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?
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?
If you ignore that errata change then why not ignore any official rule in the game, because it is an official rule, made by Larry Harris, I mean after all you are much more qualified to decide what’s a better way to play the game he invented, right?
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?
If you ignore that errata change then why not ignore any official rule in the game, because it is an official rule, made by Larry Harris, I mean after all you are much more qualified to decide what’s a better way to play the game he invented, right?
It’s called a house rule.
Krieghund,
I would like to say thanks for hearing us out & passing on our feed back. What this tread and the previous tread shows is that people seem to like the new imp factory tech a lot as they started to use it. It is a great tech for the UK or Japan. More play testing showed some problems especially with the lower ipc tt. I get that! I also think the reasons for the changes are valid. With that said if I build an IC on a 2 ipc tt then later get this tech it just annoys the hell out of me. So instead of having most of us making up house rules to over ride this change continue to lobby for us to get a better solution. Sounds like the consensus is that a +1 for these strategic 2 ipc tt would make about 90% of the people that responded here very happy. The last time the Errata was updated was in March. I’ve seen you refer to “updates to the Errata” in other posts as to the future. Do you know of a time table on that? I would hope this issue will make it to the table for discussion. Will there be an update before AA42 comes out?
I agree. Larry comes up with simple but creative rules. Sometimes they don’t work out too well…. Feedback relayed via Krieg, game gets improved next time. System works. :-)
My 2 cents with this tech is it’s not so much the value of the territory, but it’s strategic location. India, East Indies and North Africa are always going to be ideal spots to put a boosted factory, whatever their original value.
Game on!
@WILD:
The last time the Errata was updated was in March. I’ve seen you refer to “updates to the Errata” in other posts as to the future. Do you know of a time table on that? I would hope this issue will make it to the table for discussion. Will there be an update before AA42 comes out?
I can’t be certain when the next update will occur. Unfortunately, it seems that the longer a game has been out, the harder it is to get the FAQ updated. That’s why I try to get necessary updates in as quickly as possible. I seriously doubt there’ll be an update before AA42 is out, but it’s possible that I can get one “piggy-backed” on when the AA42 FAQ is published. If so, I’ll see that this issue is brought up.
Larry comes up with simple but creative rules. Sometimes they don’t work out too well…. Feedback relayed via Krieg, game gets improved next time. System works. :-)
I think so. 8-)
Don’t forget, you can also give feedback directly to Larry on his site. That’s what it’s for!
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?
If you ignore that errata change then why not ignore any official rule in the game, because it is an official rule, made by Larry Harris, I mean after all you are much more qualified to decide what’s a better way to play the game he invented, right?
It’s called a house rule.
I know it’s called a house rule , that’s what I’m saying , keep it in your house not mine. You go ahead and play how you want to play , but don’t try to force your idea on how to change the game into the rule book, because if we did that then it’s your game not Larry’s and I for one want to play his game not yours. I understand perfectly the reasoning behind this errata change and it makes more sense than your opinions do.
Krieghund,
OK, I gues I need a little more help on the aa gun thing. OK, so Japan captures Indias aa gun. Japan moves it to Persia. Soviets liberate it there. Is the aa gun British or Soviet?
OK, I may have founf the answer. The aa gun converts ownership to the new owner of the territory, whoever that is. So, because the British will own the territory, they will own the aa gun.
So, in theory, the chinese could own an aa gun with Russian help. If the Russians captured a Japanese aa gun in Manchuria, the aa gun would go over to the Chinese as owners of the liberated territory.
Also, you might have a strange scenerio where the India aa gun is taken to the Phillippenes by the Japanese after it is captured. Then the Phillipenes is liberated by the Soviets (I know its very unlikley). So, a British aa gun, on US territory, liberated by the Soviets…. it would be a US aa gun as they are the new owners of the freshly liberated territory.
Can you confirm that this is correct Krieghund?
Yes, your examples are correct.
Any time a territory changes hands, whether captured or liberated, any AA guns in that territory change ownership to the new owner of the territory.
There is only one exception. The situation involves when your capital is held by the enemy and because of this and your ally captures one of your former territories from the enemy rather than liberating it. When your capital is liberated, you get that territory back from your ally, but he/she gets to keep any AA guns in it.
maybe this was discussed already somewhere - i just ask:
In AA revised rulebook page 22 it’s clearly mentioned a newly build carrier may pick up fighters that ended their non-combat movement or have already been in the country with the IC that build the new AC. This means you could use your fighters in combat phase fly 2 spaces away, return on NC phase and the new AC picks them up.
In AA50 rule book i can’t find this rule - has it been removed, and if - why ?
Existing fighters may not be moved onto a new carrier from the territory containing the IC from which the carrier was mobilized. Instead, they must end their movement in the sea zone in which the carrier will be mobilized. This is explained on page 21. New fighters can be placed directly onto new or existing carriers (page 22).
I can’t be certain when the next update will occur. Unfortunately, it seems that the longer a game has been out, the harder it is to get the FAQ updated. That’s why I try to get necessary updates in as quickly as possible. I seriously doubt there’ll be an update before AA42 is out, but it’s possible that I can get one “piggy-backed” on when the AA42 FAQ is published. If so, I’ll see that this issue is brought up.
Don’t forget, you can also give feedback directly to Larry on his site. That’s what it’s for!
I’m looking forward to AA42 coming out this fall, and how the rules will be blended together. Many of the rules will crossover from AA50 so making changes to the FAQ for both at the same time makes sense. It will be cool to see what tidbits might be offered, through new rules, FAQ, tech, or options.
PS. thanks for the Harris site the one I had bookmarked no longer worked for some reason.
