Was this game play tested AT ALL?

I think the suggestion of replacing the transport in W.USA with a cruiser might just do it, and at a net of $5! Coupled with my suggestion that the game starts with China then moves to the regular sequence (with China going after USA) Japan would then have to make hard choices from amongst their options.
The problem with adding US navy is many will simply send it through Panama (especiall if it is an offshore capable unit).
I like the Idea of split USA production ala Pacific (Auss/India) with an additional central cash pool that can be divied up as preferred for which ever strat the US player desires. This keeps USA in both theatres but allows individualized strats as well. I think the income would have to be higher though.

Last few posts are very good.

If the game is going to be re-released then I hope WOTC, Larry Harris and the original playtesters realize the errors in the Pacific and fix them.

Europe looks fine to me.

@critmonster:

I think the suggestion of replacing the transport in W.USA with a cruiser might just do it, and at a net of $5! Coupled with my suggestion that the game starts with China then moves to the regular sequence (with China going after USA) Japan would then have to make hard choices from amongst their options.
The problem with adding US navy is many will simply send it through Panama (especiall if it is an offshore capable unit).

Yes, that is the reason I suggest a very high NO value(15) for Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway. This makes America stay and fight.

Yes, that is the reason I suggest a very high NO value(15) for Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway. This makes America stay and fight.

Or give them 3 NO’s based upon island pairs and the “homeland” NO including Alaska. This keeps the big payoff from being all or nothing and allows for strategic island hopping from both powers (Japan’s NO cash should also be based away from the mainland primarily)

@critmonster:

Or give them 3 NO’s based upon island pairs and the “homeland” NO including Alaska. This keeps the big payoff from being all or nothing and allows for strategic island hopping from both powers (Japan’s NO cash should also be based away from the mainland primarily)

How about 10ipcs for homeland, EUSA, CUSA, WUSA, Hawaii, Alaska

10ipcs for 2 of the 3 Wake, Midway, Solomans

5 ipcs for Philippines

I realize that is 25 ipcs in NOs but America had a huge economy compared to others and the game does not reflect that. Like others said if USA has Philippines the game is likely over anyway.

I tend to agree Flying Tiger. And after all - it’s a steep struggle for the US to support both theatres in AA50. If Japan is doing well with NOs then she’s soon getting 60+ IPCs herself anyway.

Though I’d rather see a half way solution - make the US a bit stronger AND Japan a bit weaker. That you don’t risk the US choosing tho through 70 IPCs odd across the Atlantic at europe!

I believe bids are the simplest way to change the game, but if we’re into NO tweaking I would go for this:

1. Japan “home” NO including condition of no Japanese units on areas or sea zones controlled or occupied by Germany or Italy. (Similar to Soviet lend-lease rule.)
2. Japan third NO only met when ALL THREE of India, Australia and Hawaii occupied.

These would all in all make a wider Pacific conflict more probable, and the forgoing of the Pacific, now a common sight, not as worthwhile.

@Lynxes:

I believe bids are the simplest way to change the game, but if we’re into NO tweaking I would go for this:

1. Japan “home” NO including condition of no Japanese units on areas or sea zones controlled or occupied by Germany or Italy. (Similar to Soviet lend-lease rule.)
2. Japan third NO only met when ALL THREE of India, Australia and Hawaii occupied.

These would all in all make a wider Pacific conflict more probable, and the forgoing of the Pacific, now a common sight, not as worthwhile.

I like these suggested modifications if you were to make the first one a ‘penalty’ NO.  By this I mean, there is no additional IPCs for Japan if they meet the NO, but if they fail to meet the NO, it COSTS them $5 IPCs.

Gamerman, +1 karma for starting a very good discussion.

Game balance has been discussed a lot on various threads - i’d like to see discussion here focussing on what aspects of the game are reducing the potential _fun_ness.  We’re all fans here and love the game itself, but what design aspects could have been done better? The flying tiger is a big one that everyone(?) agrees on - what’s the point of having it if it gets stomped every game before having a role to play?  Just for the sake of enjoyment alone that aspect was a little messed up.

I think the problem with japan’s bizarre role in AA50 is not so much its starting strength, but the geographic layout.  There are no enemy factories within sight, so they just can’t be stopped from expanding until they gobble up about 70 IPCs worth of territory.  I don’t know what best the solution would have been, but it is about the total value of territories which are more accessible to Japan (including it’s new factories) than anyone else.

It would be nice to see those pacific NOs a bit more interactive (not to address game balance, but simply to make it more engaging).  There are many good suggestions on this in the last few posts and on other threads.  I think Sumatra being worth 4 was a design error… aside from being unrealistic, it’s too powerful as a factory for japan, allowing ground troops to so easily dominate africa and put too much pressure on russia’s south.  I would rather see Sumatra/Borneo reduced in value from 8 total to 3, and maybe have a NO for japan if they control both - same income, but fixes a problem.

The game rules and new ideas in AA50 are brilliant, but I would love there to be an official redesign to make certain areas of the game more interesting to play.  Maybe we could gather our ideas together, submit them to Larry on behalf of the A&A org community and see if he could look giving us a ‘patch’ of rules to fine-tune elements of the game?  We could do it ourselves (there’s a lot of combined smarts around here), but I was thinking it might be hard to get consensus on an agreeable package of changes.

I’d like to see everyone playing the same game, and having the most possible fun doing it  :-D

Telamon, set up a poll!  :wink:  China boosts, US navy additions. UK IC at-start in India and NO tweaks should be on the table as well as territory adjustments. I think we should be starting from the optional rules (int’ceptors and dardanelles) since that’s what Larry himself added to finetune the game.

I have played both the 41 and 42 set-ups and found that the 42 is a little more balanced and the Allies usually win, but the Axis can win if well played.
The 41 set-up does favor the Axis but we have won as the Allies in a long and hard battle that takes a long time but eventually turned around. In that game UK bought a factory on India T1 and diverted resources that way to slow down Japan, and USA and Russia (a little) went after Japan right away aiding UK as best they can. Germany, Italy and Japan were making way too much money by T3, but smart decisions allowed the Allies to slowly climb back and turn things around by T7, so it can be done. China was no help at all so they are week. Victory cities is the key. Do not worry about crushing the Axis completely just getting the VC you need.
I agree that China does not start with enough and/or is not getting enough men per turn. That part alone would slow Japan down enough to make it that much more balanced. :-)
We play with the rules as is. :-D