AA Anniversary Tournament Possiblities?

Squire,

Yeah, see if you can find that. I am very interested in looking at that...

Peace,
GS

Well I took a year off from Gencon but I think I might have to return for this game (there's a chance it might bring Bill back too).

I definately think the 42 scenario is more balanced and I think for time consideration it probably is good to drop the extra money goals. Personally I like techs and in a 6 hour game especially with the new tech format I think they are really part of the strategy of the game and not just an aside or a last ditch hail mary.

The one thing I saw mentioned in this thread that I really liked was stating the number of rounds. I know you don't want to limit the number of rounds but I really think there should be a suggested minimum. I have always enjoyed Gencon because I love competing with really great players but at least once a year there is someone who plays ridiculously slow which absolutely destroys the joy of the game for me. I come to play and I don't mind losing as long as we actually get a game in. Even if the minimum number of rounds is just suggested rather than a hard and fast rule I think it might motivate some people to try a little harder. I would think 1 round an hour a reasonable minimum. I also think it allows both sides to come to the table with a reasonable strategy that can't be derailed by simply not playing quickly.

anyway just my $.02.

Pallantides,

Great to hear from you. Yes, we did miss you guys last year and boy, that would be great to see both of you at GEN CON...or even maybe earlier at the SGVII.

Hey, big games this weekend for our teams...I would like to see us both win and you come into the Burgh for the Championship. I will be in Pitt for the game this weekend. Good Luck and tell Bill I said hi as well. I am guessing he is kind of crazy in that the new pres is coming in soon...like very soon...

One last thing, I might be making a trek to Emmitsburg again in the Spring/Summer. I will keep you posted...

Peace,
GS

SwampHQ wrote:

As for AA50, some things that I have decided: yes, they will be six hour rounds. 2 player’s teams; NO singles or 3 player teams. If you come solo, you will be matched up with someone. Sorry guys, I just don't see any benefit to having anyone play solo with the new game. Also, it gets more people to play and with 3, it might take forever...

No National Objectives and Bonus incomes and Techs are still up in the air. The SBR might be a problem and we will wait and see how that pans out with Larry. We really need to play out the VC's and see what a good number is. At this time, I am seeing 13 as extremely reasonable...If 13 is NOT reached in the time frame allotted, then a tie-breaker will need to be given...I was thinking along the lines of arm wrestling or a quick round of trivia? WWII of course... The set up will most likely be 1942 for reasons you and others have given. Time, time and more time. Being already into the game does help.

Obviously, there will be a bid. Most likely the exact same way as AAR just for simplicity of determining sides.

Greg,

Sounds great!!!

I completely agree with the 2 player decision and the 6 hour time frame.

Take your time on the Version, NOs and Tech decision. I don't think we (AA community) will come up with a balanced, agreeable solution for tourney format until after your Spring Gathering. By then, many OTB (over the board) games will have been played and strategies tested by then. I believe then a clear format will surface.

If not, then you could always go with an "open bid" type thing for sides, version, NOs and/or Tech. I don't think that will be needed by SG time in April, but just in case, it can buy more time to come up with a better format. Plus, it gets you out of the crosshairs for a year if people complain about the format- than again, people probably complain anyway.

Questioneer

Thanks Greg,

I was wondering where I should make some football comments, but I wanted to wait and make sure the Ravens knock off the Titans. Anything can happen you know?

You know for a team that spent 100 million dollars on their quarterback (who I grudgingly must admit is good) you really could spend a few dollars on linemen who can block !!

They should just change the rules if the Ravens and Steelers play in the Championship game and just let the two defenses come on the field and knock each other around.

Good luck Sunday

Pallantides wrote:Thanks Greg,

I was wondering where I should make some football comments, but I wanted to wait and make sure the Ravens knock off the Titans. Anything can happen you know?

You know for a team that spent 100 million dollars on their quarterback (who I grudgingly must admit is good) you really could spend a few dollars on linemen who can block !!

They should just change the rules if the Ravens and Steelers play in the Championship game and just let the two defenses come on the field and knock each other around.

Good luck Sunday

Sounds good to me. But then it won't be as fun at the game...and what do I do with my tickets...

Might want to consider these- the updated FAQs for AA5 posted on Jan 12th, 2009 on Larry's site.

Questioneer



http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

New stuff is in red.

Thanks, Question,

I posted a new thread with FAQ's from Larry...

My question for Greg and the rest is what to do about the 2 new optional rules mentioned in the new updated FAQs.

1. The first option deals with SBRs nicely and I think we have to use it. This option is to balance a Allies heavy game more than an Axis. This seems like a no-brainer to use this in both the 41 and 42.

2. The second option isn't quite so easy- close the Black Sea? This might depend on the version you use. This rule definitely balances a Axis heavy game, but the question is -what game is Axis heavy and is it needed- the 41 or 42???

Questioneer strikes again.

Question,

I am not sure I am following why we would consider this?

Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement
In order to maintain its neutrality, Turkey closed the narrow straights linking the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, permitting no naval passage by any belligerent nation on either side. No sea units may move into or out of sea zone 16, however air units may move through this sea zone freely.

I guess I just don't see the real purpose in doing this unless you are a historian nut regarding game play. As far as basic game play goes for our purposes, I don't see this really benifitting much of anything...

Now, the SBR, yes...

Peace,

Greg,

Closing the sea zone has a negative affect on Italy. The ability to attack Ukraine and/or Caucaus is one of the few things that Italy can do - especially early in the game. This would eliminate one possible use for the Italian fleet and therefore, as was stated, it is a balancing change in favor of the Allies.

Mike

MatildaMike wrote:Greg,

Closing the sea zone has a negative affect on Italy. The ability to attack Ukraine and/or Caucaus is one of the few things that Italy can do - especially early in the game. This would eliminate one possible use for the Italian fleet and therefore, as was stated, it is a balancing change in favor of the Allies.

Mike

Mike, So, are you saying this is a good thing or bad?

I guess that was my point. Italy really doesn't have much purpose except for that and taking away that just dosn't seem reasonable. And from my standpoint and what we have done thus far in the way of game play, do we really know if one side or the other has and advantage just yet?

My knee jerk reaction is to not go with this at this time, but we have a lot of time to play test it...

Peace,

Greg,

I was just trying to follow up on the original post. I would only submit we use this rule IF we felt that the game was tilted in the Axis' favor, because, as I said, it hurts Italy. I think the jury is still out on the overall balance of the game - though, IMHO, I think in the 1942 set up the Axis might have a slight edge. Pressed hard, Russia has real issues by turn 3-4 with the amount of German armor on their doorstep. But, that can be hashed out

To me, I think it is too early to start changing rules - even the SBR rule. In fact, while I am not saying that you wait until the very last moment, I do think it would be wise to wait before making any announcements on rule changes until after the SG and shortly before Origins. Only if by then do you have some serious evidence of imbalance would I say change the rules.

Mike

MatildaMike wrote:Greg,

I was just trying to follow up on the original post. I would only submit we use this rule IF we felt that the game was tilted in the Axis' favor, because, as I said, it hurts Italy. I think the jury is still out on the overall balance of the game - though, IMHO, I think in the 1942 set up the Axis might have a slight edge. Pressed hard, Russia has real issues by turn 3-4 with the amount of German armor on their doorstep. But, that can be hashed out

To me, I think it is too early to start changing rules - even the SBR rule. In fact, while I am not saying that you wait until the very last moment, I do think it would be wise to wait before making any announcements on rule changes until after the SG and shortly before Origins. Only if by then do you have some serious evidence of imbalance would I say change the rules.

Mike

Greg,

I was thinking the same way you are on both of these.

Mike,

I wholeheartedly agree with your last post on decision making- still too early, even for deciding 41/42 version yet.

Questioneer

Mike,

Thanks...I agree....let see how this hole thing pans out...

Peace,