can anyone give me their personal opinion on AA50 vs global? I have AA50 and have played pacific. but what am i getting into by getting global? how much will really benefit over AA50? Biggest changes? etc?
Thanks!
Well, if you’re not a fanatic like Maher who can’t tolerate the fact that the game isn’t perfect OOB even though it’s easily changed with no obligatory effort, you should buy E40 and use Larry’s alpha version setup for P40 which balances it, reducing the planes on both sides. Anniversary cost $100, Global is $120 and has twice the territories and sea zones, 2 new players, more money for everyone, more advanced rules, more territories in Russia and China(must be emphasized), and multiple option. Definetly worth it.
Well, if you’re not a fanatic like Maher who can’t tolerate the fact that the game isn’t perfect OOB even though it’s easily changed with no obligatory effort, you should buy E40 and use Larry’s alpha version setup for P40 which balances it, reducing the planes on both sides. Anniversary cost $100, Global is $120 and has twice the territories and sea zones, 2 new players, more money for everyone, more advanced rules, more territories in Russia and China(must be emphasized), and multiple option. Definetly worth it.
If you want to finish a game in a day, AA50 is still a perfectly reasonable (and fun) option. I can play AA50 with my friends who are willing to try the game. That’s not the case with AAE/P40, so if you don’t know some hard core war/strategy gamers and convince them it’s worth the time investment to play over more than one day (much harder sell), you might not see much playtime on it.
In the meantime, I’m personally going to see if I can work in tac bombers into AA50 (cause they’re so pretty). Mech Infantry would probably break Russia/Germany in AA50 but Tacs would probably be a reasonable add.
Well, if you’re not a fanatic like Maher who can’t tolerate the fact that the game isn’t perfect OOB even though it’s easily changed with no obligatory effort, you should buy E40 and use Larry’s alpha version setup for P40 which balances it, reducing the planes on both sides. Anniversary cost $100, Global is $120 and has twice the territories and sea zones, 2 new players, more money for everyone, more advanced rules, more territories in Russia and China(must be emphasized), and multiple option. Definetly worth it.
If you want to finish a game in a day, AA50 is still a perfectly reasonable (and fun) option. I can play AA50 with my friends who are willing to try the game. That’s not the case with AAE/P40, so if you don’t know some hard core war/strategy gamers and convince them it’s worth the time investment to play over more than one day (much harder sell), you might not see much playtime on it.
In the meantime, I’m personally going to see if I can work in tac bombers into AA50 (cause they’re so pretty). Mech Infantry would probably break Russia/Germany in AA50 but Tacs would probably be a reasonable add.
That is a very good point. Just like G40 is a balance between being unrealistic or too complicated(like World in Flames), AA50 is a balance between 1942 and AAG40, although I’d like to add that AA50 is apparently unbalanced while AA42 is balanced
AA50 is an all around great. Suitable for any occassion. Global, I believe, will come to be just as fun, if not more so, however I think it suited for at least 5 players and a lot of time.
Both great games. My opinion: Global gets a 9.5/10, AA50 gets 9.2/10.
AA50 is an all around great. Suitable for any occassion. Global, I believe, will come to be just as fun, if not more so, however I think it suited for at least 5 players and a lot of time.
Both great games. My opinion: Global gets a 9.5/10, AA50 gets 9.2/10.
Is the loss of .5 due to balance issues in P40?
AA50 is an all around great. Suitable for any occassion. Global, I believe, will come to be just as fun, if not more so, however I think it suited for at least 5 players and a lot of time.
Both great games. My opinion: Global gets a 9.5/10, AA50 gets 9.2/10.
Is the loss of .5 due to balance issues in P40?
Not necessarily… I was thinking in general terms, not really factoring in the “twp seperate games put together” part. Pacific’s shortcomings aside, I believe the game is a 9.5.
I don’t really know of a 10, so I couldn’t say what is better. But the slightest lack in certain areas has caused a loss of .5. I think the game itself is one of the best ever, but I can think of a few changes/alterations to make it pretty much perfect.
Do you mean aesthetic reasons(like matching ocean colors) or reasons that affect gameplay(prefer more realistic rules)?
Do you mean aesthetic reasons(like matching ocean colors) or reasons that affect gameplay(prefer more realistic rules)?
Yes, non-matching oceans would be something to rectify. Mostly, my issues would be the minor ones… such as physical product qualities, not the dynamics of the game itself. I am not even finished with my firat game yet, so I do not consider myself qualified to take too many points off for bad game dynamics. I haven’t found any yet. But to really do so, I’d need to play more and then analyze the gameplay. I am already thinking the game is skewed a bit in Allied favor, but I am not deducting points for lack of balance yet. So you could say this is my first impression of the game: 9.5.
My personal concerns over the product are: lack in consistency (ocean color, unit mold quality), some unclear/undefined rules (I will have to ponder for examples, but some did come up in our game, some are carryovers from AA50), lack in AA50 style quality (cardboard nation setup/NO charts, money, research tokens, research card)… Most of these are minor, or simply less convenient, but the game would be perfect if some of these were ammended.
How would you rate the games Calvin?
Do you mean aesthetic reasons(like matching ocean colors) or reasons that affect gameplay(prefer more realistic rules)?
Yes, non-matching oceans would be something to rectify. Mostly, my issues would be the minor ones… such as physical product qualities, not the dynamics of the game itself. I am not even finished with my firat game yet, so I do not consider myself qualified to take too many points off for bad game dynamics. I haven’t found any yet. But to really do so, I’d need to play more and then analyze the gameplay. I am already thinking the game is skewed a bit in Allied favor, but I am not deducting points for lack of balance yet. So you could say this is my first impression of the game: 9.5.
My personal concerns over the product are: lack in consistency (ocean color, unit mold quality), some unclear/undefined rules (I will have to ponder for examples, but some did come up in our game, some are carryovers from AA50), lack in AA50 style quality (cardboard nation setup/NO charts, money, research tokens, research card)… Most of these are minor, or simply less convenient, but the game would be perfect if some of these were ammended.
How would you rate the games Calvin?
Hmm, I don’t have AA50 and have never played it(except against a very weak AI in TripleA), so all I know about it is what I’ve heard-that’s 1941 is very unbalanced towards axis, and so is 1942, but less so. As for Global, assuming OOB+FAQ setup on the Pacific side(this will change as Larry is in the process of revising the P40 setup), I would give the game a 9.7. Here are my pros and cons:
Pros: Gameplay contains multiple options for th 6 major powers, and ANZAC to an extent; map is awesome, particularly with regards to a bigger Russia, China, Med, Atlantic, Africa, and Pacific; the new units and rules add more realism into the game(including kamikazes); the naval and air bases partially compensate for the doubling of spaces on the board and give more strategic options(making Gibraltar, various Pacific islands, and other places more valuable, as opposed to 1942 and even anniversary); the pieces generally are of excellent quantity; and the game seems to be balanced(even with the P40 problems).
Cons: Italian tanks and navy use copied sculpts, while Russian navy gets their own sculpts(minor problem with pieces); I prefer AA50 Tech system, although I can see the rationale for removing the tech tokens; the ocean colors don’t match up; and Japan has too many planes that it could send to Europe(Larry is in the process of fixing this).
I agree with much of this. Although I will say that I am not a hard-core playtester type… meaning I don’t go through different strategies and different approaches, just for the sake of doing so. This being said, my jury is still out on the unbalanced factor. I think AA50 is a very good game though.
Given AAG40s scope, I would have prefered it to be “Deluxe” style, with all the toppings, like AA50 was. I am not too worried because I plan to modify its contents enough so that I will make it deluxe myself.
I agree with much of this. Although I will say that I am not a hard-core playtester type… meaning I don’t go through different strategies and different approaches, just for the sake of doing so. This being said, my jury is still out on the unbalanced factor. I think AA50 is a very good game though.
Given AAG40s scope, I would have prefered it to be “Deluxe” style, with all the toppings, like AA50 was. I am not too worried because I plan to modify its contents enough so that I will make it deluxe myself.
I believe Larry has a long term plan for a “Deluxe” game
I prefer AA50 because the movement of AAG40 didn’t change and yet the number of spaces doubled.
I just want a 4 hour game.AAG40 does not fit the bill.
It would have been easier if the setup was printed on the map, because it takes too long to do this.
Plus most of the ideas from AA50 are in AAG40.
I would love to see a AA50 reprint with all the new pieces and a 1939, 1941 and 1942 scenario and the French. It would also include neutrals and thick double sided tokens.
I start too many sentences with I.
@Imperious:
I start too many sentences with I.
Well, you are Imperious… which sounds epically important… so it is natural you should start sentences with ‘I’.
AA 50 had Italian tanks, but horrible piece quality.
I personally prefer AAG40 for a few reasons. 1): The new units in AAG40 add new strategy and options to all of the countries. 2): The addition of France and ANZAC is a nice touch. 3): Neutral countries add yet more depth and strategy to both the Axis and Allies. 4): More money on the board means more intense and exciting battles. 5): Allowing Germany and Japan to choose when they go to war keeps the Allies guesing and lets the Axis players set the pace of the early game.
Both versions are great, but AAG40 is the better choice if you want the complete AA experience. IMO anyway
Global 1940 is as much better than AA50 as AA50 is better than MB’s Gamemaster edition from 1984.
well hey. thanks for the opinions guys. ill buy and report how my first game went.
I believe Larry has a long term plan for a “Deluxe” game
Can you elaborate?
Here’s Larry’s site: http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/index.php?sid=e5e8abc255ebf9c1fcedbe3dee49aa29
Near the bottom are boards called Advanced-Axis and Allies
