Was this game play tested AT ALL?

OK thats true.

new idea: they move before japan and play with the Soviets if in 1941, they place units in US turn.

Move and attack with Soviets or before Japan
Place new forces in USA turn

and people question why there is a need for continuing development of the line, like with AA42…

/Imperious leader

Why not just bid for China inf?  :?

@Cmdr:

You know, there are a few house rules I’d like to play test myself.  Not all of them are mine, but here’s my list:

1)  SZ 16 is closed.  Only Russia may move into and out of this sea zone.
2)  SZ 5 is closed.  Only the nation that owns both NW Europe and Norway may move into and out of this sea zone. (no, America cannot own one and England the other.  One nation must own BOTH.)
3)  SZ 12/13 is treated like a canal.  You, or your ally(s) must own both Algeria and Gibraltar at the start of your round before passing through the Gibraltar straight.
4)  The Chinese Fighter is stationed in Sikang (the defacto Capitol of China.)
5)  Battleships have AA Guns (same rules as AA Guns, so 5 battleships in a sea zone still only get 1 AA shot per.  This rule is more of a method to negate the massive power of heavy bombers in naval warfare.  Now you can have Radar Battleships.)

I have a whole set of revised rules as well, still working on beatification of the document and then I’ll gladly post them for critique and would love some play testing.  But those 5 seem just needed to make the game a bit more balanced.

SZ 12/13 should save the Italian fleet and allow Germany some leeway on their luftwaffe use in round 1.
SZ 5 gives Germany a realistic break from amphibious assault on Berlin until the Allies truly have the upper hand.
SZ 16 stops the unrealistic Italian suicide mission to knock down Russian defenders allowing Germany an easier assault before Russia can recover.
The move of the Chinese fighter at least gives China a chance to do something other than die.  Now they have a chance to fight back, which, I believe, was the original idea of giving them a fighter!
And of course, the battleships (as I mentioned) having AA ability helps restore the balance against Jet Fighters and Heavy Bombers a little.  Not massively, since in WWII the preferred method of sinking the enemy was through the use of aircraft, but at least enough that it’s no longer a bone headed idea to buy a BB.

Hi Jennifer thanks for the rules.  here are my thoughts on them…

1)  SZ 16 is closed.  Only Russia may move into and out of this sea zone.

I think this is a great rule, because currently the axis can Steamroll into Moscow using Italy as suicide fodder as you have stated.  It makes for a more interesting game for the Russian/Allied player.

2)  SZ 5 is closed.  Only the nation that owns both NW Europe and Norway may move into and out of this sea zone. (no, America cannot own one and England the other.  One nation must own BOTH.)

I don’t understand why allied powers can’t control both sides of this new canal in order to gain access to the sea zone… and practically I can’t see how I would explain the real world connotations of this rule to my playgroup.  “America wont let you in to the sea zone…”, “But why…? Damn Yanks!”  :wink:

3)  SZ 12/13 is treated like a canal.  You, or your ally(s) must own both Algeria and Gibraltar at the start of your round before passing through the Gibraltar straight.

I already play this rule and it is working well :)  Sometimes it forces troops to land in Africa… Which is good.

4)  The Chinese Fighter is stationed in Sikang (the defacto Capitol of China.)

Anything that makes china stronger is fine with me.

5)  Battleships have AA Guns (same rules as AA Guns, so 5 battleships in a sea zone still only get 1 AA shot per.  This rule is more of a method to negate the massive power of heavy bombers in naval warfare.  Now you can have Radar Battleships.)

I’d like to see cruisers with aa guns as someone posted in this thread also.

I still think India falls too easy and the Japanese will still just stomp over most of Asia without a fight.  Maybe a rule to allow china movement into Burma and India might hold of the Japanese for a while longer.

I don’t think china going first will overpower the allies in asia, I will repost if I get to playtest this (anyone else try it already?)
cruisers are already a better buy than BB’s with the offshore and reduced cost (at least they are bought more frequently than BB’s in my playgroup) so giving them AA ability, while historical, will further reduce the impact of the “big 'uns”. perhaps the radar tech could then apply to cruisers,BB’s as well? hmmm, that sounds a bit too nasty maybe a 1 with radar? forces allies to research for that tech to protect the fleets from bomber abuse. what about each cruiser, battleship gets one shot at 1 at one plane?
sz 16 should have been standard
heavy bomber roll two and pick one fixes the problem, pretty much guaranteed hit or heavy SBR dmg without being silly.
sz 5 any allies, just like other canals seems reasonable, it still protects Berlin for a while, but forces Germany to protect NWE instead of deadzoning it
sz 12/13 perhaps it is blocked if you control both but open otherwise.this allows Italy to capture the rock I1 (or later) it they want and only face british air
just some random thoughts

Why not just bid for China inf?

I prefer to solve things w/o bidding. Bidding is not solving any problem because the problem is not that China has too few pieces, its that she gets clobbered by Japan on J1.

@Imperious:

I prefer to solve things w/o bidding. Bidding is not solving any problem because the problem is not that China has too few pieces, its that she gets clobbered by Japan on J1.

Eeemm… maybe China gets clobbered by Japan on J1 because China has too few pieces. Bidding chinese infs can solve that problem. There are more problems with China, of course, but it’s good solve at least one of them. I don’t mind if it’s solved by bidding or by changing order of turns as you want

I’ve now played two games, and both times china didn’t fall untill J3 (Russian reinforcements), india never fell, and egypt fell on I2 (UK player put a IC in the congo instead of in SA) If I ever had problems with china, I’d enact a house rule allowing US to put a IC in china that would allow an extra punch.

Earlier on Jen was talkin about AA guns on battleships, I play with this rule and have been forever. It works well because we use strafing alot where fighters or bombers fly over and do one attack, and can’t be defended against unless an AA gun is in the territory.

I’ve found that it doesn’t really matter if the game is balanced to begin with at all, it depends on the PLAYER. a good player can turn a bad situation around, or exploit a good situation. If i’m playin against my friend Droste, we always cancel eachother out, kinda creatin a ww1esq front. my 2nd game of AA50, he was italy and germany and I was russia. my line held him back for 4 turns untill I finally ran out of troops. all along tho I SBR’d him out of existance, not the other way around. He ended up takin russia, but had to waste all the IPCs he got from me rebuilding all of his ICs

my point is: the game plays how you and your friends want it too, because it’s unbalanced from the start doesn’t mean people don’t make stupid mistakes you can exploit.

My fix would be….

Put 2 extra chinese infantry with the flying tigers to help it survive 1st round.

Put extra US DD at Hawaii. This will make it a juicer target and you are going to have to throw more than 2 fighters and a DD at it to kill it.

Put extra Cruiser at WUSA. This deters any attack here if you want to kill the BB and beefs up the post PH attack American navy to a reasonable level.

American NOs changed to only 2…(France and home territory NO deleted)
Receive 15 ipcs if Allies control 3 of the four following territories…Hawaii, Alaska, Midway, Wake island

Receive 5 ipcs if allies control the Phillipines

@Flying:

My fix would be….

Put 2 extra chinese infantry with the flying tigers to help it survive 1st round.

Put extra US DD at Hawaii. This will make it a juicer target and you are going to have to throw more than 2 fighters and a DD at it to kill it.

Put extra Cruiser at WUSA. This deters any attack here if you want to kill the BB and beefs up the post PH attack American navy to a reasonable level.

American NOs changed to only 2…(France and home territory NO deleted)
Receive 15 ipcs if Allies control 3 of the four following territories…Hawaii, Alaska, Midway, Wake island

Receive 5 ipcs if allies control the Phillipines

so a bid of $26 for the USA/China?!? seems a bit extreme

@critmonster:

@Flying:

My fix would be….

Put 2 extra chinese infantry with the flying tigers to help it survive 1st round.

Put extra US DD at Hawaii. This will make it a juicer target and you are going to have to throw more than 2 fighters and a DD at it to kill it.

Put extra Cruiser at WUSA. This deters any attack here if you want to kill the BB and beefs up the post PH attack American navy to a reasonable level.

American NOs changed to only 2…(France and home territory NO deleted)
Receive 15 ipcs if Allies control 3 of the four following territories…Hawaii, Alaska, Midway, Wake island

Receive 5 ipcs if allies control the Phillipines

so a bid of $26 for the USA/China?!? seems a bit extreme

Not a bid, a FIX. The US must fight in pacific or it isn’t WW2. You may as well call it the great european war as it stands now.

only if you want to see Japan roll over everything. The USA needs to engage and battle Japan in the Pacific or they just get to far out of hand. I do agree that NO’s need to be pacific focused (perhaps more lucrative for USA as well) and Japans NO needs to be Australia not India (which they would take anyway).
As far as your idea, I am not “shooting it down” so to speak,but how do you balance an extra $26 in allied units? Do you think no additional axis incentives are needed?

@critmonster:

only if you want to see Japan roll over everything. The USA needs to engage and battle Japan in the Pacific or they just get to far out of hand.

This is JMO but I think you can let Japan roam free for a few rounds. If they are going to Alaska the USA needs to build some land units to slow them down. But I don’t think it hurts the USAs focus in Africa or Europe enough. If Japan is going hard against Alaska they aren’t going hard into China, Russia or SE Asia. I believe going to Alaska is a big mistake for Japan. It wastes alot of time and valuable units that could be taking all of Asia. You can let them roam while you destroy Germany and Italy, after that it doesn’t matter how big Japan is they will go down against 3 allies. JMO though.

I do agree that NO’s need to be pacific focused (perhaps more lucrative for USA as well) and Japans NO needs to be Australia not India (which they would take anyway).
As far as your idea, I am not “shooting it down” so to speak,but how do you balance an extra $26 in allied units? Do you think no additional axis incentives are needed?

The whole idea behind it is that now the USA has a large NO that is very much in their interest to acquire. It is close to WUSA and if they have ships in the area of Midway, Wake Alaska or Hawaii to defend this NO that means that they also have other options in the Pacific like the high value islands. With the inflated Japanese navy the extra ships the USA get are more true to historical values. Hell it probably ought to be an extra BB in WUSA instead of a Cruiser. I want a more historical war where the USA fights in both theatres. This extra incentive to fight in the pacific WILL TAKE PRESSURE OFF OF A KGIF STRATEGY. This IMO balances the game better. A KGIF strategy will win for the allies more times than not.

Well, over on the other bid thread I threw out the idea that instead of unlimited bids you could have a forced bid so that bid units must be placed in territories or sea zones bordering Japanese at-start units. A-JAP bids.  :wink:

I think this or China inf bids are better than unlimited bids since that will just push the game back into an AAR-mode dominated by KGF/JTDTM-strategies. If we go for A-JAP bids we will see where bids will best be placed, I would think infantry in Yunnan but also a DD or CA on the West coast is nice to have. Infantry on Phillippines could be a dark horse, forcing the Japanese to use three transports to take it, but then you might have setting up for a turn 2 grab instead. It would, in any case, open up for a different game without changing the base rules of the game which I think is to early just yet.

I’m just thinking….when I see the AA50 41 setup, with +NOs, Japan will often be ready for Australia J2, and India light J2, eventually India heavy J3. From that point Japan will build IC in India and expand slowly or fast depending if UK retreated everything to Persia, and if Russia is strong in Caucasus. Japan will attack Russia from Japan island in the north, and army/navy group south will attack UK/Russia in the south, and if the game goes for several rnds then Japan will build IC in Burma as well, E.I. is also a good option for Japan.

It’s very hard to understand if the playtesters didn’t try to attack Russia with Japan. This is an efficient strat, and if you play more than 3 games any player will try this option.
It’s hard to understand that they overlooked this when the game fairly balanced, and some of the playtesters are veteran A&A players.

Even if A&A is mainly a boardgame, and even if L.H. or AH/WotC have no immediate plans to make a software version of AA50, it would be much more efficient playtesting if it was done with a computer game, or any other software version.
And logically, they should ask me to be playtester if the game designers wanted to know the efficient strats for both sides and all nations in AA50  :-D

I don’t know if the playtesters missed Japan attacking Russia, that’s obvious as you say, I think they missed the German “turtle”-strategy involving IC built in France or Poland. That’s a new strategy that’s made possible by the high German income with NOs and low number of units being able to built in Germany proper. Maybe the play-testers just built in Germany and then KGF probably can succeed before Japan enters Moscow. Krieghund, Craig Yope, or any other play-tester, care to fill in here?

I can’t really comment much on the playtesting process for reasons of confidentiality.  All I can say is that the playtesters made observations and suggestions.  Some were taken and some weren’t.

@Krieghund:

I can’t really comment much on the playtesting process for reasons of confidentiality.

Oh my God, is this a beer & pretzl -game with plastic toy soldiers, or is it some super secret military prosject ?

@Adlertag:

@Krieghund:

I can’t really comment much on the playtesting process for reasons of confidentiality.

Oh my God, is this a beer & pretzl -game with plastic toy soldiers, or is it some super secret military prosject ?

Its still a commercially sensitive programme of work, and Im sure Kreighund signed a non disclosure agreement. He probably isnt legally allowed to say squat.

Just standard business practice.

I can understand this non disclosure issue before a game is released, but not afterwards.

Personally, I don’t have a big problem with Japanese units in Moscow, and Japanese ftrs in Berlin/Rome, for me, I would only be disappointed if the game was not substantially better than Revised, and it is much better even with flaws we did not expect.

For realism, we can only have so much, but the end product should/could at least have some minor adjustments which is more towards what we wanted AA50 to be like.
For me it’s like a complex chess game, 1vs1, who can move the pieces/units better than the opponent. But it is also a WW2 theme, and it is better with a little more realism, both for warfare matters and specific WW2 factors. We got improvements from the Revised version, but not enough, imo.

Maybe having Japan attacking Russia is a lesser evil, for the real WW2, what the hell was the Japanese thinking before they attacked the US in 1941  :roll:  :-)