Topics created by TheMarshall

Thank you. That was the conclusion we reached, and the airbase ended up, rather uselessly, on the West Indies.

@themarshall Are you the creator of those circles (kind of look like a target)…I have another player aid with those that are on an 11x17" card. Just wondering who created those.

@ancient:

May I suggest an amendment to your rules.  Any roll under a 3 is treated as a 3.  This way someone is not totally screwed by continually rolling 1s and 2s.  This may have the affect that you will need to raise the tech values a little though.

So the possibilities would be 0, 3, 4, or 5 points, with a 50% chance of 3 points?  That takes a significant portion of the randomness out of it.  Even with that system, someone could be continually screwed by repeated 6s being rolled.

The purpose of my system was to acheive a greater balance between risk and reward.  I think your alteration swings too much away from risk.  That’s the nature of the game.  Sometimes your heavy bombers roll a bunch of 5s and 6s.  The dice bite you some times.

Allow me to add the caveat that I haven’t actually played a game with these rules yet, so maybe it will all become clear once I see it in action.  Perhaps one of you can explain to me the error of my ways

This is the problem.

Wait till your LIFE is depending on those damn things, and suddenly you’ll appreciate them.

Atleast they DIE as opposed to change sides to your enemy, and cost $6.  And atleast if you have to face them, you can overwhelm them - OR protect your bombers from them.

@maverick_76:

I actually quit because they were only willing to give me 4 bananas a day, I wanted 6; dammit I got kids to feed!

😄  Gotta feed the chimps, or they mutiny

@frimmel:

I’m not much for House Rules. If I had wanted to make my own game I would not have bought one.  🙂

House rules aren’t for everybody.  Nothing wrong with playing the game as written.  I just can’t resist meddling.

@frimmel:

Also your fourth version point on VPs seems sort of silly. Why add a complex rule when you could just increase the points required for Victory or add a Win by X rule? This and your first point of not scoring the airfields on round 1 are essentially the same thing. Again add points required for victory or must win by X rule (to simulate your dominance of the air)

Simply increasing the points would only serve to extend the length of the game, while this proposed rule ensures that one side must clearly dominate for a period of time in order to win.  Consider this example:  The two teams score the same number of points for ten rounds, and then one team manages to score one more point than the other.  That team has then won under the original rules.  Under this proposed rule, that team would still have to score five more victory points (or whatever number you use) in order to win.  This rule would produce a clearer winner, in my opinion.  I suppose a “win by X” rule would produce the same effect, but it would be hard to keep track of it using the point markers on the board.

@Imperious:

OMFG. This is bogus. Cruisers were the most potent Anti-Aircraft platforms of the war. As a protector of escorted ships from aerial attack they were the best defenders on average. The destroyer concentrated its defense on ASW because it was faster, while the cruisers could bulk up on lots of smaller guns because they had the deck space.

It’s not completely bogus if you consider that many U.S. cruisers had no AA capabilities except for some .50 machine guns when they were constructed.  Not a perfect rule to be sure, especially on the Japanese side, but I just threw it out there for consideration.

@legion3:

The CAP in this game is really to powerful, CAP at this point in the war, did not stop any determined air attack before they reached the ships, heck even at the “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot” a few Japanese planes got through and attacked the ships, causing no damage. This game has airbattles where all the planes are shot down on both sides in the air phase. WOW!

Having played some more games, I heartily agree.  I’m not sure the best way to fix it though.  I’ve thought about reducing the air attack of planes by 1, but if you do, it seems like you could produce a huge fighter swarm with nothing that could destroy it fast enough to protect your fleets.  Since fighters are so cheap, you can build a lot of them easily.  I guess I’ll just have to experiment and find out.

@Imperious:

Its called Grimmax however, Gleeminimum is also acceptable

Tomato, Tomahto, Potato, Potahto They really should have called that thing off.  :lol:

I agree that the rules can be a little overwhelming for new players, and that’s actually one of the things I like about AAG.  The rules are simple but elegant,

Simple but elegant. Agreed.  I like that the phases are all broken down to rather small components. That there isn’t a lot of things to keep track of in terms of things like, How far did I move this aircraft? Did I move this transport? Not a lot of special abilities and things. Even though I’m not a big fan of subs I think this game has a pretty good sub rule.

And as to subs. To add a Destroyer detects or prevents rule you will have to give the sub another ability it seems to me or change its cost wouldn’t you? Or don’t you get into adding a hunts subs phase to Naval combat or whatever and muddying up a pretty clean sub rule?