The original AA Europe is fatally flawed. Germany can win every time by just buying tanks and smashing Russia. This is a well known problem with that game. This AA Europe 1940 is much better.
Do you want europe NAs like in AAR??
-
ive played AAR alot and the one thing i will miss is NAs their so cool like germany buying subs to kill US UK income.
-
in the new game the Germans will be able to destroy ipc’s with subs through convoys
-
Wont that only complicate matters? add a whole nother level of crazy?
-
@i:
ive played AAR alot and the one thing i will miss is NAs their so cool like germany buying subs to kill US UK income.
Well I concede they add flavour… but I’ve always been skeptical of NAs as they tend to favour repeating the war, ignoring the potential for ahistorical game developments.
For instance, making Marines an American NA (rather than a unit anyone can purchase or develop) seems to me IMTO to be the wrong way to model this capability.
Making Partisans a Soviet NA raises the question: are we saying the Mexicans couldn’t have conducted guerrilla warfare against a Japanese occupier?
And of course NAs tend to reek of game balancing… “OK everybody but the Italians have five NAs, quick stop editing that battlestrip and come up with a 5th for Italy!”
#462
-
I voted No because there’s already plenty going on as it is, what with National Objectives and the like. They were cool with AAR but things have moved on from there.
-
Yes I loved them, my favourite was fortress europe but some {like island bases were stupid
-
I loved playing NAs! After a playing the game with the same people for a while you want to change it up and make it more interesting - NAs is the perfect way to do that!
-
As long as it doesn’t ruin the game balance. I always thought that the allies having 18 NAs and the axis having 12 in the revised edition was a bit unfair. So I made it so that each of the allies only got 4.
-
I think the NOs were their attempt to replace NAs but it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see them in globabl game, not just europe. And as for complicating the game more, once you wrap your head around all of the rules it just adds more to the richness and depth of the game. I say bring on more unique things to make it an even more insane board game.
-
Heavy Bombers was always a game ender.
-
@Brain:
Heavy Bombers was always a game ender.
I thought heavy bombers was a tech not a na
-
Tech, NA what’s the difference?
-
I Lot less Lulz
-
-
meaning a lot less fun. Techs are game ending but can typically be achieved by any side. (especially the way i play with techs larrys way gaurountees they will be universally ignored. as they were.
NAs are those things that give specific countries specific bonuses. for example Russian winter or Japanese bonsai soldiers Typically made the games NO FUN. I cant tell you how un-fun it was to stay up past midnight playing with friends and have that dumb russian winter. Plus america had better “NAs” while japans “NAs” were terrible. They were subjective. and dont even get me started on how awful the axis advantages were when compared to the allied.
-
meaning a lot less fun. Techs are game ending but can typically be achieved by any side. (especially the way i play with techs larrys way gaurountees they will be universally ignored. as they were.
NAs are those things that give specific countries specific bonuses. for example Russian winter or Japanese bonsai soldiers Typically made the games NO FUN. I cant tell you how un-fun it was to stay up past midnight playing with friends and have that dumb russian winter. Plus america had better “NAs” while japans “NAs” were terrible. They were subjective. and dont even get me started on how awful the axis advantages were when compared to the allied.
I know the allies advantages were so much better
-
Just do away with these rules and keep everyone on an even playing field.
-
i think the axis NAs are better cause allied NAs seem to be one time only, like colonial garrison, french resistents, russian winter, joint stirke.
-
Yeah cuz we all know the war was such_an even playing field_
-
Although a lot of the na’s were good, from what I remember (haven’t touched revised since I’ve played aa50 and aap40) lend-lease was the killer one for the axis. It in effect put the Germany at 40 ipcs against russia 24 ipcs, like 15 of britain’s ipcs (which I used to invade norway and just send units and fighters every turn into russia which became russian) and anything that America could give (which was quite a lot seeing as it could dominate Japan w/o too much trouble with help from India (made possible by another allied bonus the colonial garrison). In the games I played as the allies, I was able to dominate as Russia. They were always on the offensive.
Suggested Topics
