Posts made by Lema099

Thanks to both of you.

@Krieghund:

AA fire occurs after the air battle is over, and is resolved only against the strategic bombers, not the escorts (if any).

@Dylan:

They fire after the battle? Is this in all games?

No, just this one (and AAE40).

Will this perhaps replace the AA50 FAQ’s optional Fighter Escort rule?  Currently its AA fire happens before the fighter battle, not after, and the way the rule is written sounds (to me at least) like escorts are also subject to AA fire: “Attacking fighters may escort and protect the bombers … After antiaircraft fire is resolved against the attacking air units, if there are any defending fighters an air battle occurs between the attacking and defending air units.”  It makes a lot more sense that AA doesn’t affect escorts and takes place after any escort/interceptor battle, since that’s how bombing missions actually happened.

For anyone missing anything, BoardGameGeek has 2nd Ed. component pics at http://boardgamegeek.com/images/thing/98/axis-allies&gallery=game

For example, here’s the US reference chart: http://boardgamegeek.com/image/206478/axis-allies?size=large

@Emperor_Taiki:

These are good points, do you think there will be any french units in north africa or syria, as they were also vichy controlled?

I guess it depends how detailed the game will be. The historical Oct. 1941 Vichy forces in North Africa are in this PDF, and the May 1941 Vichy forces in Syria are here.

@allweneedislove:

the game starts before france falls. so there should be french presence in french indo china.

True.  The May 1940 French Indochina force is shown on the last page of this PDF, and the July 1941 Vichy force is shown here.

@Lozza007:

If I recall, the units in FIC were Vichy controlled.  They caved in to Japanese pressure for airbases in FIC

Yes, that’s what happened historically (along with some other effects):

@ABWorsham:

I would try the buffet method, read small amounts over a wide range of historic topics, whenever you find something you really enjoy dive as deep as you can into it. Then move on.

Agreed - that’s a good approach.

@Dylan:

So if anyone know some stuff could you maybe please make a timeline or list of civilizations.

This might be a good place to start: List of Wars

The one on Mr. Harris’s website states that it’s official (which I take to mean just that, though I guess tournament organizers might do their own thing if they want): http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf.  It’s a step more up-to-date than the one on the Avalon Hill site and includes the heavy bomber change on page 1.

Interesting ideas - so many choices!  :-o

Thanks for the input, guys.  I’ll try that, then.

As most seem to agree, Heavy Bombers were quite overpowered in the Milton Bradley edition.  In it, other techs added 50% to effectiveness, while rolling three dice for HBs added 200%.  One of the most obvious house rule fixes was to reduce HBs to rolling two dice, resulting in an added 100% effectiveness - still overpowered compared to other techs, but not as bad. And this was what originally appeared in the Anniversary Edition.

The Larry Harris Tournament Rules strategic bombing modification (roll two dice, choose the higher, and add 1), results in a 57% increase in effectiveness (the better of two dice is chosen for unit combat). The Feb 5, 2010 FAQ change uses a simplified version of this which omits the “add 1” (matching the new Pacific procedure), resulting in only a 28% increase in effectiveness for strategic bombing.

One other possibility is to roll 1 die and add 2 for strategic bombing, which also gives a 57% increase in effectiveness (for tactical combat, the FAQ/LHTR approach of rolling two dice and choosing the better is used).

For comparison, here are graphs of these various strategic bombing approaches:

My instinct is that either the One Die Plus 2 or LHTR approaches are best, while the FAQ/Pacific one seems underpowered, but I haven’t played enough to be sure.  What are your experiences and opinions of these various options?

This scenario goes in the map folder. Based on the Federation Space board game.

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?w2azyvtwgn3

You also might want to check out the official FAQ, Upside-down_Turtle.  It has resolutions to many unusual situations like that one along with other refinements:

http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

(and I like your avatar: may the blessings of Mercer be upon you :))

Well, that was quick.  A week ago, when there was word of AA50 selling out sporadically, I checked and saw that both Boards & Bits (where I bought mine) and Funagain had it in stock for their usual prices.  Now - gone!

Edit: just checked BoardGameGeek’s entry for the game and saw that the usual Sci-Fi City ad is still in place.  But going to the site, it’s no longer there.

I very much like the new transport rules (nothing was worse than having your battleship sunk by a transport!) along with the weaker carrier defense.  I’d always figured the old values were due to transports and carriers having some built-in destroyers as escorts.  Now that DDs are available as separate units, they’re no longer built-in, and the values reflect that.

@alwayswin:

I would welcome any opponent who focused solely on strat. bombing.

I agree in AA50.  In earlier versions, an economically superior power would usually benefit from bombing, since it was essentially a 1-for-1 IPC swap mechanism.  But now that it’s a more-realistic factory suppression mechanism, a bit more thought is needed (since the bombed nation might have other factories, or might just save up IPCs and only repair factories every other turn, rendering your bombers worthless half the time).  It’s a good improvement with more options all around.

@Cmdr:

Anyway you can email me a JPG or BMP of your map to isfcco@hotmail.com, IL?

@Imperious:

I cant compress the PDF to a BMP or Jpeg. Illustrator cuts that off at about 11MB.

@Imperious:

ok here is the new file with border and charts. ( 84MB)
80 x 37.5 inches PDF format.

I know what you mean, Imperious Leader - I’ve had Illustrator fail on me when trying to export a large vector image to JPG.  Instead, I tried letting Photoshop import your PDF map and, while it took a while, it eventually worked.  Thus I was able to save it as a JPG (I used to work in the graphics department of a print/copy shop, so I have a pathological need for format-conversion tasks to succeed :)).

Here is a 150 dpi JPG (7 megs zipped) of that (I’ve also emailed it to you, Cmdr Jennifer), though if you can load IL’s PDF, you’ll get better results.

@Subotai:

If the 3 month time scale is the same in AA50, then many wars (games) will only last a couple of years…sometimes only a year  :roll:  :lol:

@GUY:

Yikes! that’s 16 or so turns to get to the end of 1945. I don’t have that kind of endurance. 10 turns is considered a long game with my group.

I have a feeling that’s why Mr. Harris’s default position seems to be that there’s no specific time scale: game length in A&A seems quite variable depending on player actions.  And his scale may(?) be more based on movement/production rates rather than speed of play.

It’s sometimes the case that wargame players go faster than history at a given scale…  In the designer’s notes, Frank Chadwick wrote about Command Decision that he’d seen an instance of using tactical rules to simulate larger battles which led to an entire tank corps taking 50% casualties in 5 minutes of scale time (which is why the operational Command Decision scale was developed).  Games of A&A that only last a few turns remind me of that a bit… I applaud those players’ skill for using every unit to the fullest every turn, but my own games aren’t that skilled and thus tend to last longer, perhaps more like history where maximum use wasn’t made of every unit at all times.

I was initially surprised to read how short some players’ games are (sometimes 4-6 turns).  Back in the day with 2nd Ed. A&A, it wasn’t unusual for our games to last ten turns or so.  And my first solitaire game of AA50’s 1941 scenario lasted even longer.

So I can see why Larry was hesitant to assign a locked-in scale to an A&A turn: it seems to have more to do with the tempo set by a given set of players.  I just posted what he’d said on the topic when it came up on his forum.

I’ve also wondered about turn scale and did some searching a while back.  Larry Harris has twice said on his forum that, if he had to lock it down, A&A turns are about 3 months long:

15.Sep, 2004: “There is no specific time period. HOWEVER… If I had to absolutely give a turn a time I’d say a turn was just about 3 months.”
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=90

07.May, 2007: “by the way, I think a turn represents about 3 months.”
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/bb2/viewtopic.php?t=1330&start=16

Both of these were in discussions about Revised - I haven’t seen anything he may have said about other editions.

@Krieghund:

Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of rules that weren’t exactly clear in the rulebook.  Many error corrections and clarifications can be found in the FAQ.

You don’t happen to know if a “second edition” printing of the rulebook (which would eventually incorporate the FAQ’s clarifications/additions) is planned, do you?  I’d be happy to spend $5-10 shipped to get an updated version with all the updates once they’re worked out.

That’s a very nice map, cominges - well done, and thanks for sharing.  Its pure, light colors somewhat remind me of the film version of Saint-Exupéry’s The Little Prince:

Fine job - it must be a great experience to play on it!