Please throw us a bone!!!

[captainjack]

@Herr:

Probably the biggest addition is the introduction of Special Objectives for each country. For example, Italy receives a 10 IPC bonus for holding Libya, Algeria and Egypt (I think). Russia receives 5 IPC for every turn it holds Archangel and no other Allied units are stationed on Russian soil.

I don’t recall all the specifics, but there are 3-4 Special Objectives for each country.

That’s interesting - I haven’t heard that before.  There are definately some interesting twists in this game!

[Perry]

@Herr:

Probably the biggest addition is the introduction of Special Objectives for each country. For example, Italy receives a 10 IPC bonus for holding Libya, Algeria and Egypt (I think). Russia receives 5 IPC for every turn it holds Archangel and no other Allied units are stationed on Russian soil.

I don’t recall all the specifics, but there are 3-4 Special Objectives for each country.

What? Why, it sure sounds like we are about to experience something rather different from Revised here!  :-o
Can’t make up my mind wheter it’s a good thing or a bad thing. Someone please help me form an opinion about that  :-D :mrgreen:

[Imperious Leader]

Probably the biggest addition is the introduction of Special Objectives for each country. For example, Italy receives a 10 IPC bonus for holding Libya, Algeria and Egypt (I think). Russia receives 5 IPC for every turn it holds Archangel and no other Allied units are stationed on Russian soil.

I don’t recall all the specifics, but there are 3-4 Special Objectives for each country.

ok where do you get this?  Where you at gen con. Please elaborate everything you know. I feel you know alot more than you posted.

also welcome to this site!

[squirecam]

@Imperious:

Probably the biggest addition is the introduction of Special Objectives for each country. For example, Italy receives a 10 IPC bonus for holding Libya, Algeria and Egypt (I think). Russia receives 5 IPC for every turn it holds Archangel and no other Allied units are stationed on Russian soil.

I don’t recall all the specifics, but there are 3-4 Special Objectives for each country.

ok where do you get this?  Where you at gen con. Please elaborate everything you know. I feel you know alot more than you posted.

also welcome to this site!

Well, those who know wont break any NDA. But its a simple matter of thinking it through.

Japan wants certain territories. if it gets them, it gets IPC bonuses. What did Germany want?

“Living space”

So Germany should get bonuses for getting Ukraine Caucus, etc. And the Allies get bonuses for keeping them. Focus on that and you should figure it out…

Pretty interesting concept. It also gets Italy over the 10 IPC hurdle it faces (assuming you can meet Italy’s objectives.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes but these 10 IPC are double her IPC capacity…

If Germany keeps her sphere of influence does she get 30 More ipc?

So the question is how many IPC is the bonus for each nation?

I guess we can figure out where the bonus is, just how much is the question.

Probably why Japan wont need to attack Russia, but rather keep its IPC bonus intact

[squirecam]

@Imperious:

Yes but these 10 IPC are double her IPC capacity…

If Germany keeps her sphere of influence does she get 30 More ipc?

So the question is how many IPC is the bonus for each nation?

I guess we can figure out where the bonus is, just how much is the question.

Probably why Japan wont need to attack Russia, but rather keep its IPC bonus intact

More like 10-20.

But, If Japan is getting its bonus, that means the allies are not getting theirs. Which should mean that both the Atlantic and Pacific will be involved and not just a KGF or KJF. You cant afford to let Japan just get bonuses and not do something about them.

Not to mention, somehow Larry got the VC message. Having VC in Hawaii, Hong Kong, Shanghai, India, Manilla and Sydney means that the Allies must spend resources on Japan and not just KGF.

This really will be a world war 2 game.

[Imperious Leader]

Thats really good to hear. I hated all that KJF KGF thing. Its totally unhistorical. You cant buy nothing for one theater of war and ignore it. Now japan wont get too large.

[Herr Arnulfe]

@Imperious:

Yes but these 10 IPC are double her IPC capacity…

If Germany keeps her sphere of influence does she get 30 More ipc?

So the question is how many IPC is the bonus for each nation?

I guess we can figure out where the bonus is, just how much is the question.

Probably why Japan wont need to attack Russia, but rather keep its IPC bonus intact

I don’t think any individual objective is worth more than 10 IPCs, and I believe they’re all calculated at the end of the turn, so the opponent has a chance to capture territories before they pay out. Once a side starts gaining multiple objectives, the extra income should generate a snowball effect making the endgame play out quickly (which is good, in my opinion).

In retrospect, I think the Italy condition involves Libya, Egypt and East Africa, since Germany controls Algeria.

A couple of the special objectives require control of sea zones.

[Imperious Leader]

should generate a snowball effect making the endgame play out quickly (which is good, in my opinion).

yes really good point!  The game can end quickly now and nations just take the historical territory’s they set out in the war.
If they hold them they are as good as winners. VC may become less important than the bonus.

[Herr Arnulfe]

@Craig:

You get the country-specific bonuses at the same time you collect your normal IPCs- the end of your turn.

Thanks for clarifying that, I barely skimmed the rulebook at Gencon.

One thing I noticed though: some special objectives seem much easier to hold than others, effectively making them part of the country’s regular income. For example, Germany has one objective that requires holding Austria-Hungary, the Balkans and Romania (I think) and another that requires holding the Baltic States, Ukraine and another territory near Moscow. The first shouldn’t be difficult for Germany to cash in every turn, while the second will be a real challenge to hold.

I’ll be curious to see how the objectives play out in the '41 vs '42 setup, since they’re the same in both scenarios.

[Perry]

Being conservative, in regard to my gaming habits, I got to bitch a bit  :-)

With the “bonus” concept, isn’t there a risk that the AA50 will be very Scripted?

Like, Japan ALWAYS has to go for China (to claim the bonus/deny the Allies its bonus)

In Revised, only capitals mattered *****. The way you claimed them , could wary:
Japan could go for the Northern , Central or Southern avenue of attack on Russia , for example.
It could go to Africa and/or Australia/NZ, and all these were valid moves.

Would it be fun if every game bogged down into a slug-fest in China , for example?

I just use Japan as example, because I haven’t heard about any other country’s bonus criteria so far…

***** Yeah, right there was the VC rule, but it really didn’t have too much effect on gameplay - and many people only played Total Victory , ignoring VCs anyway. I have won a couple of games as VC victories, just because my opponents forgot we were playing a VC game … :-P :mrgreen:

[captainjack]

@Perry:

Being conservative, in regard to my gaming habits, I got to b**** a bit  :-)

With the “bonus” concept, isn’t there a risk that the AA50 will be very Scripted?

Like, Japan ALWAYS has to go for China (to claim the bonus/deny the Allies its bonus)

In Revised, only capitals mattered *****. The way you claimed them , could wary:
Japan could go for the Northern , Central or Southern avenue of attack on Russia , for example.
It could go to Africa and/or Australia/NZ, and all these were valid moves.

Would it be fun if every game bogged down into a slug-fest in China , for example?

I just use Japan as example, because I haven’t heard about any other country’s bonus criteria so far…

***** Yeah, right there was the VC rule, but it really didn’t have too much effect on gameplay - and many people only played Total Victory , ignoring VCs anyway. I have won a couple of games as VC victories, just because my opponents forgot we were playing a VC game … :-P :mrgreen:

I suppose whether or not you use the bonus system could be up to the player (like a house rule).  By the sounds of things, it looks like the only country that might NEED the bonus is Italy.

[Romulus]

I suspect that bonuses are necessary for the economy of all the Axis nations and maybe they are strictly connected with the balancing of the game as a sort of bid that you have to gain.

So I think that it could be not possible to avoid their use.

[Perry]

@Romulus:

I suspect that bonuses are necessary for the economy of all the Axis nations and maybe they are strictly connected with the balancing of the game as a sort of bid that you have to gain.

So I think that it could be not possible to avoid their use.

My thought exactly.

Many have already drawn the conclusion that many changes from between Revised -> AA50 , does benefit the Allies. And Revised already had an in-built Allied Advantage.

AA50 seems to handle that via the bonus system.

Fair enough for me. It will be exciting to explore that system!
My concern, though, was that a bonus system , which the Axis NEED to follow, in order to win, MIGHT lead to scripted games.

Wheter or not that will be the case, is obviously up for discussion…

[Guest]

@Perry:

@Romulus:

I suspect that bonuses are necessary for the economy of all the Axis nations and maybe they are strictly connected with the balancing of the game as a sort of bid that you have to gain.

So I think that it could be not possible to avoid their use.

My thought exactly.

Many have already drawn the conclusion that many changes from between Revised -> AA50 , does benefit the Allies. And Revised already had an in-built Allied Advantage.

AA50 seems to handle that via the bonus system.

Fair enough for me. It will be exciting to explore that system!
My concern, though, was that a bonus system , which the Axis NEED to follow, in order to win, MIGHT lead to scripted games.

Wheter or not that will be the case, is obviously up for discussion…

I think your points are valid.  There are so many buffs to the Allies and nerfs to the Axis that without bonuses, it might be game over very early… I am pretty sure a country HAS to go for its bonuses if it plans on winning, from the sound of it.  If claiming its bonuses takes up most of a country’s resources, the game will definitely be scripted.

I do agree that something I liked about revised is that really, all that mattered was taking a capital.  VCs were there but more of a measure of victory, not something that especially mattered, especially for the Axis who couldn’t win a 9 VC game without capping a capital.  Hence, many possible strategies.  However, I think the main reason Japan Tank Rush to Moscow happened was because the US could completely ignore Japan.  Japan’s focus in revised should have been beating down US forces in the Pacific, so that US was drained from fighting the war in Europe.  The problem is, USA could ignore Japan completely, giving Japan nothing better to do than go after Russia (Japan going after Russia is, I believe, the direct effect of a US player not spending effort on Japan, giving them nothing better to do obviously).  In AA50, thanks to objectives and new VC, it seems that America will have to devote some effort to Japan.

(Personally, as the US, I prefer to do some minor island hopping to keep Japan out of Russia… giving Russia some freedom is very useful)

[losttribe04]

My big beef with the new VC’s is Ottawa is one of them.

How many N. American VC’s do we need?  I think S Africa should have been considered.  Historically it may not even of had a role but it would have made Africa an even more sought after place.

LT

[squirecam]

@LT04:

My big beef with the new VC’s is Ottawa is one of them.

How many N. American VC’s do we need?  I think S Africa should have been considered.  Historically it may not even of had a role but it would have made Africa an even more sought after place.

LT

True, but remember this…

If Japan cannot really drive on USSR, it has nothing better to do then take allied VC. These include the north american ones.

The “forced” pacific war will prevent the KGF people usually do.

[Imperious Leader]

With the “bonus” concept, isn’t there a risk that the AA50 will be very Scripted?

Yes but this is a good thing really, because now the team concept in gameplay is less important and gets this tug from national aspirations for taking only the territories they historically were interested in and rewarding them for it.

The Soviets wont always do what the US/UK player tells them, because it sees its own independent goals running and not always flowing the same way as what the allies do. The Russians most likely will leave Japan alone much to the chagrin of the American player, because her goals are in eastern Europe, While Germany is focused in Russia, Italy in Africa, UK probably will be hard to play because her goals would be located far from her ability to control. America must commit to a realistic 2 front war. All this introduces totally new strategies and revitalizes the game for a totally new experience.

Scripted is what the game calls for. All historical games basically follow what was possible given the capabilities of the period. Revised was scripted too in a way, but scripted in a way that was sometimes ridiculously impossible to occur, and this game ropes in a bit of that behavior it seems.

[Imperious Leader]

I am not, but if a nation has kept its bonus for a number of turns… then the game can be won by the economic weight.

Its a mechanism in the game thats most vital to help it promote battles and secondly to promote a rapid conclusion in the event one side has held its bonus for a period of time.

[squirecam]

@Craig:

No one is forced to go after their bonuses, but I understand your concern about being channeled into playing the game along certain lines.

I would think that changes to the map, especially in Asia, will automatically make it much more difficult for Japan to go inland.  As such, they will naturally want to work in the Pacific.

Whether that is go or bad is up to the individual tastes of the gamer.

Craig

Right, but where in Revised there are no Allied VC besides India, there are several now in the Pacific. The allies (i.e. the US) cannot afford to just let Japan be. Making it harder for Japan on the mainland is balanced by making the USA work in the pacific.