I would buy 2 copies Wolf and sell you 1 when you had the money if I lived closer to ya or you were in my group. Nobody close ? Thought guy post about hurricane just east of you .
AA50 re release
-
While a revised AAE would be great, I thought that there was a thread that showed how AAE was not broken and couple that with the fact that the 2nd ed. rules crippled the allies, not the axis. There are counters for the Indian Crush and now for the tank rush, maybe more the problem with these versions is that they aren’t played much.
There are counters, the problem is that these counters require such a specific blueprint that it is quite ridiculous and not all that fun to play IMO. Want to win as the allies? Simply pull off these moves exactly and you win. Not much of a game, though. The unfortunate thing is that without tank rush, GERMANY is far underpowered in Europe. I don’t think Pacific is nearly as imba, but India crush can be devastating unless you pull off the exact moves it takes.
I do agree about the complaints, but I am still looking forward to seeing if this one is done right. For now, I’ll just play Enhanced.
-
@Rakeman:
There are counters, the problem is that these counters require such a specific blueprint that it is quite ridiculous and not all that fun to play IMO. Want to win as the allies? Simply pull off these moves exactly and you win. Not much of a game, though.
I hear ya. the ironic thing about the tank push is that it is a specific blueprint that one needs to follow to win with it.
really with any of the AA games, the basic game mechanics and map dictate that we have to follow specific steps to win. Axis always have to take out Russia for example and in the forums are thread after thread to just mash the thoughts over and over and then dissect the numbers and give things little acronyms and such. In the end we expect too much from these games. In reality the battles we recreate on the gameboard had far more in the elements of risk and fortune than we have with lucky dice.the new AA release should be interesting to see. I don’t mind another incarnation, but it won’t be out 1 day before there is a complaint thread started if by some chance it isn’t complained about before the release. Oh wait, that already happened earlier in this thread about the 42 start date…. dang.
-
Haha, yes. See, that’s the biggest problem with the Axis and Allies series, in my opinion- the need for the Axis to take Moscow. It is logical that this is the best course of action…
1. Taking an enemy capital is basically a win, if you hold all of yours
2. Russia is the ONLY capital that the Axis have access too (unless you plan on amphibiously assaulting the US or UK, which is extremely difficult).
3. BOTH Axis powers have access to it
4. Japan has literally no other worthwhile target, seeing how in 1942, the Pacific is already hers.
I maintain that the best change would be to give Japan a worthwhile, historical target(s), and to make Russia not WORTH attacking for Japan. Victory cities are in the right direction but the problem still remains… if you just rush Moscow, you can pick up the spare VCs later with little to no resistance. Perhaps there should simply be a penalty of some sort for losing a victory city… then the Pacific would be worth fighting for, rather than fighting for something that is irrelevant until game end.
-
We’re probably a little off topic; but I like Rakeman’s idea of having a penalty for losing a victory city. Probably an IPC penalty of some sorts… 5 IPC’s maybe?
-
Ha, we are a bit off-topic, so I would say we should draw the line at discussing specific penalties for losing a VC… after all, I know many threads get doomed to the house rule section for things like that :wink: Of course it is up for IL to make the call, I just don’t want to push it now that I look back. Besides, I’m not too interested in house rules, but rather having the ACTUAL GAME in a state where they aren’t needed :-D
Actually, I have a few thoughts on this, so I might as well bring it down to the house rule section.
-
Staying true to the subject of this thread… I was just on CCG Armory’s site and under AA50 they have a re-release date of Summer 2009. Could it be a re-release of AA50, or are they confusing it with the new 1942 Edition being released (or shipped) in August? Any thoughts?
-
My money’s on confusion.
-
Thanks K! I’ll take that as the official “No, they are not re-releasing AA50”.
-
As of this moment, that’s my understanding.
-
Say it ain’t so, Joe!
Ubelievable!
-
As long as this gam doesn’t add anything game breaking (new combat system, halftracks, pillboxes, tank rush proof Russia) I’m gonna have to skip this one. I mean, I can only buy 1942 sooo many times
-
I just hope that China has been re-vamped. I hate the way China is played in AA50.
-
China is not played any way in 1941 if Japan knows what to do: kill them J1 :-D
-
China is not played any way in 1941 if Japan knows what to do: kill them J1 :-D
That’s my point - what fun is that?
-
It’s even worse: allies fall as a card castle after China fall J1: India, Australia and then or Soviet Union (KJF) or Alaska plus Canada and maybe Africa and finally Soviet Union anyway (KGF). As in Revised, ignore a theater and you lose the war. Opposite to Revised, you cannot choose as allies in 1941, it’s Japan who chooses ignore China or not, and if Japan is wise, it will not ignore China J1
Your point is valid: even if the game were balanced (and it’s not), it has no fun the way China is designed, even for Japan. When I play face to face, Japan is my last option, because it’s the more boring: just stomp all at your reach :| I could even pick Italy (but not China) before than Japan
Suggested Topics
