Hey, I originally downloaded the map, but I lost it somewhere during my laptop crash  :cry: I went to the first page, but the download no longer worked, can you repost the map?

One of the games I was playing Italy and I was able to take Brazil and the West Indies and begin SBR of E US. a strong Italy is a very good thing for the Axis, especially if it is underestimated in the begining

my first time playin italy, i took over Brazil, then the Indies and started SBR the US. gotta love them, though if someone notices you in the begining you’re crippled off the first few turns and can’t really bounce back without some serious luck

man I can’t wait for the pieces, my friends will love all the new sculpts to add more to our games

so how’s the project goin?

I like the Idea of a north africa game, it would give us more pieces for Italy, and give us a part of the war that really wasn’t touched on in previous games.

A ww1 version would be great! make molds for calvary and machine guns, and have tanks be a tech. no matter what people say, ww1 was not “boring as shit” have troops able to entrench. it would make a very interesting game

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.

yea i can agree with that, theese rules would add to the strategy of the game, i didn’t understand exectaly why you were changin the rules, now I do

@Emperor_Taiki:

And wont this system  get rid of the rediculously unrealistic amphibious invasions, make the british allies and colonies easier to defend and get rid of the unreaistically desive eastern front battles. Not to mention how much more realistic naval battle would be if they were limited to one round. Becasue thats my goal and I would say that a sizeble amount of A&A players would like to play a game with a little more realism

I’ve noticed how much you’re fixated on realism throught forum discussions, and I want to say that you’re talking about a board game. Sure, this game does have realism, but you can’t get too stuck on that idea. WW2 had so many aspects that to make a game that was completly realistic would take forever to play. not only that, no one would want to play because if it was realistic, the axis would loose everytime! In my opinion, realism isn’t as important as a fun game that you can play with friends and teach newcomers quickly. adding such in depth rules, in my experience, just pushes away new players unless they are looking for a game that is realistic.

I played a game of AAR sat (allies won) and just finished another AAR game today (axis won this time)