Posts made by gamerman01

@Subotai:

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:  :-)

One “slight” difference between A&A and chess.  When I attack your queen with my pawn in chess, the queen is dead.  The A&A version of chess would have you roll dice first.  If I roll a one, i get a hit, if your queen rolls a 5 or less than you get a hit.  :lol:

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor pre-emptively to prevent the entire US fleet from eventually coming after them and crushing them.  They attacked Pearl Harbor to get an easy kill of a bunch of battleships, so in their mind they would have some kind of chance of surviving their own imperialism.  The American carriers, however, which turned out to be the real “kings of the sea”, were all mysteriously absent from Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.  This is one of the main reasons some believe the higher ups in the USA (like the President) knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and allowed it to stir up the public support for the war which simply was not there with no attack on the US.  I think the Japanese naval codes had already been cracked at this point too, so some conspiracy theorists believe US command knew the attack was coming.

But anyway, I agree with you that it was not a good move for Japan to sucker punch the most powerful industrial nation (and most innovative) in the world which was trying hard to stay out of the war altogether.  Admiral Yamamoto recognized this immediately (he was probably against the attack in the first place) when he famously said that “I fear all we have accomplished is to awaken a sleeping giant”.

@Veqryn:

There is no benefit to taking these islands, either for japan or for the usa.  even National Objectives do not solve this because Japan is going to want to take the Philippines, East Indies, Borneo, and Kwangtung anyway just for the money.  The NOs should have skipped these and only dealt with the non-moneyed islands.

But USA has NO for Midway, Wake, Hawaii, and Solomons (any 3).  A Japanese NO includes Solomons (no IPC value) so the game design does give more incentive than ever for the 0 IPC islands.  Not enough to sucker the USA into fighting a losing battle in the Pacific, but more than before nonetheless.

I agree too much value given to Borneo and East Indies.  They were 1’s in “classic”.  Boosted to 4 to give some extra income to Japan since all countries were beefed up a bit for revised, but now Japan is too powerful in AA50.  In this thread, we have as a group determined that Japan is too powerful with 9 fighters and 3 carriers, about 4 transports, and no enemy complexes anywhere closer than Moscow or San Francisco.  Recipe for domination.  Let me put it this way.  I run out of Japanese control markers, so I went to get my classic set and took ALL of the Japanese control markers from it.  I still don’t have enough.  I’m playing solo, so the playing ability of Japan and her enemies is roughly equal.  In all my 1941 games Japan gets to about 60 IPCs income plus NO’s and completely takes the US out of the war by continuously threatining and attacking California, and trading Western Canada.  All this while easily taking over all of China, Northern Russia, some of Africa, all of Southern Asia, with absolutely no retaliation from anyone.  There’s nothing to do but help topple Russia faster or tie up the Americans.  The Americans are closer (remember 3 carriers, 9 planes and a lot of transports) and easier to attack quickly with big forces, so that’s how my games go.

I understand that in 1941 Japan had a lot of fighters and carriers and everything.  I guess you could say the Japs got majorly “diced” at Midway, which evened things up in actual history.  In the '41 scenario, that hasn’t happened.

I guess I’m looking at the game a bit differently than when I originally posted this topic.  If you set up a game based on the actual military positions in the world in 1941 and ignore actual historical events, and one country moves at a time, the Axis are in a position to take over the world.  Russian winter is not a factor.  Midway - didn’t happen.  Biggest successful decoy of all time in 1944 in UK in preparations for D-Day - nonfactor.  The fact that after a few rounds (of game time) almost all experienced Japanese pilots had been killed - makes no difference.  The fact that Japanese tanks were not equal in any way to German and American tanks - not accounted for.  I’ve learned to just appreciate the game for what it is - a fun wargame to play.  It’s almost best to throw history out the window and forget about it, and start rolling those dice.

Wild Bill, those sound like really good ideas.  However, in AA50 I think the designers did a good job of keeping Russia and Japan off each other without adding a rule.  Japan has no NO’s in Russia and Russia has none way out there past Siberia.  Russia has all infantry out there so doesn’t really attack Japan - just takes Manchuria if it’s left to attack rest of China.  The extra Russian territories that are all worth 1 IPC plus the potent attacking power of Germany along with the new power of Italy make the silly old strategy of Japan pounding towards Moscow and draining all their production capacity a thing of the past.  In my games so far, Japan of course takes over everything from India to Hawaii/Solomons to Eastern Africa/Madagascar and most of China in 2 turns and launches a major invasion of the Americas/Alaska.  Pretty much takes USA out of Europe, so Germany and Italy can put more pressure on Russia.  In my games the USA is lucky if they keep Japan out of Western.  All those Japanese transports and 3 carriers and 7-9 planes - once everything in sight is taken over, only makes sense to me to go after fledgling USA.

Thanks for your posts, Chang and Zhukov.  As I said from the outset, I love this game.

Dabapic!  Did you even read my post?

I guess what I was looking for was some responses about whether others have had a similar experience, that is, wondering whether this game was playtested much at all.  It’s just that the first few times I’ve played it, I’ve noticed some glaring things that I don’t like and I wouldn’t think a lot of other people would like.  I just got the feeling the first few times I played (and I’ve played A&A since 1992) that

I think the opening setup of 41 is very historically accurate.  I guess, as someone pointed out, the A&A premise is to set you up at a point in history, and then “you” are in command.  So history means nothing once the game starts - embarassingly, it’s taken me awhile to realize this.  After all, Japan has 9 fighters to start, and 3 carriers.  In my games Japan can go full bore after USA and has a good chance of taking them down, just as Germany traditionally does Russia.  So again, A&A wasn’t meant to be historically accurate - I have to keep telling myself this.  A&A simulates, if each power had these military capabilities at this point in history and all politics were removed, what might have been?

You know, I’m sure I’m very biased.  I used to play classic, usually solo.  Once you learned how to play the Allies, they always won.  So I got used to a game that was pretty “historically accurate”  (Allies working together to cave in Germany from its high point of power, then island hopping and conquering Japan).  They had a couple optional rules, like Russia restricted attack, German jet power and Jap super subs.  Also, the economic victory thing.  So the Allies could lose if they gave up too much land to the Axis, even though with enough time they could often STILL win.

Nowadays it seems most players (and I got caught up in this too) want “balance”.  That is, they want it to be like other games, everything from Chutes and Ladders to Chess to Risk to Stratego, where each side has a 50/50 chance from winning from the outset.  Balance has its place, like when you are playing a stranger on line, or in a tournament or something.

But maybe imbalance has a place, too.  Take the 1941 scenario with full NO’s.  My experience so far has been that the Axis steamroll the Allies if the OOB rules are used.  And for the first time, I’m thinking maybe that is OK with me.  You know, if you took the Axis position and 1941, and took away the technology differences and the politics and some natural climate conditions (Russian winters, to name one), oh and the Nazi infighting, and the brilliance of various field commanders, and a lot more - then the Axis would romp and take over the world from the 1941 point after they had been gearing for war for almost 10 years.

Yes, if you really oversimplify WWII and make it into a “beer and pretzels” game you get A&A.  So, I admit, I’m pretty slow but I’ve finally come to terms with what this game is, and now I think I am ready to appreciate it that much more.  First, (and I’m talking about playing OOB with no house rules) you must accept that the sides will not have a 50/50 chance of winning and that this is a game made more for the purpose of having fun than proving that I am a better strategic game player than you are.

I am also into the house rules.  There is a huge board of house rules on this site, because many players are not satisfied with OOB and they agree with my statement that A&A greatly oversimplifies the realities of WWII.  I guess a player has to figure out how much “realism” and “historical accuracy” you want, and then you can make AA50 into that.  I applaud the gamemakers for creating a game that allows us to do that.

Oh, and thanks for ditching the “blow-up boxes”!!

You’re right, as the OOB rules say 15 is the standard game, so VCs are a non-factor because if you have all but 3 of them, it’s been over for awhile.  Even the 12 or 13 (projection) seems to be quite decisive, since you have VCs in places like Honolulu and Ottawa.  If you have 12 or 13 it’s normally pretty much locked up.

So far I’m like takerwwe5849 and Subotai and yourself - VCs are a non-factor.  However, there do seem to be possibilities with them, since they’re marked on the map and we have the tokens.  For example, you could scrap the current NO’s and make your own, involving victory cities.  Just brainstorming.

In my solo game, the UK amphibious assaults France and takes it over.  Then Italy takes her turn, and I thought it was crazy that Italy could bombard the heck out of France from the Riviera (from the Med), when in reality the allied units would be in northern France, like Paris, etc.  No way cruisers and bship could help the attacking Italian units from the Med.

That got me thinking about this a bit more.  There are some other shore bombardments that make no sense.  For starters, from Northern or Western Australia.  There’s nothing there.  If you’re landing troops there, they would be making there way inland, especially to SE Australia where they would engage the home troops.  Bombarding NW or N Australia would just kill some wallabies.

So I’m thinking for my own house rules, I won’t allow bombardments:
From Southern French coastline, North or West Australia, the Coastal Chinese province (not HongKong), Western Canada, Eastern Canada, either of the two Eastern Russia territories.

What do you think?  Any territories you would add or subtract from the list?  I don’t think any significant amount of troops would be defending within 20 miles of the coasts on the above named areas.  Again, this issue became glaring to me when Italy was bombarding the heck out of France - from the SOUTH immediately after the UK had landed on the Northern shores of the same territory.

Thanks in advance -
Love this game.

German tanks, artillery, and bombers are “da bomb!”.  Not to mention, they are jet black!!  So for the first time - I think the German nation is the coolest.

Imperious leader has shown, with his house rules, etc. that this game leaves a lot to be desired.  I mean, I love AA50 and I like it much, much better than revised (transports as cannon fodder?  come on).  However.  Why have the “flying tigers” when they just get smashed immediately and maybe take out one infantry unit, never being able to attack?  A lot of people agree with me about the flying tigers, because there’s a lot of talk on these message boards about putting more infantry there or moving the plane out of reach to start the game.

Which leads to my subject title.  Was this game play tested at all?? :?

I agree with the optional rule of closing the Dardanelles strait not just because of history but because it seems ridiculous that Italy could bombard the Caucusus with 2 units and in round 2, 3 units in conjunction with the Germans.  But if you’re going to close that seazone, why aren’t there optional rules for Gibraltar (have to own it to pass through) and Denmark/Baltic Sea?

The list goes on.  I’ve only played this game about 3 times solo, but it’s obvious this game is begging for house rules.  Didn’t take me long to realize that the NO’s heavily favor the Axis (in the 1942 scenario especially), namely because they pretty much start the game with all of them met.  In 1941 they have such a vastly superior military position, and with bonus income and all the territories that are there for the taking, can match the income of the allies after round one.  I fail to see how this game does not heavily favor the Axis (if there is no bid or house rules or anything - rules out of the box).  And that’s why I ask - was this game really playtested like they say it was??

I have yet to play a game (solo) where the Allies don’t get steamrolled.

Side note - I think the NO’s make it that much easier for the Axis in 1942, so I have reduced them by 1/2.  First NO met, 2 IPC’s, second NO met, 3 IPC’s (total of 5), all NOs met, 7 IPCs.

I like the NO concept that encourages you to play historically, but come on, Italy getting 22 income after turn one is ridiculous.