They were play tested, unfortunately, you always run into situations where everyone understands what’s going on but players who are unfamiliar with the changes and the reasons behind the changes may not understand exactly what is meant.
Hell, Anniversary has multiple threads of multiple pages on multiple gaming sites with questions from players as to what does this or that mean or work. They had to come out with a FAQ and then update it a few times and there’s still questions. Same reason I think. The game testers who devised the rule knew what it was meant to do but the person who recorded it may have not worded it very well. The rule still works, it just might be confusing to some until it is explained. (Kinda like submarine rules in Anniversary!)
Also, remember, the idea was to make the minimum number of changes possible to combine AARe rules into AA50 rules and map. Kind of like AARe uses rules from LHTR and Revised. The concept was to encourage global play which is why there is a national advantage in middle Africa now and why National Objectives (which encourage global play) are a method to win the game.
Trust me, once you realize how easy it is for the axis to snipe a fast victory if the allies are not on the ball in the first couple of rounds, you’ll see how the allies really, REALLY need to focus on the entire game board, not just Germany or Italy or Japan.
Likewise, Japan does not even have to attack Russia for the Axis to win now. Outside of the national objectives victory, Japan can easily sap England and America’s strength instead of spending 5+ rounds walking to Moscow.
That was the big thing for me. While the big thing for Cousin_Joe and the team for AARe was to stop the mindless slaughter of Germany first each and every blasted game, my opinion was that we needed to stop the mindless slaughter of Russia first in each and every blasted game too. Hell, even Larry Harris and the original development team saw that the mindless slaughter of Russia each game was getting old, that’s why they dumped a bunch of new territories between Japan and Russia. Good start, bad finish, IMHO. The Non-Aggression Treaty of AARe + the ability to win without attacking Russia at all is superior IMHO.
There is no mention about how the optional NA’s are incorporated into the game.
First, let me remind the audience that National Advantages are now classified under the optional rules section. As such, they’re going to be incorporated differently by different players if they are used at all.
Second, the NAs were tested with each side getting 6 NAs split evenly amoung their nations. That would mean that two allied nations would only get 1 and the other two would get 2.
Why are paratroopers a minor tech when you have declared them as the most powerful technology in other threads?
Unfortunately, I was out voted. It was felt that rockets, improved factories, LRA and HBs would be easier to abuse than Paratroopers. It was also felt that the benefits of improved factories, jets and shipyards was stronger than Paratroopers.
I don’t know if I agree whole-heartedly or not. I do recognize that some of the abilities of the other technologies were increased and that some of these new abilities (such as -1 to hit AA on Jets, etc) could decrease the value of paratroopers in relation.
I was also voted down on my opinion that there should be three strata of technologies. Major, Normal and Minor with 6 IPC per roll, 5 IPC per roll and 4 IPC per roll as costs.
And non-combat capabilities have been added. But the must stop in the first HOSTILE territory rule applies, confusing
The first hostile territory rule prevents your bombers from transporting paratroopers over hostile terrain to reinforce allied or axis positions.
We ran into a problem where America or England would get paratroopers but have no naval forces controlling the Atlantic. There was no way for Germany to cut off these reinforcements from landing in Moscow because AA Guns only fire when the territory they are in are attacked in Anniversary Edition.
The solution we came up with was to state that bombers and infantry entering a hostile zone must be attacking that zone and in NCM, since you are not attacking, you therefore must stop there.
This allowed Germany, in the previously mentioned example, to take ownership of Arkhangelsk and Karelia and stop British and American bombers from transporting infantry into Moscow.
Why is Italy’s second NA almost an exact repeat of an existing NO?
Actually, if you look closer, it’s an expansion of the existing NOs. In addition to the NO, Italy will need SZ 16 (Black Sea), Gibraltar, Egypt, Jordan and Italian Africa.
Basically, it is adding a 3rd NO to Italy which brings it on par with the other major nations (Germany, Russia, Japan, England and America.)
Not so sure I like the extra bump ($6 roll another die) in the War bonds weapon.
The extra bump made the technology more desirable. Blowing 16-24 IPC for a 1-6 IPC per round technology was not occuring often. To make the technology more desirable, it was determined that you would be able to earn 1-5; 7-12 IPC from the technology. Since odds are 1 in 6 you’ll roll a 6 on the first round, most times the technology still resulted in 1d6 IPC anyway. But when you did roll a 6, it was nice to get the extra boost of IPC.
When are newly acquired techs effective?
As per Anniversary rules.
Germany can build undetectable subs by getting improved shipyards tech (-2 modifier)
-2 for improved shipyards
+1 for super destroyers (which replaced super submarines)
+1 for airpower; +2 if you have LR Air present
So there exists the possibility for the enemy to have the chance to detect an enemy submarine even if the enemy has improved shipyards. However, yes, theoretically if the enemy has improved shipyards and you have not done research to counter them, then they would be undetectable on the first round of combat.
Note, unlike in AARe, in AA50e it is no longer possible to attain a detection value of 6. The best you can attain is 5 or less now, the worst is unable to detect no matter what. Kinda the lesser of two evils thing.
Immediate use on the Advanced artillery… Does that mean Germany can place in Berlin on G1 and then transport that unit into Baltic states for any G1 battles?
Yes, just like German 88s were in AARe. The unit is placed on the board immediately and can be used just like any other piece.
In fact, you’ll notice this is virtually identical to the German 88 Rule, it’s just been generalized to apply to any nation who happens to get the technology.
China’s 1st NA should be to collect their inf at the end of the turn (like how everyone else collects income’, not rounding up (very weak NA)
We can agree that determining number of new infantry is better at the end of China’s round instead of the beginning. The argument against it was that China is basically spending their “money” from last round and not collecting their “money.” I don’t know if I buy into that argument fully. That’s the problem with the democratic process I guess.
Anyway, I don’t agree that it’s “very weak.” First off, China’s not meant to be a major power, it’s sort of a way to slow down Japan without buffing America, IMHO. Thus, rounding up is a significant increase. It means that Japan has to take two territories instead of one to drop China by one new infantry.
Anyway, I rarely see China survive past 3 or 4 rounds anyway. In the cases it does, it’s normally just Chinghai and in that case, China would suddenly get 1 infantry a round instead of none and that, in turn, could free up a Russian infantry a round.