AA50 Objective Trackers

Having played some more games, I no longer really feel dat the Allies have a better chance of winning. Perhaps it just takes more games to learn how to play axis effectively.

Having NO’s on indeed makes the game more realistic and fluid, in the sense that fighting for something like australia for example really is worth the effort more. Perhaps we will try NO’s in the future, when all of our players are more experienced with the vanilla ruleset.

i made 2 mods for TripleA’s aa50,

China takes their turn with Russia (plus a number of other balancing changes and some units moved around)

UK starts with a factory as a bid, meaning they place a factory somewhere on the board before the game begins (plus a number of other other balancing changes, and some units moved around)

both games have tech activation happen at the END of a turn, not right after you roll.  so for example, if i rolled for tech and got heavy bombers, then i would not get it right away, but instead would get it during the place-units phase at the end of the turn.

both games also have the options to use LHTR heavy bombers (roll 2 dice, pick best, if sbr add 1), and to turn tech off completely
and to use LOW LUCK dice, yay

I have an AA50 for sale. It has been played a few times but is still in excellent condition. If anyone is interested send me a message with an offer and the highest offer by 02/05/10 will get it along with the full set of Combat Dice from FMG. I also have a copy of 2nd edition, Revised, Europe, the original Pacific game, and Battle of the Bulge available for sale. Message me on those as well. I am keeping AAP40 and AA42. Thanks.

I told you people to buy 6 copies like 9 months ago!

See you could have created a new commodity with more value than gold.

I more than agree with templeton on the freedom to players idea. I appreciate the game offers a nice historical point of view, but it is the idea of being able to do the “what if” playing that makes it really exciting.

Except first rnd, Jap killed my BB, all US units went to Europe. The problem with the -41 scenario is that US must use much more ipc to build a sustainable fleet than in the 42 scenario. I did not play effective as allies though, with not killing German fleet UK1, I screwed US purchases etc. Maybe I played too aggressive with Russia, but I think Germany + Italy could take Caucasus anyway. Game wouldnt end if I didn’t take Berlin, unless the attempt was a failure :)
Axis player slowed Jap himself with not taking either Philly or Borneo and east Indies J1, but the Jap beachhead in Asia was as strong as the Normandy landings, so there is not really an opening to KJF, more than in AAR. SJF is important where it can be done. I killed a lone Jap trans with DD, these things are mistakes that will happen sometimes, until we get used to the new rules.

I was just reading the end of this thread: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/341599

…and it got me thinking. There a lot of people that would like to see an even amount of attention to both the theaters of war, and I realize that the NOs are now an effort along with VCs to encourage such play… Im just wondering, wouldnt VPs be a great way to force the allies to spread their efforts in multiple directions instead of the standard KGF?
You could do VPs for the axis or allies as a group, OR you could do it as individuals - so if japan gets too large (left alone), it can win the game by itself so to speak… same goes for japan, they cant focus ALL their efforts on the charge to moscow, as the usa could steal all the VPs from the pacific…

Just thinking out loud mostly ;)

just checked it out but i dtn wanna play a&a rly on this to boring srry