@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.
MY review
-
Might be more doable to nerf America in AA50 if you double the IPC value of Chinese territories when under Chinese control and give China a couple of tanks, an AA Gun and an IC.
Since China is US controlled anyway.
-
Hmm, how about a little NO for Japan which states: “+5 IPC if no originally Russian territory is owned by Japan” This would make it a bit less favourable to attack Bry or Far, as Japan would loose IPC’s that way 8)
-
+5 is a lot not to attack. It would take Japan many turns to get 5 (1ipc) territories from the Russians without ignoring other areas.
I suggest a neg one time penalty of -5 on the start of hostilities with Russia instead. -
Poor Review
-
+5 is a lot not to attack. It would take Japan many turns to get 5 (1ipc) territories from the Russians without ignoring other areas.
I suggest a neg one time penalty of -5 on the start of hostilities with Russia instead.Naah, loosing 5 income for conquering Russia is not a lot: after 3 territories you’re back on the plus side (-5 +3 for Japan, -3 for Russia == +1 for the Axis (or -1 for the Allies)). It’s not making Japan never going to attack Russia, it’s making Russia a bit less attractive for Japan to conquer. I think this would be best: Russia NO: “+5 IPC if at least one original Russian territory is controlled by Japan”.
-
You know, looking at it all, I’m seeing a Kill America First strategy that could be potent.
Also, Italy is not a nothing nation slave for Germany. Italy should own Africa which would give it income on par with Germany almost (assuming Germany starts having issues with Russia/England)
-
What about having a 12 VC victory condition for the Axis? I don’t think Japan could be ignored then, and the Japs themselves needn’t go JTDTM when victory is closer by. To boost the Allies you could tweak the NOs in the Allied favour or giving the Chinese the '42 setup in '41 or both.
-
The Soviet factories are huge problematic points that prove a weakness in the Soviet position and make it much harder to “give up land for time” because frankly nothing can stop German tanks from taking Karelia factory, while the Soviets by even trying to defend Moscow or the factories face an unmitigated task of stopping the Panzers from multiple defensive points.
This is the one thing that I find most perplexing about the new set up.
Why, of all places, did they choose Karelia as the location for the only new starting Factory in AA50?
Doesn’t this part of the map receive enough attention already?With the production hit on Moscow (down to 6 ipcs) and the oportunity for the Axis to triple team Russia, this decision only makes the game even more dependent on direct British involvement in Russia along the northern route. We had a number of alternative locations for a new starting factory that would have been much more promising. India, Australia, or even Hawaii (if they’d given it a boost to 2 ipcs) would have all dramatically improved the gameplay, and certainly been more interesting than Karelia. I never expected to see a starting factory at a value of 2 anyway, but now that the precedent has been established, why wouldn’t you do it for a part of the map that might really benefit from a new starting factory? I feel like some of these things are just so obvious, it makes me wonder who dropped the ball during playtesting, that they couldn’t see the Karelia thing coming. Factories should be used like anchors for parts of the map that aren’t receiving enough action already. Karelia is like the total antithesis of that, since its arguably the most active territory on the board.
For the Russians the factory is a liability rather than a boon, and it doesn’t do much to change the basic dynamic out of Revised. If the rationale was that the Germans needed another factory to use, then they should have put it somewhere more compelling, like Poland or Romania. But forget about reworking the Eastern Front, we’ve been down that road twice now. Instead, we need to focus on the South Pacific and India. It doesn’t matter how many new territories or factories we put in Russia, if the Pacific remains inactive, we’re still going to see the same patterns all over again.
Suggestions:
Minor:
-Allow Factories to be destroyed by their current owner at the end of the Mobilize Units phase (“scorched earth”).
-Lower the cost of new Factories to 12 ipcsMajor:
-Increase the production value of each Capital by 2 ipcs, increase every other territory by 1 ipc.
-add 3 more Victory Cities in contested areas of the map!I think if you did that the core game would be much improved. The first minor adjustment alone, would allow for a much more interesting endgame. :)
-
@Cmdr:
I dunno, I’ve felt that the axis are too strong in AAR at times and that maybe Russia needed a boost there too.
I don’t know why Larry has it in for the Russians. Maybe he had one too many nuclear attack preparedness drills as a child or something.
Russia always had a strong military, the problem wasn’t lack of equipment, it was lack of experience, lack of motivation and last year’s technology. So why is it they almost never get equipment and this is the first time they’ve been boosted in income? (not like you have a prayer of collecting that income twice mind you.)
We don’t really need to screw around with NOs and bonus units etc. All we need to do is rule out any Russian-Japanese attacks until a capitol falls. That one fix alone would give Russia a significant boost in defensive power. (And it would still take 5 rounds for Russia to walk some of those infantry up to Germany, so it isn’t like a magic wand that Russia gets a mass of troops.)
-
Regarding the Soviet factories problem:
On my map the Trans-Urals territory is the 2nd Soviet IC, with the Leningrad & Stalingrad factories relatively minor, certainly not game-losing for the Russians.
This refelcts the movement of weapons production to this area, well beyond German bomber range. The majority of Soviet tanks were produced here, then railed to the front line.Of course this cannot be reflected on the official map which, despite cosmetic suggestion otherwise, still makes the main Russia/Moscow territory too important and therefore makes a German K-O blow easier to achieve. If instead we reduce the importance of Moscow by deleting the silly “capture-the-capitol” rules and place a powerful Trans-Ural territory further east it gives the Soviets a unit-producing territory to fall back on, thus removing the K-O and forcing the Germans to adopt a much broader strategy.
Of course they could build a factory further east, but the Soviet player can hardly afford this and in fact the Urals area was already established as an industrial centre before the war, probably even then more important than either Leningrad or Stalingrad.
Moreover, I don’t allow nations to use captured ICs, which is totally unhistorical.
Another big omission in my view is the pripet marsh territory, roughly equivalent to the “East Poland” area on the new map. Make this a swamp and it should slow the Germans down a little. My pripet marsh is accessible to infantry only, making it difficult to capture, and forcing tanks and artillery to drive round it (aircraft can fly over, but not attack or land there).
Looking at the map my guess is that the whole German attack pivots on “EP”, it being 2 spaces from the 3 key objectives.
-
I find it ironic how a thread deftly titled “MY Review” has quickly snowballed into EVERYONE’S thoughts and opinions of the game. Good one. :wink:
Really quickly though, the idea of having an IPC rich Complex in the Urals makes Russia a far more tempting target to Japan than ever before. I’m NOT one those guys who ridicules the erroneous notion of Japan having more sway over Russia than Germany. But it seems like the natural progression of the game if this rule ever got implemented.
Imperious Leader,
I enjoyed your review a lot. Even though you mentioned all the flaws of the game, to me it made the game worth owning even more. I dare say it felt “refreshing” to hear a much different take of A&A in general than what I was accustomed to before.
-
You must own this game. Its an event and not a mere ‘purchase’
I don’t think we will see another game like this in our lifetime in terms of components and quality. I really think the print run is somewhat limited even if they are not saying anything the game may have been produced in a huge initial quantity to get the price down, but after 5 years i don’t imagine any more in print….think History of the world by AH.
If you want old school AA playing just play 42 with technology only. That version is the closest thing to basic Revised adaptation.
41 is a wild ride like a roller coaster and the NO’s would only make the axis even more strong in 41.
I think the NO may work in 42.
-
@TG:
I find it ironic how a thread deftly titled “MY Review” has quickly snowballed into EVERYONE’S thoughts and opinions of the game. Good one. :wink:
Really quickly though, the idea of having an IPC rich Complex in the Urals makes Russia a far more tempting target to Japan than ever before. I’m NOT one those guys who ridicules the erroneous notion of Japan having more sway over Russia than Germany. But it seems like the natural progression of the game if this rule ever got implemented.
I should have qualified the statement; I’m a little rusty on A&A at the moment.
To clarify:
(See my map for the alternative layout.)
This is fundamentally different because the official maps all telescope eastern Europe further east to make the territories physically larger. For example on the new map “Western Poland” is where Eastern Poland should be.
This results in European Russia becoming squashed into the Urals, so the Russia/Moscow territory represents a much larger area than it should, meaning fewer Soviet territories which makes Russia easier to conquer.USSR works very differently in my versions because:
1. I have the Soviet/Japanese non-aggro pact, which means the two are not at war until much later in the game (therefore “Tankograd” is not under threat from the east).
2. I allow nations to place infantry in any free “home” territory up to the IPC value of that territory, regardless of the presence of an IC, including those just liberated. I use “home” here in the strictest sense, i.e. Japan cannot place in Burma, Germany cannot place in Poland etc.
For obvious reasons the Soviets benefit most from this rule.
note: Ostland, Ukraine and West Russia are Soviet “home”.3. I don’t allow the building of new ICs, nor the use of captured complexes.
4. The pripet marsh territory provides a natural breakwater to the eastern front, slowing down the movement so benefitting Russia under an early German onslaught.
5. By not telescoping the map there are many more Russian territories, making it more difficult for the Germans to “hold down Russia”.
6. I do not, of course, allow US/UK units on Russian soil (apart from refueling aircraft and shipping).
7. No capture the capitol/capital rule, therefore Russia fights on from the Urals even if Len/Mos/Sta all fall.
http://www.vor.ru/English/Victory/vict_18.html
Of course this raises the question as to wheather or not the Urals should start with a complex; I would say in the 1942 scenario yes; this represents industry moved from the west. For 1941 perhaps it should be an option to move a factory here, with a starting comlex in… Ukraine?
But this would be captured by G1, so perhaps the Leningrad factory is a more likely candidate to shift east. -
Flashman,
Yes. After looking at your map, it’s more “complete” than A&A:50. I’m just worried you might not be able to finish a game. :wink:
@Imperious:
I don’t think we will see another game like this in our lifetime in terms of components and quality.
That seems like a very short-sided statement. In the last 5 years how many renditions of Axis and Allies have we had, including a completely new version of the base game?
I’m still waiting for the pimped out version of Axis and Allies, including gold plated ICs, solid wood game mats, and hand painted pewter units.
-
AA50 is miles ahead of the other games from quality standpoint. WOTC cannot make another $100 plus game, unless its seriously limited edition like the 40th edition of Risk with metal pieces.
Of course the WOTC chimps have no idea about the other aspects of the games production, otherwise the rules would have been more clear and the map would be easier to see the lines that separate the territories.
-
@Imperious:
AA50 is miles ahead of the other games from quality standpoint. WOTC cannot make another $100 plus game, unless its seriously limited edition like the 40th edition of Risk with metal pieces.
Of course the WOTC chimps have no idea about the other aspects of the games production, otherwise the rules would have been more clear and the map would be easier to see the lines that separate the territories.
And more thought would have gone into making the nations truly different.
Why do we have to have the SAME technology tables for EVERY nation?
Screw that jazz. England/America could have the same. Italy/Germany would probably have the same. Russia/China probably wouldn’t even have technology. Japan would probably be almost 100% naval technology based.
Just thinking off the top of my head, no serious, indepth thought on what each nation would have, just trying to demonstrate my point.
No reason we need 12 technologies. Just create a chart for each nation. It wouldn’t be hard, it’s just a matter of printing on the set up charts. Germany could have advanced u-boats that could evade destroyers instead of engaging them and get jets. England and America would probably be stronger in advanced aircraft carriers (two hits to sink) and radar. Japan’s probably working on cheaper submarines and fighters.
Each nation, in other words, would be working to get technologies they needed instead of sharing the same chart.
-
Yes thats what AARHE does, but this is not house rules.
the game is a introduction of history it has to offer everybody the same opportunity to kill each other.
-
@Imperious:
AA50 is miles ahead of the other games from quality standpoint. WOTC cannot make another $100 plus game, unless its seriously limited edition like the 40th edition of Risk with metal pieces.
Of course the WOTC chimps have no idea about the other aspects of the games production, otherwise the rules would have been more clear and the map would be easier to see the lines that separate the territories.
I have to disagree, IL, from the standpoint of the quality of the plastic pieces. What’s up with the echo of Xeno Games’s W@W crap? These pieces look awful, especially the infantry and tanks. They should have pulled out the molds for A&A: Europe and A&A: Pacific, which were made not that long ago. (In fact, they did use the old '88 mold for Germany’s artillery). It has all the pieces this set has, excepting only the cruiser unit and the Italians. So maybe they have to pay for a handful of molds (or only one mold if you use the German molds with a different color for the Italian pieces). For $100 a pop, I would think they could swing it.
-
perhaps with over 600 plastic pieces they figured:
“Quantity has a quality all its own.” :roll:
-
Speaking of pieces, I’d pay good money/favors, for a full set of AA50 pieces in pewter/lead/steel (metal material of your choice) and painted appropriately.
By full, I mean:
30 Infantry
15 Artillery
15 Armor
10 Fighters
5 Bombers10 Transports
20 Submarines
10 Destroyers
20 Cruisers
5 Battleships
5 Aircraft Carriers5 AA Guns
5 Industrial Complexesper nation.
Suggested Topics
