The child boards in the AA50 section contains -41 and -42 scenario, but I think this is not the only substantial variations in the AA50 game. Apart from the new optional rules with fighter interceptors and closing of the Dardanelles, playing with or without NOs is almost a difference bigger than playing the 42 map in contrast to the 41 scenario.
NOs on or off makes a huge impact. I’m still somewhat new to AA50, have only played one game of 42 yet, but playing with NOs if used to play without them, is almost like playing AAR in contrast to AA50 itself…
When discussing strats and options, playing balance and such, we could need 2 more child boards, AA50 -41 NOs on/off and AA50 -42 NOs on/off. A US pac strat when playing with NOs is probably a must. Without NOs, there’s not a big risk in letting Japan have the pacific alone, but with NOs, allies loose 20+ ipc, and Japan will be getting all of their NOs much easier then if Japan is contested in the pacific.
I have no idea if there is a need for two more child boards, because I’m also curios to how many of you are playing with NOs always, or maybe some players play one game with NOs and the next game without NOs. If all of you AA50 players always play with NOs, then that will be more of a standardization on the this board anyway.
Playing balance is also an interesting aspect, and weather NOs are on or off seem to make a big impact also on this issue.
My experience so far is that axis have an advantage in using NOs in the -41 map, and I will not play allies yet without bid. I will play allies in both maps without bids if NOs are off, I think balance is equal or maybe allies have advantage without NOs.
