just like the shlock market, everyone who got word of the reprint tried to sell for the old market price of $300 right before the re-release.
AA50 Rules Errata and Q+A
-
You can split the two damage marker repairs between two ICs.
-
So you’re saying he would only have to pay the 4 I.P.C’s instead of 5, like his example is showing ?
-
@Emperor:
Do anti-aircraft guns count as a unit in terms of maximum production in a territory? For example: can I produce 2 inf and an aa gun in Karelia? Thanks.
Yes, AA guns count against production capacity. Karelia could build 1inf, 1AA, unless you have the Increased Factory Production Technology then you could build a total of 4 units (including AA).
But the rules state that only territories that are that have 3 or higher for maximum production can double their production capacity, so Karelia cannot produce more than 2 units.
-
So you’re saying he would only have to pay the 4 I.P.C’s instead of 5, like his example is showing ?
Yes.
-
Kreighund,
AA guns
The rules say that an aa gun captured by the enemy that is later liberated by a nation friendly with the original owning country returns to the possession of the original country who owned it. Is this always the case?For example, the Japs cature the aa gun in India. Over the course of the next few turns they move it to Caucasus. The Russians then liberate Caucasus. Is the AA gun now Russian or is it British?
-
NM
I see you posted the answer on March 30. The aa gun would belong to the Soviets.
-
With increased factory production, the errata state that the increased production of 2 extra units only applies to territories with IPC value of at least 3. So Russia with IFP can produce 6 at Caucasus and 8 at Russia but still only 2 at Karelia.
I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2). I have a house rule that 1’s and 2’s can build 1 extra unit (not 2 as OOB says and not 0 add’l as errata says). What do you think about my house rule? (Bombed out 1 could build 0 and bombed out 2 could build -1)
Many gamers have adopted similar rules. I allow 1 extra unit for a 2 ipc tt w/IC, but no extra units in a 1 ipc tt w/IC.
I read on here that the primary reason for this was that a 1 or 2 value territory with IFP could be bombed for the max (2 or 4, respectively) and still be able to build (1 on a 1, 0 on a 2).
That’s one reason. The other is that increasing an IC’s production capacity by 100 or 200 percent seemed a bit excessive. Your house rule certainly solves the problem that you mentioned, though.
Kreighund,
You seem to agree that bombing/damage is answered above giving 2 ipc tt w/IC +1 for unit placement.
I was wondering why the Errata didn’t give a 2 ipc tt w/IC +1 for unit placement. This would only give these tt a 50% increase in production. Would be the same as Caucasus getting +2 (50% increase in production). I know a line had to be drawn but I just thought there was room for +1 for these tt. Karelia, Egypt, SA, Aus & Phil would all benefit. As it is it’s hard for the US to establish its self in Pacific, but 3 units in Phil would be great with this development. I do agree with no extra units in 1 ipc tt @ 100%-200% increase in production. I normally wouldn’t place an IC on a 1 ipc tt anyway. I’m sorry if you have already covered this. -
If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there? Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10? The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms. As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.
-
If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there? Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10? The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms. As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.
I think the designers opened up the can of worms when they gave us the +2 bonus for these very strategic tt, then took it away. For example if you are UK or Japan do you place an IC on India @ 3 ipc (5 units), E.Ind’s @ 4 ipc (6 units), or Aus @ 2 ipc (2 units). Its just silly to think India & E.Ind’s could produce 2-3 times as much as Aus. It changes the game mechanics of where to put IC’s. Another option (we came up with last night) is to give +2 to capitols only +1 to all other IC’s worth 2 ipc or more. Its simple doesn’t create a complicated step system and more important it includes these very strategic tt. I think a change was needed, but I don’t think the designers thought this one out when they made the change there were other options.
The last part about still getting damage repair - I can’t think of another weapons dev. that gives only part of the tech to certain units and not all. This is it’s own step system, but its better then nothing. -
@WILD:
If you allow for a stepped system of improvement for territories worth less than 3 IPCs, why stop there? Why not give three extra units for territories worth 6 IPCs and four extra for territories worth 10? The designers wanted to keep it simple, so they didn’t want to open that can of worms. As it is, the ICs on territories worth 1 or 2 IPCs aren’t completely left out, as their repairs are still half price.
I think the designers opened up the can of worms when they gave us the +2 bonus for these very strategic tt, then took it away. For example if you are UK or Japan do you place an IC on India @ 3 ipc (5 units), E.Ind’s @ 4 ipc (6 units), or Aus @ 2 ipc (2 units). Its just silly to think India & E.Ind’s could produce 2-3 times as much as Aus. It changes the game mechanics of where to put IC’s. Another option (we came up with last night) is to give +2 to capitols only +1 to all other IC’s worth 2 ipc or more. Its simple doesn’t create a complicated step system and more important it includes these very strategic tt. I think a change was needed, but I don’t think the designers thought this one out when they made the change there were other options.
The last part about still getting damage repair - I can’t think of another weapons dev. that gives only part of the tech to certain units and not all. This is it’s own step system, but its better then nothing.I’d like to go on record as favoring a revison to this rule. Include the 2IPC territories, the way it stands most of the strategic locations are left out (Egypt, SAF, Australia, Karellia, FIC\Burma). I hope you guys will revist this.
-
@Emperor:
I’d like to go on record as favoring a revison to this rule. Include the 2IPC territories, the way it stands most of the strategic locations are left out (Egypt, SAF, Australia, Karellia, FIC\Burma). I hope you guys will revist this.
Nicely said, Emperor Mollari.
I too, would like to see 1 additional build for these small territories. -
Thanks guys for backing me up on these 2 ipc tt w/ imp factory tech. Maybe we should start a pole or its own tread? I’d do it but maybe someone with more clout should. Looks like we lost Krieghund on this one. He most likely can’t give up to many details. Maybe it was brought up and voted down in the process?
-
You haven’t lost me. I’ll bring your concerns to Larry’s attention when the opportunity arises, but I can’t guarantee that anything will come of it.
-
I agree with Wild Bill… the cut off of >= 3 units seems arbitrary to me, no rhyme nor reason
-
I agree with Wild Bill… the cut off of >= 3 units seems arbitrary to me, no rhyme nor reason
Agree with the others. The tech should work for Australia or South Africa too.
-
@WILD:
Thanks guys for backing me up on these 2 ipc tt w/ imp factory tech. Maybe we should start a pole or its own tread? I’d do it but maybe someone with more clout should. Looks like we lost Krieghund on this one. He most likely can’t give up to many details. Maybe it was brought up and voted down in the process?
I agree with Wild Bill… the cut off of >= 3 units seems arbitrary to me, no rhyme nor reason
What’s with you guys who want to change the game the way it was created? what makes you think you know better than the guy who invented the game?, have any of you ever created anything as creative as this game is? you don’t like a certain aspects of the best game ever made and you want to start a poll to get things changed your way.This game is as well thought out as any game I’ve ever seen , I don’t want ANYTHING changed in it , that’s my poll vote.
-
@WILD:
Thanks guys for backing me up on these 2 ipc tt w/ imp factory tech. Maybe we should start a pole or its own tread? I’d do it but maybe someone with more clout should. Looks like we lost Krieghund on this one. He most likely can’t give up to many details. Maybe it was brought up and voted down in the process?
I agree with Wild Bill… the cut off of >= 3 units seems arbitrary to me, no rhyme nor reason
What’s with you guys who want to change the game the way it was created? what makes you think you know better than the guy who invented the game?, have any of you ever created anything as creative as this game is? you don’t like a certain aspects of the best game ever made and you want to start a poll to get things changed your way.This game is as well thought out as any game I’ve ever seen , I don’t want ANYTHING changed in it , that’s my poll vote.
I think the problem was that the Tech was changed AFTER the original release via an errata change.
@http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf:
Page 12, Breakthrough Chart 1 – Increased Factory Production: The first sentence should replaced with: “Each of your industrial complexes in a territory worth 3 or more IPCs can now produce two additional units beyond its listed IPC value.”
So we are not agreeing with the errata change. Maybe if we understood the reasoning behind it, that might help a bit.
-
I explained the reasoning behind the change in this thread.
-
I explained the reasoning behind the change in this thread.
Yes. The reasoning was this…
There were two problems with Increased Factory Production as written:
-
Production was doubled or tripled in low-IPC territories.
-
One-IPC territories were impossible to shut down with SBRs, since the maximum damage that can be applied is two points (1 IPC - 2 damage + 2 for IFP = 1 unit produced).
Rather than make complicated rules for the effect of IFP on low-IPC territories, Larry just set a lower limit on the IPC value of the affected territories. All factories still get the reduced cost of SBR damage removal, though.
This analysis ignores game reality though. If you place an IC in a 1 IPC country, and its bombed, you ARE going to fix it. You are not going to let the factory sit with damage, and just build one unit. That is a waste of the 15 IPC you used to build the factory in the first place.
Second, if you did build one in a 1 IPC country, that placement would 99% of the time be critical to getting forces involved in the fight. Being important, its an easy target. So you would not let that factory only produce 1 unit.
Finally, I doubt anyone seriously would place a factory in a 1 IPC territory just in hopes of getting the tech. Australia (worth 2) I can see, but in that situation you can still bomb it for 4.
I just dont see the value of the restriction for most games.
-
-
As big dog suggests in the referenced Thread by Krieghund, we will just ignore this errata change.
It serves no purpose in game play, except to limit the use of the tech. And as Tim the Enchanter said in that same thread…. IFP is nerfed, but HBs are not?
Suggested Topics
