Movies to watch while playing AA

Tourney starts Saturday. One day left to sign up. 25 people so far. Cash Prizes : )

HT1… You sonnofabitch!  :-D :-D Been dreaming about this game for a while my friend. Despite the piles of HBG plastic at my house, I have reorganized my AA50 game into the finest that WOTC has to offer! I have taken all the best plastic and paper and put into one box. Thankfully I have piles of HBG plastic at my house so I can play G40 and GW39. See you on the battlefield! No doubt pics and AARs to follow.

@Veqryn:

@allweneedislove:

@Krieghund:

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

krieghund, can you imagine a scenario where a player can hold 13vcs after usa turn and not eventually get 18vcs?

if you can get 13vcs you have dominated the game. there is no reason to play to 15vcs or more. 13vcs is a domination game.
vc amounts do not make for different game playouts.

notice how there are no threads discussing the different strategies of a 13 vc game vs 18vc game, like there is for 1941 vs 1942 scenario or without NOs vs with NOs.

if there was an option for axis to win with 11vcs then the game would have more variability.

i would agree.

i always found larry’s choice of the number of VC’s to be a waste of time since they were all identical

13 vc is the same thing as 15 and 18 in aa50
same thing goes for revised and 1942, etc.

i dont want to get too off topic but revised had 8vcs and this did provide a different play out than 10/12vcs(these two are identical and the same as 9vcs, as 9vcs is the point of no return once a side has them they will eventually have the entire world).

problem is the location of the vcs. assuming g could grab karelia and hold france, then all action revolves around india. allies actually get the bid, and it made for a short game. either japan got india quickly or allies would win economicaly and axis resign.

Pretending you get that hit, and way to ensure that only 1 fighter dies would dramatically increase the odds of bombers and tactical bombers dieing.

I disagree, you forget to take into account the chances of an extra hit are minimal. Let’s redo the example, but with assuring maximum one type of aircraft survives, for instance, simply remove the fighters/bmrs from the pool after you assign the first hit.

So redoing the example with 999 fighters + 3 bmrs. First assume no extra hit: you allocate the sure hit by rolling a 1002 sided die, if it’s <1000, a fighter dies, if it’s >=1000, a bmr dies. With extra hit: a fighter and bomber dies (this follows from rolling a 1002 sided die for the sure hit first, remove the type of casualty, and roll another die for the other type, which by then is the only type left, so will for sure be hit). Now let’s analyze chances:

The chance you hit a fighter is: the chance the sure hit is a fighter + the chance the sure hit isn’t a fighter (which removes the bmrs from the group) and the extra hit hits. Mathematically: 999/1002 + 3/10022/1000 = 99,7%. The chance you hit a bmr is the chance the first hit is a bmr + the chance the first hit is not a bmr and the extra hit hits. Mathematically: 3/1002 + 999/10022/1000 = 0,5%. (Note these chances do not amount to 1 since on average more than one unit is hit. Moreover, on average, 1,002 units are hit, which is exactly the sum of the chances ;) ) So in almost all battles, a fighter will be killed, but never more than one, and almost never a bomber, and never more than one. So no dramatical increases of bombers dieing with this approach, a very slight increase at best. Very much within the margins of LL imho  8-)

This reminds me of a method of handling AA I invented before, struggling with the same problem in AAR LL. I forgot it in my previous post  :roll: It’s fairly elegant, but has (in little cases) a chance of “both bmrs dieing”. Here’s how it goes:

So, 9 fighters, 5 bombers, 7 tacs, 8 lancasters, 1 zeppelin and 3 ufo’s are being attacked by an AA. First remove groups of 6’s and remove these sure hits, just like you said. Then line them up on one long row. So 3 ftr, 5 bmr, 1 tac, 2 lnc, 1 zep, 3 ufo. Now divide them in ordered groups of 6: 3 ftr + 3 bmr, 2 bmr + 1 tac + 2 lnc + 1 zep, 3 ufo (= rest), and roll a die for each group, with the number of the die appointing the aircraft hit. For instance, you roll 4, 3, 4. So in the first group a bmr (the 4th aircraft) is hit, in the second a tac (3rd), and in the third nothing (you needed a 3- to hit, the 4th aircraft is “empty”). This is my preferred way of solving LL AA: no more hits than needed, no deep calculations, easy way of handling the extra hits. Actually, it’s a generalization of the “groups of 6 are sure hits”-rule: a group of 6 is nothing more than 6 aircraft for which a die is thrown, but since all the aircraft are of the same type, and since the group is exactly 6 large, the number on the die will always point to an aircraft of the type of which the group consists.

However, there is a problem with this approach: suppose the second die in the example was a 1, then two bmrs would have been hit, which you want to avoid. My advice: order the groups as good as possible (with as little types in two groups as possible). In the example: 5 bmr + 1 zep, 3 ftr + 3 ufo, 1 tac + 2 lnc. As you can see, no aircraft type is in danger of getting two hits. This however is not always possible, but even in those rare cases, the type to split will contain at least 4 members (always split the largest type), so it is acceptable that 2 of those group can die instead of one. I deem this also very much within the approximative margin of LL to ADS.

For instance, applying this method to your example (999 ftr + 3 bmr): divide in 2 groups, with the ftrs split (they are the largest type). So 3 bmr + 997 ftr, 2 ftr. Now the chances of a bmr being hit are 3/1000 = 0,3% , the chances of (minimum) one ftr being hit are 997/1000 + 2/1000 = 99,9% These are actually the exact average chances of ADS! And compared to your method (which has the advantage of no double bmrs hit), it’s pretty close I think.

To summarize, use my method, with the “split only if needed, split to never more than two, and split the largest types first”-rule, and you won’t need to worry about chances or double bombers. Happy rule crunching :mrgreen:

Thanks guys

I’ll give AA 50 a second look.

We play with four,
hoping to add another.  We also speed up the game by going all Axis then all Allies.  We are going to add timers, to keep the game moving, we include a 6.5 hour time limit on our games, with pizza and beer, or in my case a shot of whiskey can not be with held.

no sorry. Ask Krieg.

I am beginning to wonder if the Heavy Bomber rule that has some people bent so out of shape is in there to compensate for the large boost that attaining National Objectives gives the Axis.  As a guess, it is going to be easier for the Axis to attain their objectives, and more productive to them than for the Allies to attain their objectives, which do not appear to give them anywhere the same boost.