Anybody play scorched earth

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.

@Gargantua:

I don’t know… did you look at your tournament game Jenn?  I wouldn’t call that “doing fine”

Eh, barring the insanity of JWW’s inability to hit a bomber with an AA Gun, America’s inability to defend it’s fleet when it clearly has superior odds (defined as sinking what should have been left with her bombers and losing only one bomber)…I don’t think it is overly bad.

America + Russia > Japan
England = Germany + Italy income (last round Germany + Italy edged ahead of England.  Factors in a continued 15-20 IPC damage to Germany each round, he’s not hitting bombers anyway.)

Yes, the Japanese fleet is in the Med…and yes, the Japanese fleet in the Pacific should have been gone, but otherwise, it’s not THAT bad.

@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.

AA50 is in the latest TripleA unstable, but it is not 100% free from bugs yet.

GTO works fine for those who prefer it, but TripleA has many more options.

More than 10, I have about 7 games going on at the moment.

Another thing that may have happened is too much other activities(island hopping, naval building, teching), and not enough “boots on the ground” grunts heading to the key victory locations.

@Driel310:

Start with playing with both. If you never play with tech you won’t know what it does to the game and I don’t believe you have a right to give an opinion on tech.

However when you played a few games and don’t like it, then throw tech away. NO’s are must IMHO since the axis won’t stand a chance without them.  :wink:

Totally agreed. You can mod HB if it’s too powerful anyway

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.