Seems pretty good. Looks like a lot more money for the Allies. Might be required since the UK is so busted up. Seems like you’d always J1 given that the US is already making 5 bucks off Japan anyways.
AA50: House Rules
-
If you dont mind cutting cards then get some good cardstock and cut them to size…probably about 10 bucks
-
Oh, by decals, you meant just the pictures on the cards.
What about the phase 2 board? I’m starting an Axis and Allies Club @ my school, and there is already interest in a WWI A&A. What’s the best way to go about getting all these boards you design? Should we make them ourselves of buy them off you? I would think making it ourselves would be cheapest.
-
I already posted the WW1 AA game its complete. just DL it and print the map
Phase two for AA50 is only having Ceylon,malta, sardinia, and corsica as well as azores. Also added cairo and Polesti as VC. I dont think the map needs anything more than that
-
WHy dont you add the territores from the NOVA game that somehow never made the cut for classic
-
which ones?
-
well I think their was a Tunisia, a papua new guinea, Iraq, Syria and cyprus were also added. O and a thailand. The french african terriotries were split up and their were two terriotries in for australia. Also i think their was a sea zone that split the mediteranian horizontaly. Any of those cahnges i think would be good.
-
Tunisia, a papua new guinea, Iraq, Syria and cyprus were also added. O and a thailand.
Tunisia perhaps
A northern new guinea makes no sence unless terrain is part of the game ( Owen Stanley ridge) or you want it a bit scripted so the map looks like how WW2 went. For that it looks like scripting but for no real reason because we are talking about one island and japan is not two separate territories.
Iraq would be fair
Syria is not of any importance to the war. I would rather have Levant States representing all these Free French properties
Cyprus was not really in the war, and we already got Malta
Sardinia and Corsica and Sicily have some importance.
Azores are important only so that Germany ‘could’ SBR America and/or provide UK/USA with an unsinkable CV for bombers or fighters to land on.
-
yah so add Iraq and tunisia, also what about Singipore, that was a sight of a major battle.
also in the regular map, The Eastern Ukraine terriotry really annoys me. First of all it is north of Ukraine and borders east poland which is west of ukraine, so instead of seperating Ukraine ofrm the the caucases so that the stalingrad battle would be interesting and hisotrical it makes the the Russian front retarded.
When can we get a an eastern front that makes sence?
also i really think it would spice up the mediterrianian it there was a forth sea zone sperating the middle one horizontally
these are problaby too many changes for phase 2, so how about we move onto phase three. I have an excelent idea for a start date.
-
also in the regular map, The Eastern Ukraine terriotry really annoys me. First of all it is north of Ukraine and borders east poland which is west of ukraine, so instead of seperating Ukraine ofrm the the caucases so that the stalingrad battle would be interesting and hisotrical it makes the the Russian front retarded.
That sound like something flashman would post…Anyway i need to know how doing this improves play? Its a mistake to make changes ONLY because it dont look right. What does your change do to improve the game?
When can we get a an eastern front that makes sence?
Playtesters were the best. I don’t see any problems requiring me to edit how the map looks. I only like to add things because its easier to see who it will effect the game.
also i really think it would spice up the Mediterranean it there was a forth sea zone separating the middle one horizontally
what is the idea here? spice? how?
these are problaby too many changes for phase 2, so how about we move onto phase three. I have an excelent idea for a start date.
I only made the changes i did for purposeful reasons. I hate the idea that the Italians have to take Egypt and Jordan By I1 or lose the fleet. To me this is a joke to force players into strategies because a trick exists that forces a pattern of play to deny some proven counter like UK building 3 bombers.
So i added Malta so nothing can be done to prevent this… so the pressure is off into forced moves.
I added Sardinia and such because i want a few more bucks for Italy, and also have a situation where the Allies might want to take them or the axis can land on them too.
Azores is a must because it opens up a possible way to bomb USA which has never been a possibility before unless you got them coming from france in MB edition and they are long range.
But the map also fits into my house rules which allow them to have more of a role in the game.
If i added anything it would be in terms of replacing the NO’s with Strategic Objectives and having independent national victory conditions for each player. This would include separating Caucasus, and possibly Iraq
-
@Imperious:
If i added anything it would be in terms of replacing the NO’s with Strategic Objectives and having independent national victory conditions for each player. This would include separating Caucasus, and possibly Iraq
cool, that would take axis and allies too the next level
on the eastern front front thing having a terriotry between the ukraine and the stalingrad territory adds more depth to what was the 1942 german offensive. It shows how much farther stlingrad was from germany than moscow was, plus the front line would just look better nd more realistic.
and what about tunsia and singapore. Tunisa defintely alows the axis to have one last stand in africa or at least an oppertunity to retreat their forces. If you add tunisa you should also makes sure the western med sea zone does not border it and instead have it border the centrel one.
and about the fourt med sea zone, i guess it really is not nessisary but i just thought it might makes malta a little more powerful if it had its one sea zone.
i undertand if you dont want to make a 1939 scenario, that sound very boring to me too. But i was thinking what start would allow the axis player the most freedom. at first I thought it would be early 1940 but even at that point norway and france would be very scripted moves unless you add alot more territories.
However, if you start the game immeditly after france falls the axis players have a larger range of operation than any other start date during the war. At the this the germans had not made any major stratigic blunders (they messed up tactically at dunkirk, which did have stratgic implications) so the geramn player can desided to start the battle of Birtain, attacking egypt earlier, and maybe even bring Russia into the war as an ally on their side! for Japan, after making china a stronger player, he can choose to contiue to pursue a costly war in asia, attak Birtain or Russia, and could choose not to attack pearly harbor or preform at suprise attack that was even more devistating
I think summer 1940 is a start date that gives both players the most freedom and very little scipting if any is required.
-
What if you added Port Moresby as a vicotry city to promote a south pacfic battle?
-
yea thats a good idea!
That would definatly be a new VC or replace a VC thats not realistic (ottawa)
-
@Imperious:
yea thats a good idea!
That would definatly be a new VC or replace a VC thats not realistic (ottawa)
thx, then the VC count is 21, which is an awsome number.
and what about a map for a summer 1940 start date (immedietly after the Fall of France). That is the date that has the most potential to allow the axis more oppertunities and choices and as a result gives the allies a wider varierty of counters.
-
yea but still you got a few turns where USSR/USA are neutral. i suppose it could work.
Im working on my ‘Destroy all Monsters’ game followed by a new map for Europe Engulfed. I have too much to do already and i still got AA42 to work on as soon as i have the file ill make a map for it too.
-
@Imperious:
yea but still you got a few turns where USSR/USA are neutral. i suppose it could work.
Im working on my ‘Destroy all Monsters’ game followed by a new map for Europe Engulfed. I have too much to do already and i still got AA42 to work on as soon as i have the file ill make a map for it too.
take your time.
And how is Europe Engulfed? I have been thinking of purchasing it for some time. it seems like it has less of a variety in naval units and the blocks dont seem that appealing, but i like the increased number of terriotries and more diversity in land units.
-
buy the 2003 version and download the rules for 2nd edition. I got mine for $30 rather than $99 for the second printing.
EE is a really good game I have Asia engulfed but EE is a real winner. Its actually a very easy game even if its 24 pages of rules. I bet you can fit the REAL rules on 2 pages.
-
@Imperious:
buy the 2003 version and download the rules for 2nd edition. I got mine for $30 rather than $99 for the second printing.
EE is a really good game I have Asia engulfed but EE is a real winner. Its actually a very easy game even if its 24 pages of rules. I bet you can fit the REAL rules on 2 pages.
The Europe one is better? I read that the Asia enfulfed has more advanced air and naval combat, I guess this comes with an expence to armored warfare.
-
EE is way better than AE. But they have link up rules called “world Engulfed” made by my friend “Shaka of Chartrage”
-
@Imperious:
EE is way better than AE. But they have link up rules called “world Engulfed” made by my friend “Shaka of Chartrage”
How do i get a hold on these “World Engulfed” rules
-
Ill check on that.
Suggested Topics
