Here is my stream of consciousness post about A&A after a few playthroughs:
- 1941 without National Objectives is a fair game. 1941 with National Objectives favors the Axis.
- Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck. In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.
- Submarines are useful. Even with destroyers, submarines serve as a useful decoy, fodder, a picket line, and a general nuisance. Kudos to Larry Harris for rewriting the rules on this one.
- Germany should start the game with an IC in France. It benefits the Allies if they take it and serves as a sub pen when the Germans control it.
- Bombers are as good as advertised. There is no “hype” – bombers ARE at the top of Axis and Allies food chain. And because there are so many more territories in A&A:50, a bomber’s range is even more valuable.
- On the flip side, I often found my fighters running out of gas early
- German/Russian Mechanized Infantry is Hot
- For the first time playing Russia is FUN. I like how the Eastern Front is a lot more dynamic. In several of our games Russia was able to hold off Germany and send Communist Partisans to China. :lol:
- LOL at the Russian bomber. It looks like the Spruce Goose.
- Russia should get +5 IPCs if its sub circumnavigates the world.
- Japan unlocking Jet Fighters is Scary
- Japan is easily the most powerful nation in the game. It’s not even close.
- China needs help. Without Allied help, China goes into cardiac arrest J3 latest. How did the playtesters not pick up on this?
- Italy is BORING. They can’t do anything I2 at the earliest. Just as I thought, A&A is still a 5 player game.
- USA needs more money to fight a two front war.
- USA needs to start the game with war bonds already.
- +1 Karma for the the extra sea zones in the Pacific. The cat and mouse game between USA and Japan is a game within itself.
- Italy having only two Cruiser pieces was never an issue. What was an issue was the pitiful number of chits. I had to canniabalize my original A&A set just for chits.
- 8 Dice would have been nice. Seven was an odd number don’t you think?
@TG:
Here is my stream of consciousness post about A&A after a few playthroughs:
- Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck. In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.
I was hoping nobody else would notice this. Pound for pound, cruisers are now the most versatile and cost effective naval unit.
- Submarines are useful. Even with destroyers, submarines serve as a useful decoy, fodder, a picket line, and a general nuisance. Kudos to Larry Harris for rewriting the rules on this one.
Strangely enough, I actually like the new sub rules, also.
- Germany should start the game with an IC in France. It benefits the Allies if they take it and serves as a sub pen when the Germans control it.
This is an iffy proposition because it allows them to not only rush their Baltic fleet out into sz7 and immediately build to support that fleet but it also allows them to build in the Med, as well. It also provides an instant buffer against an Allied bombing campaign. If they want such a versatile IC, they should have to build it themselves.
If the Germans were gifted with an IC in France, every single game would see Germany with a buffed up Baltic fleet in sz7 and close to zero Allied ships to oppose them when the UK’s first turn rolled around.
- Bombers are as good as advertised. There is no “hype” – bombers ARE at the top of Axis and Allies food chain. And because there are so many more territories in A&A:50, a bomber’s range is even more valuable.
My only fear is that bombers will be bought in such large numbers as to dominate the game. They are a support unit and should be looked upon as such.
- German/Russian Mechanized Infantry is Hot
Mechanized infantry, in general, is hot. I love that tech.
- Russia should get +5 IPCs if its sub circumnavigates the world.
I disagree. I think if the Russian sub circumnavigates the world, it should be promotable to any other unit like a pawn reaching the last rank in chess.
- Japan unlocking Jet Fighters is Scary
Japan unlocking LRA is scarier. Imagine 41’ Japan rolling one tech die and getting LRA and then having 9 long range fighters to play with on J1. I don’t have to imagine it. I am playing a game where that had happened.
- Japan is easily the most powerful nation in the game. It’s not even close.
I agree.
- China needs help. Without Allied help, China goes into cardiac arrest J3 latest. How did the playtesters not pick up on this?
2 reasons.
Because it was the same guys who playtested AAR and we all know how that went.
Alcohol was likely involved.
“Ok guys, in the 41’ scenario, after J1, China will probably be reduced to zero units and only 3 territories and we’re all good with that, right?”
<everyone agrees=“”>
“Great! Pass me a beer, I’m empty.”
- Italy is BORING. They can’t do anything I2 at the earliest. Just as I thought, A&A is still a 5 player game.
I would say it’s more like a 5-1/2 player game. But you can’t just ignore Italy or it will come back and bite you.
- USA needs more money to fight a two front war.
- 1941 without National Objectives is a fair game. 1941 with National Objectives favors the Axis.
- USA needs to start the game with war bonds already.
These are matters of opinion regarding game balance that I do not have enough time researching so I can neither agree nor disagree but I do know that having 9 fighters and 3 CV’s is a fun way for the Japanese player to start the game. I have decided to play Japan exclusively if I can get away with it. :-D</everyone>
@TG:
Here is my stream of consciousness post about A&A after a few playthroughs:
- 1941 without National Objectives is a fair game. 1941 with National Objectives favors the Axis.
Really? I’ve played 6 games of 1941 with NOs and each time excpet once the Allies have won. I well played Russia in 1941 is very, very hard to take, that is unless America forgets about Japan. I find that the 1942 version more favors the Axis. I’ve never played without the National Objectives.
You are aware that your cruisers only get to shoot if you are landing a ground unit for each.
So if you have 13 cruisers and only 1 infantry, only one cruiser gets to shoot. This is a HUGE change!
U-505,
This is an iffy proposition because it allows them to not only rush their Baltic fleet out into sz7 and immediately build to support that fleet but it also allows them to build in the Med, as well. It also provides an instant buffer against an Allied bombing campaign. If they want such a versatile IC, they should have to build it themselves.
If the Germans were gifted with an IC in France, every single game would see Germany with a buffed up Baltic fleet in sz7 and close to zero Allied ships to oppose them when the UK’s first turn rolled around.
That’s what I mean, Germany SHOULD have some type of Navy beyond G1. As it stands now, either they’re blockaded in Jutland or they have to attempt a suicidal assault breaking out into the English Channel. UK starts out with enough income early to outbuild the Germans if either side decides to go all out naval.
On the other hand, you are right about SBR. An IC in France helps Germany out a little too much there.
I disagree. I think if the Russian sub circumnavigates the world, it should be promotable to any other unit like a pawn reaching the last rank in chess.
If that Russian sub ever reaches Port Arthur, I will personally upgrade that Russian sub to a Battleship. ;)
NO’s like that are pretty cool.
Like, if Germany manages to SBR New York, they instantly unlock heavy bombers. Or if UK occupies each territory in Africa with a infantry they get one free IC. If Japan takes San Fransico, they’re exempt from the general pizza fund for the night. Quirky bonuses like these are just fun for the game. :lol:
I would say it’s more like a 5-1/2 player game. But you can’t just ignore Italy or it will come back and bite you.
I’m not doubting Italy can be the deciding factor in the game or that they too can grow huge. But to me, Italy is much too linear. There’s usually one “correct” way to play Italy each turn.
Marquis,
Really? I’ve played 6 games of 1941 with NOs and each time excpet once the Allies have won. I well played Russia in 1941 is very, very hard to take, that is unless America forgets about Japan. I find that the 1942 version more favors the Axis. I’ve never played without the National Objectives.
Maybe that’s the case. But in each game we’ve played, America has a difficult time trying to contain Japan as it is. With Japan making +15 IPCs a turn and USA +5-10 IPCs, it’s even more difficult.
Cmdr Jennifer,
You are aware that your cruisers only get to shoot if you are landing a ground unit for each.
So if you have 13 cruisers and only 1 infantry, only one cruiser gets to shoot. This is a HUGE change!
Generally if UK is invading somewhere, they’re not doing it with 1 infantry. Cruisers aren’t bombers; there’s no reason you should ever need 13 of them. However, in many of the games we’ve played, UK often ends up with 3-5 Cruisers and when they start knocking on France and Finland/Norway/Karelia, things get scary.
Few more thoughts:
I don’t like the IC in France. It allows the Allies to do 32 damage markers to Germany not including retaliation against any conquests in Russia and there’s still the 12 that can be done to Italy, if it is needed.
Also, to be honest, what in the world do you need it for? 50 IPC is 10 tanks. To need 6 more units, you’d have to be collecting 80 IPC. (And that’s assuming you wouldn’t want to replace some fighters or build some bombers, get some tech or even repair your complexes which, as you can tell, is gunna cost you up to 20 IPC for Germany alone!)
Japan is wicked.
However, I don’t think Tech comes into play until place units/collect income, does it? Did they reverse that and set it back to instantly? If so, that’s wicked powerful for Heavy Bombers!
Italy cannot be ignored. With +10 IPC in NOs easily attainable, they are not a paper tiger.
China’s a joke. A few minor changes would at least make it a challenge to take out China and not just feed Japan +7 more IPC they don’t really need anyway since they are so powerful.
1) China determines how many infantry they place based on number of liberated territories at the end of America’s turn. (They go back to back, so this really isn’t too much of an issue.)
2) Any Chinese territory without a Japanese garrison gets to roll for spontaneous liberation. (Roll 1d6 for each ungarrisoned Chinese territory, on a roll of 1, the Japanese flag is burned and control reverts to China.) This does not apply to Manchuria or Kaingsu. Once all Chinese territories are captured (all at the same time) then Japan no longer needs a garrison. Also, liberating a territory does not reinstate the ability.
France should be worth 4 IPC and NW Europe should be worth 4 IPC. Just my humble opinion.
America should start off with 2 Carriers, 2 Fighters in SZ 56 / W. USA Sea Zone. Japan should have +1 Battleship that can be placed in any sea zone that already has Japanese Naval Units in it, placed at the start of the game.
Russian NO should be changed to Owning Karelia, Finland and Norway +5 IPC. Not the other territories on that NO. Easier for Russia to attain, makes it harder on Germany, but also stops England from taking Finland and or Norway since it only works if RUSSIA owns those three.
Russia needs 1 Fighter on Russia 1. I don’t care if it starts in Soviet Far East, but they need one!
Look at the Russian card that came with the game again Jenn. If I am not badly mistaken it says Allied control. Just checked the boardgame geek thread with the pictured of the set up cards. Word for Word:
Gain 10 IPCs if Allied powers control at least three of the following territories: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary. and/or Balkans.
Cmdr Jennifer,
I don’t like the IC in France. It allows the Allies to do 32 damage markers to Germany not including retaliation against any conquests in Russia and there’s still the 12 that can be done to Italy, if it is needed.
As I said before, the SBR advantage an IC in France gives to Germany is probably too great. On the other hand, having to move troops from France to the Eastern front takes an extra turn.
Also, to be honest, what in the world do you need it for? 50 IPC is 10 tanks. To need 6 more units, you’d have to be collecting 80 IPC. (And that’s assuming you wouldn’t want to replace some fighters or build some bombers, get some tech or even repair your complexes which, as you can tell, is gunna cost you up to 20 IPC for Germany alone!)
Go back and reread my original post. The extra IC allows Germany an extra berthing spot for their U-boats. It is NOT for Germany to build something like 16 tanks.
However, I don’t think Tech comes into play until place units/collect income, does it? Did they reverse that and set it back to instantly? If so, that’s wicked powerful for Heavy Bombers!
It does. And yes, USA unlocking Heavy Bombers (esp. 1942) turn 1 is game.
- China determines how many infantry they place based on number of liberated territories at the end of America’s turn. (They go back to back, so this really isn’t too much of an issue.)
Yes, we will be playing with a variation of this rule in our next game. In essence,
“China gets one new infantry unit per turn for every two Chinese territories that are not under Axis control during the Mobilize New Units phase of the U.S. player’s turn.”
- Any Chinese territory without a Japanese garrison gets to roll for spontaneous liberation. (Roll 1d6 for each ungarrisoned Chinese territory, on a roll of 1, the Japanese flag is burned and control reverts to China.) This does not apply to Manchuria or Kaingsu. Once all Chinese territories are captured (all at the same time) then Japan no longer needs a garrison. Also, liberating a territory does not reinstate the ability.
Interesting. If China still needs the boost, we will consider implementing it.
Russian NO should be changed to Owning Karelia, Finland and Norway +5 IPC. Not the other territories on that NO. Easier for Russia to attain, makes it harder on Germany, but also stops England from taking Finland and or Norway since it only works if RUSSIA owns those three.
I agree. The +10 IPCs NO for Russia never gets used. It’s awkward too since no other Power gets a +10 IPC boost.
About adding units to the board: You know my stance, I’m generally against doing this.
a44bigdog,
Look at the Russian card that came with the game again Jenn. If I am not badly mistaken it says Allied control. Just checked the boardgame geek thread with the pictured of the set up cards. Word for Word:
Gain 10 IPCs if Allied powers control at least three of the following territories: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary. and/or Balkans.
So? The problem is not about capturing Norway or Finland, which the British can easily do.
The problem lies with Poland, Romania, Balkans, and Hungary. If the Allies capture either one of these, it’s a clear indication the Allies are winning and rewarding Russia with +10 IPCs is a further drop in the slippery slope mechanic.
Not necessarily. In my current face to face game Russia has that NO but is in bad shape. Germany does not always have all the infantry it would like to cover the expanded frontline.
If Russia is indeed making +10 IPCs a turn and they’re still in danger of capitulating, then I question the aptitude of your players.
The only scenario I see this happening in is if the Japanese threaten Moscow (which would be near the endgame). In which case, a Russian NO of Karelia, Finland and Norway would still serves its purpose, while offering Russia a mid game boost.
It has little to due with aptitude and a whole lot more to do with luck of the dice. Germany got diced in Ukraine by 1 Russian infantry. Said Russian Infantry stepped forward into an unoccupied Bulgaria for the NO. The Russians will not have the NO after the next turn. Just because Russia gets that NO it does not mean they are sitting there drawing it for turn after turn.
Look at the Russian card that came with the game again Jenn. If I am not badly mistaken it says Allied control. Just checked the boardgame geek thread with the pictured of the set up cards. Word for Word:
Gain 10 IPCs if Allied powers control at least three of the following territories: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary. and/or Balkans.
Yea, A44, I was thinking of making it easier for Russia, but requiring that it be Russian control. Instead of just any ally.
I’d keep the 10 IPC in National Objectives that are currently for owning 3 of Finland, Norway, etc, etc, etc. I’d just change it as I mentioned to A44. (Russia has to own Karelia, Finland and Norway AND no Allied units (including AA Guns) can be placed on any Soviet controlled territories (to include conquered ones.)
Also, TG, Not really sure what you are looking for in way of U-boat berths in France. I guess if there was a convoy raid rule like in AARe then U-boats would become significantly more powerful and thus, another area to put one or two down right next to England would be quite beneficial, but for now, I really, REALLY hesitate about building any Industrial Complexes for Germany due to the massive damage the Allies can be doing.
Anyway, wicked that you can get tech immediately. Not sure how HB for USA in Round 1 is too powerful, only two bombers right? And one of them is out of theater anyway.
However, getting some of the techs right before an engagement could seriously inflict some damage! (Super Submarines, Jet Fighters, etc…all give immediate boosts to attack power and you can spring them on your enemy!)
It has little to due with aptitude and a whole lot more to do with luck of the dice. Germany got diced in Ukraine by 1 Russian infantry. Said Russian Infantry stepped forward into an unoccupied Bulgaria for the NO. The Russians will not have the NO after the next turn. Just because Russia gets that NO it does not mean they are sitting there drawing it for turn after turn.
What you described was a fluke and nothing else. In the 5 games of A&A:50 I’ve played, the Russia player NEVER set foot on German home territories, unless the German let him. How about we make Russian NOs actually obtainable on a semi-regular basis?
Also, TG, Not really sure what you are looking for in way of U-boat berths in France. I guess if there was a convoy raid rule like in AARe then U-boats would become significantly more powerful and thus, another area to put one or two down right next to England would be quite beneficial, but for now, I really, REALLY hesitate about building any Industrial Complexes for Germany due to the massive damage the Allies can be doing.
A French IC allows the German options and forces UK to play defenses honest. I would like to see more combined air-sea assaults from Germany, but right now it isn’t happening.
Not sure how HB for USA in Round 1 is too powerful, only two bombers right? And one of them is out of theater anyway.
USA starts off with 3 bombers in 1942. While it’s true only 1 of those bombers is in position, by turn 2 USA can deal ~20 IPCs of damage to Germany. That’s nothing to scoff about.
however, getting some of the techs right before an engagement could seriously inflict some damage! (Super Submarines, Jet Fighters, etc…all give immediate boosts to attack power and you can spring them on your enemy!
It helps a lot. In the five games we’ve played, Jacob managed to unlock Jet Fighters each time (3 times as Japan and twice on the first turn). Amber, who plays USA/UK, ends each game with at least 3 techs unlocked.
@TG:
- Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck. In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.
[…]
- Bombers are as good as advertised. There is no “hype” – bombers ARE at the top of Axis and Allies food chain. And because there are so many more territories in A&A:50, a bomber’s range is even more valuable.
- On the flip side, I often found my fighters running out of gas early
Hmm, let’s imagine UK in the first rounds: main conern is defending fleet from German luftwaffe, but still being offensive:
Options:
*2 cru + 1 bmr (cost= 36 IPC’s):
-shore bombardment
-bmr can SBR
-bmr has great range
*1 AC + 2 ftr (cost = 34 IPC’s):
-2ftr’s are as good offensive as 1 bmr + 2 SBR’s
-better naval defense
-better defensive options with ftrs (in Russia ;) )
-AC adds a little bit more range to ftrs
-8% cheaper
=> I’d still opt for the AC + ftrs, but I do agree that when defense is not an issue any longer, that bmrs (+ cru) are slightly better. It’s a close match anyhow, but bmrs are not that strong I think (low defense :( )
PS: your other thoughts are totally correct. Especially the Russian sub one (though I like to harass Japanese trns with it :evil: ).
Honestly, with England I would go almost all tech/SBR in hopes of getting Long Range and Improved Factories/Radar
But that’s just me.
Sry, not playing techs :-D
Sry, not playing techs :-D
Why not? Techs are half the fun! Good place to sink that money you were getting from National Objectives too!
Contrary to public opinion Cruisers DO NOT suck. In the hands of a invasive power like UK, the shore shot is worth the price of admission alone.
I think people are going to become annoyed with Cruiser bombardment.
The 1 inf per shot rule does help to prevent the cheapshots like you used to see with the Destroyer tech in Revised, but for the mass invasions, I have a feeling that Cruiser bombardment is going to make the German defense of Europe a huge pain in the a**.
