AA50-41 Tech Tourney sign-up (sign-ups CLOSED)

@mcmeeple said in AA50 Objective Trackers:

move

Thanks for this great idea and design, I have printed and laminated them all to use with our next game!

I’ve been lurking these forums for a bit and finally decided to join up. Anywho, just played the first A&A50 game in like 2 years a few weeks ago. Everyone went for techs. By the end of the game Japan had Radar, America had Heavy Bombers, and Russia had both Advance Artillery and war bonds.

We ended the game on German 4 when they took Moscow. America only used Heavy Bombers once, likewise Japan only used Radar once(same combat), and Russia despite having two techs still got crushed by combined German/Japan Moscow rush.

So the question is, in the long run are the techs worth the investment?

Personally I like having the options though I don’t normally bother are only buy like one tech dice a game. Still when people do get them it can have a great impact in some games, I’ve seen a G2 Sea lion a couple of times because of techs. From reading the forums most seem to favor ignoring them, but I just wanted to get a few options and see how most felt.

On page 5

Shouldn’t “fighter” be replaced with “cruiser” in the first line of the answer. The defender has a sub and cruiser, the attacker has the fighter.

Q. Assume there’s a sea zone that contains an enemy sub and cruiser, and that I attack it with a destroyer and a fighter. If the defender scores two hits in the first combat round, can I take the hit from the cruiser on my destroyer, saving my fighter, since the sub can’t hit it?
A. No. Because you have a destroyer, the defender’s sub rolls in Step 4 along with his or her fighter cruiser. Since both defending units roll in the same combat step and all dice are rolled in a step before applying casualties, the two hits are applied together. Therefore, you must apply both hits if possible. The only way to apply both hits is to take the cruiser hit on the fighter and the sub hit on the destroyer.

Not sure exactly what you mean by ‘historically accurate’.

For instance, Germany built rockets because Germany wanted rockets. Britain researched Radar becuase the UK recognized the advantage in it. Goering is famous for eschewing Radar early in the war, thinking it not that important.

So, if by ‘historically accurate’ you mean: recreating the way history played out as closely as possible, then I don’t really see the advantage in your system. However, if you mean: recreate the circumstances so as to allow any power to research any technology, but some having a leg up on others because of certain advantages (like excellent german rocket scientists) then we might have something.

As for the exact figures - game balance is always a bigger consideration than historical accuracy, and i have no idea what the figures should be.

Jenk,

Yes, AA50 takes very, very, very long time to setup and play FTF.  I think it would be the same PBF.  I have the game but have only played it twice as it’s very hard to get our group together and revised is still very fun to play.

Good luck.

I guess by the responses I have read it is unanimous, Italy is better as a seperate entity mainly due to the added possibilities that it creates and the overall strategy changes it allows from both sides.
The other thing I really do like is that with 6 countries it is axis then allies turns rotated so as to not have two allied turns back to back. It is harder to double team that way.
Thank you every one for your thoughts. 8-)

There is a thread in the Find Players and Game Discussion section for people looking for AA50 games.

Wait… they have TWO dice for technologies? That’s something I’d hoped for.