Money question?????????

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/46720/aa50-ipcs-in-pdf-format

For those of you that have AA50, or have printed your own IPC’s, which kind/quality of paper are the IPC’s printed on? I’m thinking of printing my own for AAP40/AAE40 using the pdf at BGG, but just wondering if regular printer paper would work ok or if it would be better to use something a little heavier.

@mclemens68:

For those of you that have AA50, or have printed your own IPC’s, which kind/quality of paper are the IPC’s printed on? I’m thinking of printing my own for AAP40/AAE40 using the pdf at BGG, but just wondering if regular printer paper would work ok or if it would be better to use something a little heavier.

Actually, I believe it’s something a little (very little) bit lighter than standard paper … It’s definately not got a regular paper feel to it.

I would either use standard weight paper or perhaps something a step lighter, but definately not heavier.

@mclemens68:

For those of you that have AA50, or have printed your own IPC’s, which kind/quality of paper are the IPC’s printed on? I’m thinking of printing my own for AAP40/AAE40 using the pdf at BGG, but just wondering if regular printer paper would work ok or if it would be better to use something a little heavier.

I printed a sheet of each one and took them to Office Depot to make the copies and the copies from Office Depot look really good. Not sure on the type of paper but they sure do look good.

I just robbed an old version of the game for IPCs.

And industrial complexes.

And AA guns.

And extra dice.

You get the idea.

I also took damage counters from Anniversary (which will basically be obsolete once Europe / Global 40 comes out)…

I could forgive WOTC for almost everything but the exclusion of damage counters, which are needed for this game but haven’t really been printed in anything but a limited-edition run.

What’s wrong with using chips as damage counters?

Because if you put a chip under a battleship you have two battleships. Any other questions?

@Make_It_Round:

Because if you put a chip under a battleship you have two battleships. Any other questions?

I meant under factories. Damage BB’s can be turned on their side.

Tilt battleships sideways……

Okay, three things:

1. Can we agree that the game would be better with damage counters than without them?

2. Shouldn’t any object that’s mentioned in a game’s rules be represented in the game’s pieces?

3. If WOTC didn’t implicitly believe both 1 & 2, or at least see the sense behind those arguments, then why did Anniversary Edition include damage counters in the first place?

They cheaped out. You don’t need to cover for them. For a very small amount of extra expense on their part, they could have made great componants for Larry’s great game.

Where does the rulebook say to use a damage counter for a damaged BB?

@calvinhobbesliker:

Where does the rulebook say to use a damage counter for a damaged BB?

It doesn’t. But that would be a better way of keeping track of damaged ships. Sometimes sea units get flipped over by accident while playing the game… it would be difficult to put a damage marker under a ship by accident.

“Damage markers” are mentioned in page 22 of the rulebook, with regards to industrial complexes. Plastic chips are suggested to represent these, but plastic chips already have a use in the game: to represent multiple units of the same type.

To avoid confusion, I’m suggesting that it would pay to have a separate counter to represent these damage markers. I really didn’t think that this would be a controversial point! But I suppose I’m not surprised…  :roll:

But you can’t have multiple factories in a territory

@calvinhobbesliker:

But you can’t have multiple factories in a territory

Okay, now you’ve just stopped making any sense at all. I never said anything about that…

However, if what you’re attempting to indicate is that there won’t be any difficulties due to mixed up counters, bear in mind that industrial complexes can share territories with air bases, naval bases, and other units with tonnes of plastic chips under them.

@Make_It_Round:

I also took damage counters from Anniversary …

I did the same thing for my AA42 game along with the Marshal cards and tokens from Revised. Since some of the territories are a little small in AA42, I scanned the chits from AAP40 for the aa guns, air bases, naval bases and ICs to use in AA42. IL has some house rules to use for AA50/AA42 that can use those little card board markers.

IL’s house rules only use minor IC’s and naval bases(naval ports) He doesn’t use air bases.

@calvinhobbesliker:

IL’s house rules only use minor IC’s and naval bases(naval ports) He doesn’t use air bases.

No, his rules do not include air bases but the rules for AAP40 do and can be incorporated to use with AA42.

To me Air base just makes no sence in a game like this. Really you can easily fly planes on any flat surface, whereas a naval port is a substantial installation that includes dry docks, fuel depots, etc.

Major naval ports that facilitated and could accommodate military vessels were more specialized, while air bases could be formed ad hoc and improvisation depending on the military situation.

I think they just added them because it fitted into the Land ( factory), Sea ( port), and Air ( airport) motif of game design. The design didn’t seem complete without one new installation for each category. But this was a mistake.  It is the same type of thinking that produces 5 IPC for NO’s, or when people design costs and use numbers like 5,10,15 ( nice looking but totally inadequate in terms of game play). It is almost like numbers like 2,3,4,6,7,8,9 don’t exist.

Anyway this air base thing is just another ‘fit’ to the design. But it really adds nothing. If anything it just adds more complexity and not more ‘fun factor’

Also, my naval ports protect ships from naval attacks. This is the key use that they serve as well as construction and repair. But the design neglects to address this substantial concern, and rather invents this concept that ships move faster when they leave the port.

Also, in case many don’t already know this: The entire concept of Major and Minor factories in AAP40 are nearly the same as World War Two: The game ( major builds 10, minor builds 3, costs similar too) The only difference is in the WW2 game, the minor can’t build battleships, bombers, and carriers nor can they be bombed.

@Yoper:

@Make_It_Round:

Okay, three things:

1. Can we agree that the game would be better with damage counters than without them?

2. Shouldn’t any object that’s mentioned in a game’s rules be represented in the game’s pieces?

3. If WOTC didn’t implicitly believe both 1 & 2, or at least see the sense behind those arguments, then why did Anniversary Edition include damage counters in the first place?

They cheaped out. You don’t need to cover for them. For a very small amount of extra expense on their part, they could have made great componants for Larry’s great game.

1. No, we don’t have to agree.  I really don’t care for the cardboard counters that came with AA50.  They don’t stack very well.

I just use another color of plastic chip for the damage markers under ICs.  I use black chips so they in no way can be confused with/for chips of various game units in the event that fat fingers knock over pieces during play.

Could WotC include chips for this use?  Yes.  Should they?  Yes!

2. YES!  And it should be plastic!  At least the ICs and the AA guns should be plastic.  I am alright with the AB and NB being cardboard, but they should be bigger and/or stand out better so that they don’t get lost in the crowd of plastic pieces when playing the game.

3. The use of damage markers to signify the effects of SBRs was new in AA50.  As such, they wanted the players to have a way to show it that would help people remember it.

Yes, I agree that they should continue to put such game parts into following editions if the rule idea continues to be applicable, but they have show before that they have a tendency to pare down their production of game play aids.  This omission shouldn’t shock anyone.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that they are cheap bastards and that they will consistently find ways to cut corners while charging us full price.  That is why we will always have to find ways to come up with better solutions here and across the net.

How about Larry find a different company that cares about quality to produce the games?