Hi @cloud7707 you could try adding an AA Gun to china instead. I know Oztea did it for his Global mods and i thought it worked well fwiw :)
Cmdr Jennifer Hijacks “Enhanced” – How do you really feel about it.
-
@Imperious:
If you want a whining thread then make one and call it anything you like….
Thank you for the suggestion. I believe a thread devoted just to this topic might show how much/little universal acceptance there really is for this version of the rule-set.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation to Imperious Leader, axis_roll, cousin_joe, Cmdr Jennifer, or anyone involved with the creation of AARe or AA50 (with or without the ‘e’). Likewise, I have never spoken to any of the afore-mentioned individuals, either personally or electronically. If my views and opinions appear to be in line with those of others on this site, maybe it’s more than a coincidence. Maybe there is a real problem with the way things have transpired. I’m not saying anything is going to change, but I still have the right to express my displeasure.
@Imperious:Everybody has a right to opinions…
First off, please excuse my lengthy post, but I just had to get a few things, that have been bugging me, out in the open. Also I’ve included a fair amount of quotations from other threads to help reinforce some of the statements I’ve made as well as clarify what has prompted some of my comments. Some conclusions I’ve had to make on my own due to lack of concrete information provided by the individual(s) making the statement(s).
My personal view of the “self-proclaimed” official version of “enhanced” rules for AA50. I only say self-proclaimed, because as far as I know there is no governing body for official house rule versions. In which case, I look to the people responsible for creating the previously accepted rule-set.
Jennifer, please stop posting your assemblage of rules as The Enhanced Rules for AA50.. Your rules were not created via a consortium of A&A players to fix agreed upon game playout issues nor have they been play tested. You have even incorporated rules from other game editions for no reason!
Had axis_roll not challenge Cmdr Jennifer on her rules, I would not have known that those individuals responsible for the AARe rule-set were not involved with the “enhancements” to AA50. Does that matter? Maybe not. But I’ve come to expect a certain level of thoroughness from the rule-set with the little “e” after it.
@Cmdr:
These rules have been accepted just about everywhere at this point. …but so far, these are the only OFFICIAL Axis and Allies Anniversary Edition Enhanced Rules. No other AA50e rules exist.
I have to disagree with the “accepted just about everywhere”, because “everywhere” is a lot of places. Although, I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again. Hopefully this thread will prove that to be true once more so we can get past this and continue on with the gameplay discussions. But until that time comes, I stand by my first statement: I disagree. There are enough comments from different individuals on this site to disprove that claim. Granted there may be people that agree with it, who also haven’t spoken up.
Why use the “Enhanced” term. There are a variety of terms that mean relatively the same thing. Modified, adapted, personalized, and custom are some possibilities. Why pick enhanced, specifically?
Why utilize an established name?
There are only a few reasons I can think of:- The previous “owner” doesn’t have time to continue creating/modifying rule-sets and has asked that someone new carry the torch.
@axis_roll:
…I asked if you had Cousin_Joes stamp of approval (not a legal right to call these rules AA50e). You said you had many emails with his approval. I asked for one example and supplied my email, but alas, no email from Jennifer that states Cousin_Joe is on board with the set of rules you have labelled AA50e.
@Cmdr:
They were not hijacked. Cousin_Joe and everyone else was made fully aware of what was being done when the official word came that they had no interest in creating the Anniversary Enhanced Rules themselves. They were asked, begged and pleaded with to assist and they chose not too. They relinquished control provided we did not make any drastic changes.
-
Inner need to be the center of attention (my life needs meaning).
-
Power/ego trip
@Cmdr:
The attached PDF are THE OFFICIAL AA50:ENHANCED RULES, end of story. If you would like to create a different set of rules you may feel free, but my set is the first released and published and game tested and approved by the player base. Many people had a hand in helping to create them which, indirectly, includes the original designers of AARe since much of the rules are copy/pasted straight FROM AARe…
All I asked for was proof that [cousin_joe] agreed with you. You replied with insults, personal attacks and legal action. Enhanced was created via a collaborative effort, a unified team that shared ideas, game play tests results and worked together under CJ’s guidance. More than anything, your Me-first attitude insults that portion of the Enhanced legacy.
Users with low number of posts
@Imperious:Whiny= more than one complaint about the same thing and nothing else substantive to offer. I am more specifically talking about the other people who have less than 10 posts total and 9 of them are the same post about complaining about the same thing. They got enough of these posts in and everybody has fully understood them so their is no point in reposting the same stuff again and again.
You have got to be kidding me. What right does a moderator have, to remove a post saying that because the person hasn’t posted 1 thousand times their post has less meaning than someone else’s. As a matter of fact, I believe it holds more. I read the posts/threads, but I’ve never felt the need to post, myself. Look at the number of reads per thread. There are a lot of people out there that are doing exactly the same thing. People who are already registered and posting 10 times a day are pretty much giving their “two cents” on everything. Not that it’s a bad thing, it’s just an observation. However, as with this post (my very first), the travesty that has been going on here has motivated me enough to create an account and express my feelings. That by it self should speak volumes about how I view the situation. And then to say that my opinion has no value because I have a low number of posts is a bit extreme. But that is what you are saying when you delete a post that doesn’t break any of the forum rules. (By the way, this truly is my very first post, here. I have never posted under another moniker on this site or any other site related to A&A).
If more than just a couple of people are having an issue with something, I don’t view it as “whiny”. And then how can a moderator say that I only have the right to say something once and if I mention it again my post will be deleted?
@Imperious:Ok everybody is now limited to ONE whining post. All who have posted so far have filled their quota.
You cannot tell me that if I gave 10 glowing reviews to something posted on this site that you would remove 9 of them because I had my say and everyone knows how I feel.
Maybe this needs to be revised?
@Imperious:Everybody has a right to opinions…
…as long as they are the right opinions.
Imperious Leader, please give me the proper way to express my disapproval for something that you would consider not whiny. Do I have to put a smiley emoticon after it? These are discussion threads. People will always have differing opinions. That is one of its primary functions: hear what EVERYONE has to say, whether you like what they have to say it or not, then take it, leave it, or rebut it.
Cmdr Jennifer, please give us the details of your testing. If you have tested this as intensively as you say, this information should be readily available to you.
@Cmdr:…Everything was logical and procedural and stems from the original rules given to us, discussions with the creators, testing by literally dozens and dozens of players…
(Some of this has been touched on, but it’s spread out over several threads. I was hoping we could consolidate it into one and let the facts speak for themselves)
TESTERS:
- Who are they?
- What are their playing levels?
- How many games of AARe and AA50 have they played? (Because you are incorporating both sets of rules)
- Who have they beaten?
- What side(s) do they play (Axis, Allies, both)?
TESTING PROCEDURES:
- What testing procedures were used?
- What strategies have been tested to validate the need for rule changes? And tested by which testers? Against which other strategies? By which side?
- How many times was each strategy tested?
Part of my daily job is testing. So when you say logical and procedural, to me that also means documented. If you haven’t kept records, how can you make rational decisions? How do you know what’s been tested and what hasn’t? How can you go back to games played weeks/months ago and re-affirm your conclusions if you don’t know which games prove which points? How can you prove that chance didn’t greatly affect the outcome of the testing? Forgive me if I’m skeptical when you state “I believe…” and you provide no evidence upon which you based your conclusions.
@Cmdr:I believe it is unbalanced in so much as Germany has no realistic ability…
I believe the allies might have an unfair edge…WHO MAKES THE RULES:
- Who submits the ideas for changes to the rules?
- How is the decision made as to which rules get enacted/changed?
- What ratio of votes are needed to make a change or prevent one?
- What level “expertise” does the voting people possess that gives them the right to place a vote? There are several people here on the site that may have this expertise. Most of them are listed as people I don’t know up in my disclaimer. I’m assuming that not every person testing has a vote on which rules get enacted/changed/removed.
@Cmdr:
Unfortunately, I was out voted.
I was also voted down on my opinion…@Cmdr:
Lastly, the copyright has been attained on these files. It was the only way I could think of to get axis_roll to shut up and stop whining that life moved on and adapted AARe to work in AA50e.
You can copyright everything you write, however that doesn’t stop anyone from criticizing what you do as a person.
@Cmdr:
You see, Axis has a bone to pick with me.
1) He feels slighted because his only critique of the game was that there were too many “new” rules. There are no “new” rules in Anniversary Enhanced, there is only a blending of AARe rules to work within the rules of Anniversary.
- Now, if Imperial Leader would be so kind, it would be great if axis_roll’s comments were deleted from the thread. It is painfully obvious that he is attempting to stir up discontent in an effort to kill the hard work of dozens upon dozens of individuals for his own personal gain by slinging mud. Right now there are 3 major clubs that are looking to this board for their copies of AA50:Enhanced and the users who do not know better, might think axis_roll has some influence or say over the matters instead of him just being some discontented user with a bone to pick with me personally.
Again I have to disagree with you. There are plenty of posts that show not everyone is on-board with your rule-set. Also, I don’t think that axis-roll has a personal issue with you. Although, not knowing him I can only speculate.
Here are a few quotes that I’ve read that show there is not a universal acceptance to your rules.
@Emperor:
Bottom line, we haven’t played enough OOB games to really know what the ramifications will be. These rules introduce far too many variables.
@Emperor:
To be honest, I’m not really sure we should even be thinking about an AA50e right now. AA50 just came out, and really wasn’t AARe designed to add spice to a version that had been out for years?
I think these discussions are fine, but I agree with Emperor Mollari and think it still a little early yet for a full blown AA50e. …Let’s get some experience first before we try to ‘fix’ things.
Hi Emperor,
I agree, this is a whole new game and we can’t simply port over everything from AARe to AA50e@Unknown:
It’s way too premature for a project like this, we don’t know enough about game balance with the OOB rules yet to start making fundamental changes to the rules and expecting quality game play.
Jennifer, stop using Enhanced as if it were yours! It is in poor taste to hijack Enhanced (AARe) from Cousin Joe.
Yeah, I don’t want to stir anything up but it doesn’t seem right to adapt the “Enhanced” moniker without the endorsement of the original AARe guys.
Besides, AA50 hasn’t had time to settle yet. I think over a year passed from the release of AAR to the development of AARe, and that’s good because apart from a little clunkiness with subs, AARe was an excellent ruleset. You could tell that the collaborators behind it had played a LOT of games. I don’t think anyone can really say that so far in the three or so months AA50 has been out.The only possible reason to call the Jenny ruleset “Enhanced” is to confuse newbies or people like me who play a lot offline but don’t really keep track of the online scene. And then to keep at it when the original three ask nicely to desist is boorish and arrogant.
I for one will never play AA50:Jenny, but if the real Enhanced rules come out once you guys get a sense of the game’s balance please keep us informed.
Cmdr Jennifer, please prove me wrong. Prove to me that what you’ve said in your posts is accurate and truthful; not just “smoke and mirrors”. This dissension among the players is distracting from the game. I look forward to a time when game strategy and rules can once again be discussed without the (using your own term) “bunk”.
Whine-free indicator ==> :-D
- The previous “owner” doesn’t have time to continue creating/modifying rule-sets and has asked that someone new carry the torch.
-
I think MPC220 summarizes the past events quite nicely.
The only possible reason to call the Jenny ruleset “Enhanced” is to confuse newbies or people like me who play a lot offline but don’t really keep track of the online scene. And then to keep at it when the original three ask nicely to desist is boorish and arrogant.
I for one will never play AA50:Jenny, but if the real Enhanced rules come out once you guys get a sense of the game’s balance please keep us informed.
I think Jenn has good intentions when she tried to continue the Enhanced legacy from Revised to AA50. But the best intentions do not make up for her attitude and failure to do what it needs to make a great rules set. Anyone can make a rules set. Making one that makes the game better, consistently, that passes the test of time is another thing.
A collaberative effort with many games of play testing is the best way to do this. Hell, the community just now is only beginning to compile game numbers of any value to evaluate Anniversary Edition. How can a rule set that is meant to correct the issues in the base game be close to meeting it’s goal when those issues aren’t even ‘known’?
One last point: House rules that worked well for the Revised game can not just be copied over and applied to the new game. And copying them via cut and paste (in an effort to make this rule set ‘official’) is probably the worst way to port the old rules to the new game as the rules almost certainly need tweaking for them to be effective for AA50.
-
Yes collaborative effect would be nice. Though I thought AARe was ultimately in charge by cousin_joe rather than a council anyway.
I do sort of think people should not use an established name to name their set of house rules.
-
Yes collaborative effect would be nice. Though I thought AARe was ultimately in charge by cousin_joe rather than a council anyway.
The ‘council’ of players would discuss and make suggestions, do the game play testing with a final recommendation for a rule. Cousin_Joe did have final say, basically to avoid a ‘mutiny’ type of situation from ever happening.
Fortunately, CJ’s genious was usually right on with respect to the proper rule to be implemented.
-
Not to legitimize the thread, but two things of clarity:
1) Cmdr_Jennifer is not me. Kinda silly to take that name, but I’ll take it as a token of honor and respect that he so wants to be like me that he’ll take my name.
2) The title AA50:Enhanced (or 50th Anniversary Edition: Enhanced) was used because the entire rule set comes from Revised:Enhanced. Every idea, every concept, every pre-conceived notion in the AA50e official rules comes from the AARe official rules. Virtually nothing was changed except as a way to adapt to the new pieces and territories in Anniversary that did not exist in Revised. The goal of creating AA50e was to make the absolute minimum amount of changes from AARe so as to play the AARe rules in Anniversary without violating the rules of Anniversary. Considering there are only 10, very minor, changes, I think this was accomplished splendidly by the community of gamers who collaborated on this effort.
If you dislike the rules, then you probably dislike the AARe rules since they are virtually the same. In fact, any legitimate argument against AA50 enhanced would be equally legitimate against AAR enhanced.
D-Day is a carry over.
Convoy Raid Damage is a carry over.
Unit Costs are a carry over.
Submarine detection is a carry over.
Japanese/Russian Non-Aggression treaty is a carry over.Every major aspect of AARe has been carried over to AA50e with the exception of National Advantages. The NA in AARe were converted to the technologies in AA50 in the creation of AA50e and that was because the NAs in revised enhanced were virtually identical to the technologies in AA50.
Obviously things like China and Italy had to be added to Revised since they exist in Anniversary.
So you have to wonder, the whiners out there who have an issue with Enhanced for Anniversary, why are they complaining?
1) They felt left out. Even though everyone was invited, the invitation was only on this game forum or by direct invite. People like axis_roll determinedly and, in my opinion, pig-headedly refused to participate in the adaption of the rules to Anniversary. They felt that if they did not participate, that the entire world would come to a screeching halt and they could exist with their heads firmly implanted in the sand. They were wrong.
2) Some think there were too many changes. Well, sorry, but it is impossible to adapt Enhanced rules from Revised to function at all in Anniversary without at least some changes. They were asked for their input no less than three times before the official final version was released. No specific rules were challenged at those times.
3) Even though Cousin_Joe and other creators of Revised Enhanced never questioned the creation of Anniversary Enhanced and were appraised at each and every step along the procedure (their non-challenging of the creation could be taken as tacit approval of the new version) some people have taken it upon themselves to complain about the name being used. It’s akin to someone complaining that you named your dog “Buddy” because someone else named their dog “Buddy” one time and you “stole” the name. It’s silly. It would have more merit if they had named their dog “Buddy” but it wouldn’t be much more merit.
So, instead of saying “Hey thanks. Cousin_Joe and company did not want to make an enhanced version of Anniversary and we missed a lot of the enhanced rules from Revised when we converted to Anniversary. So it’s great that you and a team of players adapted the enhanced rules from Revised so that they would work in Anniversary and saving us the trouble of having to do it ourselves.” They b’tch’n’moan as if I had shot their dog.
Seems spiteful and hateful to me.
-
I am reluctant to step into the middle of a family squabble, but I don’t think this thread is serving a useful purpose.
There seems to be a plethora of house rules and other modifications that players would like to experiment with. Personally, as long as everyone agrees, fine by me. Call them what you want, “Enhanced”, “Modified”, “Historical”, “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, or “George” for all I care. If you don’t want to play with modified rules, then don’t.
Life is way too short to be picking fights in cyberspace over a game. A&A is a great game, but it is only a game. If you are not having fun, then something is seriously wrong.
My 2 cents.
-
If you dislike the rules, then you probably dislike the AARe rules since they are virtually the same. In fact, any legitimate argument against AA50 enhanced would be equally legitimate against AAR enhanced.
Once again, you completely miss the point. Just because you copied and pasted rules from AARe to AA50 does not mean your game will necessarily have the same strategic variety and game balance that was achieved inr AARe. You can’t just slap together a bunch of rules from a different game and expect them to function in the same way. Your failure to even acknowledge this point does not help your credibility as a game designer, and it casts serious doubt on the quality of your rule set. This is why people take issue with your use of the name “enhanced”: you’re taking the name of a well-established rule set in order to give your rules credibility.
Do your rules deserve that credibility? No, not as far as I can see.
Never mind the fact that people haven’t even figured out the basic game yet, you make bold claims about how your rules were thoroughly playtested by expert online players. Yet, when pressed for actual names of these players by axis_roll you simply ignore the question. Hmmm. Not a single other person who can vouch for you, huh? Not helping the credibility along.
If you haven’t playtested the rules, that’s fine. Just say so. People post rules all the time that I’m sure haven’t even been tried once. I just don’t see why you have to lie about it, and instead steal the name of an established rule set in order to legitimize your own.
-
Coming from someone who has played AA50:Enhanced exactly how many times, Unknown Soldier? My bet, ZERO
Talk to me about how well the AA50 enhanced rules work after you’ve played a dozen games of it. Until then, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
-
@Cmdr:
Coming from someone who has played AA50:Enhanced exactly how many times, Unknown Soldier? My bet, ZERO
LOL, obviously I haven’t played it.
My whole point is that these rules aren’t worth playing because you haven’t demonstrated that the same level of thought and playtesting that went into AARe went into your rules, even though you try to present them as such.
Now are you going to address these concerns, or continue to avoid them by simply attacking me?
-
@Unknown:
@Cmdr:
Coming from someone who has played AA50:Enhanced exactly how many times, Unknown Soldier? My bet, ZERO
LOL, obviously I haven’t played it.
My whole point is that these rules aren’t worth playing because you haven’t demonstrated that the same level of thought and playtesting that went into AARe went into your rules, even though you try to present them as such.
Now are you going to address these concerns, or continue to avoid them by simply attacking me?
Hey, you’re the one attacking me. You have not even gone to the trouble to play the rules, and I suspect, to even read them. How can you possibly say that there was not the same level of thought and playtesting in these as there was in AARe if you have not even attempted to play them?
Seems a little foolish to make a statement like the rules are bad just because you don’t like me personally. Not my fault you’re too stubborn to even download them, read them, and play them once (though I suggest it might take 3 to 5 games to truly see the balance at work) and see if they are as bad as you claim.
No, instead you’d rather flame and troll around. Why don’t you go away and get a life? If you don’t want to play AA50:Enhanced, then don’t play it. No one is forcing you to. And since I legally own the name, no amount of bleating like a stuck pig is going to get the name changed. (Though there is also no reason to change it, since the rules are virtually identical to AAR Enhanced which is the sole reason Anniversary Enhanced has that name.)
-
Well the thread is a calling card for the whinners to cry about whatever, so i see your point, but this thread is something like a purposeful salt cleaning for a wound thats self inflicted.
I too cringe at some of this, but at least its not spilling in other threads. I think its a joke thread anyway even if some people take it like gospel.
-
No, instead you’d rather flame and troll around.
If you wanna call me a troll or whatever, fine, but how about just addressing the issue at hand instead of calling me names? You brought this on yourself, so deal with it.
How can you possibly say that there was not the same level of thought and playtesting in these as there was in AARe if you have not even attempted to play them?
Its pretty simple, really. You read the rules. Which, despite your accusations, I did do. There are obvious flaws, one of which was pointed out to by axis_roll in the other thread. I questioned whether you playtested the rules in my first post in that thread, which was promptly deleted by IL. Then axis_roll asked you about playtesting, specifically, who was involved.
You responded with:
Most of the dev team were gamers who live in Northern Illinois. After the rudiments were put in place, we had a month of online gamers testing it from the four major gaming sites that I know of: DAAK, FOE, AAMC and here.
Wow, that sounds impressive.
Then axis_roll asked you the following:
I ask WHO they were (online monikers). How many players as well? You also didn’t indicate their background (i.e. years experience, AARe experience, etc) I know most, if not all of the Enhanced players.
To which you refuse to respond.
So, call me a skeptic, but I’m just not buying your story here. It seems as though maybe you didn’t bother playtesting much, if at all. It seems like you’re just saying things to sell us on your rules.
-
These are the two primary points of the this thread.
1. The lesser point being the name of the rule-set (notice how much of the original post is spent addressing it versus the other topics). Cmdr Jennifer, you seem to dwell on it as much as anyone.
2. Main point: Based on the length of time it took for AARe to be released, there hasn’t been enough time to fully test out AA50, none the less create and viable “Enhanced” rule-set. Check out the quotes provided toward the end of the starting post. Almost all of them are stating this same thing. Yet you fail to answer a single question regarding the play testing, AGAIN. You say it’s whining. I say it frustration from having to repeatedly ask for the same information.
Nowhere in my post do I say anything about not liking the rules. I’m sure you’ve put a lot of time and hard work into them, as you’ve pointed out. Although in almost the next breath you say very little has changed. So what has been taking a lot of time? Testing? If so, please give us the details.
@Cmdr:
They were asked for their input no less than three times before the official final version was release
You are fooling yourself if you think you have released the “final” version of your rule-set. To help assist me with my point on January 21, 2009, at 09:25:28 pm you posted a version of your rule-set. Then on January 22, 2009, at 05:27:16 am, Yoshi posted a conflict in your rule-set. That’s only about 8 hours.
@Cmdr:
…their non-challenging of the creation could be taken as tacit approval of the new version
Yes, that could be true if you completely ignore the posts from cousin_joe and axis_roll stating that it’s too early for an enhanced version (see quotes at the end of the originating post).
@Cmdr:
Seems a little foolish to make a statement like the rules are bad just because you don’t like me personally. Not my fault you’re too stubborn to even download them, read them, and play them once…
I’ve re-read some of Unknown Soldiers posts and none of them state that he doesn’t like you. Where’d that come from? Did I miss that post? He does make reference to not liking how you’ve gone about this, but not you, personally. Also, how’d you come to the conclusion that because he hasn’t played a game using your rule-set, that he hasn’t downloaded or read them?
@Cmdr:As for insulting the intelligence of others, I have never done so. …Not my fault some people think any disagreement at all is a personal attack against them.
-
Imperious Leader, read the thread again if you think it’s just whining going on here, because you missed the point as much as Cmdr Jennifer.
How can you see this as a joke thread, when myself and others have continuously requested information that would validate Cmdr Jennifer’s claim that she has fully tested her rule-set? I, for one, don’t have as much time as some of the rest of you. When I get a chance to play it’s a treat. I can’t spend half my time arguing with my opponent(s) about what a rule was “suppose” to mean (that should be found out in the testing). Or for that matter, what version of the rule-set we’re using. What I’m looking for is confirmation that the rule-set will not be constantly changing. You can call that a joke if you want to, but I call it due diligence.
Look at if from a business point of view. Cmdr Jennifer is a manufacturer selling her version of the rule-set. She wants us to use them, enjoy them, and assist with minor improvements. That would make us her customers. Right now her customers have no confidence in her product, yet she refuses to give us the information we request that would help re-instill it. Instead she attacks everyone that questions her rule-making process, causing confidence to drop even lower. (The first post I read that got flamed by her for asking for the details made me think. “Why won’t she answer it? What is she trying to hide?”)
I’m not “buying” something that is potentially full of bugs and will require constant patches, updates, or service bulletins. I don’t have the time or energy to deal with it. Again, that’s why there’s testing.
How about a real world example: Microsoft Vista. Microsoft has launched a huge campaign to trick people into thinking that it’s another OS, so they’ll try it. That’s how little confidence people have in it. And when people don’t have confidence in a product, they don’t even want to try it.
AARe has set a standard for expectations when it comes to released versions of Enhanced rule-sets. I expect nothing less from a version for AA50. If Cmdr Jennifer is up to the challenge, then let her prove it with documentation. I’m a big enough person to congratulate her on a job well done…if indeed she has accomplished what she says. But I won’t take just her word on it, and apparently I’m not alone. You can call me stubborn, pig-headed or whatever you want. However, when I get an afternoon off to play, that’s all the time I have; win, lose, or not finished.
-
@Cmdr:
Every idea, every concept, every pre-conceived notion in the AA50e official rules comes from the AARe official rules. Virtually nothing was changed except as a way to adapt to the new pieces and territories in Anniversary that did not exist in Revised. The goal of creating AA50e was to make the absolute minimum amount of changes from AARe so as to play the AARe rules in Anniversary without violating the rules of Anniversary. Considering there are only 10, very minor, changes, I think this was accomplished splendidly by the community of gamers who collaborated on this effort.
The model for creating AARe was this; start with LHTR and modify from there.
Notice this small sample of AARe from the early stages.
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ADVANTAGES:1. Method of Deployment
-At the start of each country’s first turn, they will select 1 NA to be used for the game
-The NA does not come into effect until it is declared at the start of that country’s first turn
-Once declared, the NA comes into effect immediately.
-The Axis also get one additional NA, for either Germany or Japan (Giving Axis and Allies 3 each in total), which they do not declare until the start of their second turn.RUSSIA
1. Nonagression Treaty - as in LHTR
2. Lend-Lease - as in LHTR
3. Russian Winter - as in LHTR
4. Mobile Industry - as in LHTRGERMANY
1. Panzerblitz - as in LHTR
2. Atlantic Wall - as in LHTR
3. Wolf Packs - as in LHTR
4. Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers - as in LHTR but modified to include Land Combat only. FTRs attack normally in Sea Combat.
5. Afrika Corps - Place 1 free INF in SEur, and 1 free TRN in SZ 14 during the Mobilize Units phase of this turn. This can only be used once per game. Note: you’ll likely need a capital ship to protect the TRN.
6. Convoy Raids - On the Russia, UK, and US Collect Income Phases, for every German SUB within 1 SZ of (ie. directly adjacent to) an IC owned by that respective country (eg. Cau,UK,EUS), subtract 2IPC from their collected income. For every German SUB within 2 SZ of an IC, subtract 1IPC. One SUB may affect multiple IC’s in a ROUND, but only a single IC in a TURN (SUB owner chooses)See how the method to create AARe is referring back to Larry Harris Tournament rules as much as possible, and not to some other game.
Notice the basic start and workings to what it is today.
Cmdr Jennifer, your rule-set does not follow this model.
The goal of AA50e is to follow this model, not to copy and paste.
AA50 is different. Different map, prices, rules, naval interaction = a different puzzle.
BadSpeller
-
The ‘council’ of players would discuss and make suggestions, do the game play testing with a final recommendation for a rule. Cousin_Joe did have final say, basically to avoid a ‘mutiny’ type of situation from ever happening.
yeah I know what you mean
though I would use the word ‘mutiny’ to refer to the main testers/supporters not happy with cousin_joe’s decision and thus withdraw their support/endorsement for the rules
under a council there is no such thing as a mutiny, but simply a proposed change that did not pass
to keep the set of house rules clean, its better controverisal changes don’t go through rather than letting them creep in and see what happens
so the naming issue aside, I would hope Jennifer go forward rather than backward in the formation of the rules
-
Actually, Bad Speller, it does follow that model.
It starts with AARe and makes 10, very small, very minor, changes to account for changes in the board, changes in the pieces and the addition of two new nations as released by WOTC.
Everything starts from AARe, though. Every concept, every idea. It’s all just adapted to fit into Anniversary Edition.
Also, it is the “final version” but it might have Errata just like Anniversary, AARe, LHTR, AAR all had.
-
I’m new to this conversation but if I were asked, I would say that unless it came from Larry Harris himself, they are all unofficial house rules. Almost every enthusiastic A&A player at one time or anouther changed the rules because they believed that they could make the game better…… its only natural. That being said, anything can get published but was it under the game labels that have owned the rights to Larry Harris’s design in the past? Thats the question… so whats the answer?
-
@Cmdr:
Actually, Bad Speller, it does follow that model.
NO, your rule-set does not follow that model.
To follow that model, one MUST start with the AA50 rules.For example; in the AA50 rulebook, on page 2, Larry Harris writes;
“One important aspect of the game that I wanted to address was the ahistorical tendency for the Japanese to attack Russia. I did not mind if this attack occurred late in the game–-who knows, if things had gone differently during the actual war, perhaps the Japanese would have attacked Russia. The solution I settled on was to add additional territories and units between the Japanese forces and Moscow. The real-world translation or these additional territories is the seemingly endless miles that exist between Asia and Moscow.”By Larry adding territories and changing the map (in AA50) the Bilateral Non-Aggression Treaty (that Cmdr Jennifer has copy-pasted to her rules) is not there and not needed.
This is just one example.
The true developers of AARe would start with AA50 and work form there.
-
Everything starts from AARe, though.
But this is exactly the wrong way to approach things. AARe =/= AA50.
Suggested Topics
