I’d say it would do the same in SBRs, allowing attacking fighters to roll on a 2. However, Larry will need to confirm that.
But this is still not confirmed by Larry as I think. Or is it?
Yes, it’s just been confirmed. It will be in the next version of the FAQ (soon, I hope).
Great, thank you :-)
What I don’t get with this new rule is the dogfighting attack/defense values. Why in the world do the defending fighters get a defense roll of “2”, but the attacking fighters only get an attack roll of “1”. The fighters should roll at the same values either botth roll at 1’s or bothh roll at 2’s and have the bombers roll 1’s to hit the defending fighters.
When playing with tech attacking fighters are supposed to attack with “2” with Jet Fighter technology.
See
Since Jet Fighters increases fighters’ attack values to equal their defense values in normal combat, I’d say it would do the same in SBRs, allowing attacking fighters to roll on a 2. However, Larry will need to confirm that.
But this is still not confirmed by Larry as I think. Or is it?
Just to be sure:
What you explained, Krieghund, is because of the rulebook that - concerning bombardment attacks limits - does not refer to the number of units that are unloaded FROM any number of transports in any seazone but to the number of units that are offloaded IN that coastal territory, right?
what do you think about fleet markers?
What exactly do you mean? Like those things used in AAR FTF?
sorry i only know AA50. i agree that having the units in place looks cool, but its really annoying moving big naval groups bit by bit ( i know CRTL / Shift function ;) )
i though of something like this. now u could place jap F1 marker in sz and the actual fleet plus F1 marker in … um… mongolia :D, UK fleets go to sahara :mrgreen:( i also changed bombers ( with bombs :evil:) and AC ( make thicker) thx to P@nther for input! )
You’re welcome :-)
I think the idea of fleet-markers is great. It reminds me of the old marshaling circles and cards I read about here:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=1702&sid=f8cee6efbf1d2010c0b3941857d1f928
According to the rules a round of play consists of 1 turn of each nation. So Germany can be hit by rockets in UK’s turn and US’ turn, too, as these are different turns.
HTH :-)
Buy it! I bought AA50 when it was released in Germany via amazon.de and paid EURO 71,- for it. Today you will get AA50 at amazon only via marketplace. The price arised to EURO 198 + shipping so far.
So AA50 - beneath being a great game experience - seems to be a good investment of money, too :-)
Colors are only part of the bmp. When you start changing territory shapes and sizes, you’ll need to adjust SektorInfo.map/bmp. If you want to change name or properties of a territory, you’ll need to adjust SektorInfo.sek/txt.
So in short: to adjust colors, you’ll only need to adjust map.bmp ;)
Thank you. One far day I will have learned the secrets of ABattlemap ;-)
Are you sure about this? my understanding is that the since the sz is still not hostile, and since subs can be ignored (right?), the units are not forced to make a combat move, and thus can make a noncombat move.
Reading the pararaph that is headlined with “Sea Units starting in hostile sea zones” on p14 of the rulebook I would tend to agree with you because submarines/transports are excluded. So I interpret this as follows:
As enemy submarines/transports can be ignored (as long as there is no other enemy surface warship) there is no need for a reaction/movement in the combat movement phase. There is no need for a combat, either. The seazone is not even considered as hostile. So there will be noncombat moves possible.
But I’m sure Krieghund will clarify this for us :-)
Thank you in advance.
Although I like the grey tones as they are and do not have any problems with them I am just curious how to change the colors in the map.bmp .
I know how to modify the ToolPieces.bmp and the BigPieces.bmp. But how to modify the map.bmp? Is it just a matter of picture editing in paint - or are the colours defined in one of those
.map, .sek or .txt files?
Rolls: 10@10; Total Hits: 1010@10: (6, 5, 5, 3, 1, 1, 5, 5, 2, 3)
Rolling 20d20:
(1, 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 10, 10, 14, 14, 15, 15, 15, 17, 17, 17, 17, 19, 20)
Concerning the time-scale of one turn this post may be interesting:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=13547.0
:-)
Thank you all for your comments so far :-)
I think the rulebook helps out here:
First of all in an amphib. assault sea combat occurs before land combat (p17).
Second: when a carrier is attacked, its fighters are considered to be defending in the air (p28).
Third: a fighter based on a defending carrier that is destroyed in combat must try to land … this movement occurs after all of the attacker’s combats have been resolved and before the attacker’s NCM phase begins (p27).
HTH :-)
AA50 is my first AA game - and I like it very much. In the first three months after buying the boardgame I have spent a lot of spare time to learn the rules, to read in this forum, to set up ABattlemap, to play the first games and so on.
Having read a lot of articles and comments on other AA-games I found out that AAR seems to be the “parent” of AA50.
I would like to ask the “veteran” players:
Is AA50 the “better” AAR then? What do you think?
Another question:
One of the SU’s NO is: “Gain 5 IPC if no Allied forces are present in a territory controlled by the SU and if the Soviets control Archangel.”
Let us consider a scenario, in which the SU controlls and holds only Russia and Archangel. All other soviet territories are captured by Axis powers.
The SU will still gain 5 IPC because no Allied forces are present in one of the two territories controlled by the SU.
Am I right?
1. DM
2. Jennifer
3. Uberlager
4. flesh_pile
5. Danger Mouse
6. Lynxes
7. Questioneer
8. HolKann
9. eudemonist
10. MatildaMike
11. Perry
12. Funcioneta
13. anchovy
14. BigRedOne
15. Bardoly
16. Ogrebait
17. tcnance
18. Botider
19. atarihuana
20. P@nther
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
… and for me :-)