Tech vs No Tech's: NO's vs. no NO's?

What I mean regarding TECH's, is that I believe they should be revised if they are too powerful. They are an intrigal part of the game that should be considered.

Revising HB and the time when techs go into effect would help...

Peace,

SwampHQ wrote:
..., I need to have myself cloned.

Peace,

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of you is enough!

Craig

Yeah, but there is enough for two...and the love that goes around here is just overwhelming!

Greg, go ahead and clone yourself- just don't clone YOPER!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

questioneer wrote:Greg, go ahead and clone yourself- just don't clone YOPER!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am one-of-a-kind!

Craig

That you are

Hey, on a more serious note, and not sure if i should be asking you hear but i will fire away anyhow, do you know what is going on at WotC/AH with the AA games? What is this talk on Larry's site about limited runs, out of print games, etc. Do you know...? or are you just a mere Tellarian like the rest of us.

Peace,

Sounds like the WotC types only printed a certain amount. Whether that was on purpose or just short-sighted, who knows? They are a bunch of idiots either way.

Ask Krieghund. He talks with Larry much more often than I.

Craig

SwampHQ wrote:


I personally, do NOT like elminating tech's but might have to due to a massive outcry?

I do not think we will be using any Black Sea variants.

I know that many of yinz play online now and I hear that it is a great way to play, and this might sound just down right archaic, but I have hard enough time, checking e-mails and responding to this forum online. To find time to now play AA online in addition to playing FTF, I need to have myself cloned.

1. About tech- I agree too. I don't mind playing without it, but in this game (unlike Revised) I think it really keeps the game unpredictable, but in a much smoother way. I was very against it in Revised, but kinda for it now in AA50 because the stats are better- Heavy Bombers can just be reduced back to the LHTR if needed, but at a 3% chance of getting it, I don't really see the need to do that- same with Paratroopers.

2. Black Sea option- looks like in both scenarios you don't really need it. It seems like it hurts the game more than helps it- unless your playing a newbie. However, I think the Escort SBR Rule IS needed.

3. I understand about the online thing- I've been playing since January I started with 4 games and now I play 1-2 games over a span of 4-6 weeks. Its nice when you can't get together and spend a whole Saturday and play a couple of games. But if your not playing more than 4 games a month- by forum, then you might as well block the time out to play FTF- it takes just as much quantitative time anyway.

Questioneer

Hey Greg,

I spent some time playing AA50 again with Capsian sub AA guru Ben Ibach. We were playing the '41 and Ben came up with a great strategic move in rd2-3. I was playing Axis and after several games online and FTF I had my standard Axis moves (which are pretty standard now from the many games I've played and seen for round 1).

Here is the strategy that Ben came up that put a heavy hand on the Axis. I am currently trying to come up with counters for it. This of course is a KGF strategy. Ben and I both strongly agree that a KJF in this game is futile and worthless because of the new map.

1.) Forget building a UK navy- build all bombers. US sends 3 over and buys 2 more bombers.

2.a.) SBR Germany/Italy or
b.) wipe out Germany AND Italian navy

3.) US sends everything east and SBRs Axis in Europe or "cleans up" leftover Axis ships

4.)Create the Atlantic shuck route and continue SBR Axis
5.)Russia grows and holds ground till Allies ship tons of ground troops by Round 4

When I first seen this, I thought Ben was going to SBR Germany round 2 with 4bombers. That was the bait, what he did was take those 4 bombers and sunk the Italian navy in one shot. It was expensive for him but more expensive for me. Now without an Italian navy (or barely any European navy at all), Africa would be lost, the threat of Cauc attack gone and Italian/German expansion shrunk very early. In otherwords, w/o the Italian navy, Italy is no threat at all and a liability to the Axis. (This is really an indirect KGF- could really turn into a KIF)

Now after some observation, there was a counter to stop this in round 2, but nearly impossible to stop by round 3. By that time Britain could have 4 bombers in Cauc (ready to sink the ships) and US will have 5 bombers in UK ready to clean up the ships or SBR like crazy. This opens an expressway of ships to France or NWE or Alg or Italy.

What's worse is that in the '42 version, no matter what the Axis do its even BETTER for the Allies there, just make sure you are very shrewd with Russia so they can survive the first 2 rounds. Even with the Fighter Escort Rule, it seems difficult to deflect. The only thing I could think of was maybe moving some Japanese ships over to the Med to help protect the Italian fleet but even that is futile over time because you can't outproduce the UK/US bomber production.- nasty.

Try this and/or share your thought anyone.

Questioneer

While I favor the use of the NO's for driving of the game in certain ways, I have seen that the infusion of the extra cash can have serious side affects, like this one stated by Questioneer.

The lowering of the prices of different units by us (playtesters and Larry) was done long before the idea of NO's came about. It may be that there is too much of a swing in the one direction when both are used.

Leave it to Ben to come up with a killer strat. That man is a machine!

Craig

Yoper wrote:While I favor the use of the NO's for driving of the game in certain ways, I have seen that the infusion of the extra cash can have serious side affects, like this one stated by Questioneer.

The lowering of the prices of different units by us (playtesters and Larry) was done long before the idea of NO's came about. It may be that there is too much of a swing in the one direction when both are used.

Leave it to Ben to come up with a killer strat. That man is a machine!

Craig

Excellent point Craig. Nobody at the AA.org forum plays without NOs- people like them too much. If you do play without them though, I think Italy becomes very weak and a liability to even have around.

Bids aren't necessarily the answer either because they unbalance the game greatly. Setup adjustment may be nessessary and Ben says don't allow SBRs period. He really thinks the game may be broke.

Don't replace Revised with AA50 just yet folks, after some time it may be realized that Revised is still the better game. By the way Larry is made an updated version of Revised coming out August of this year!!!

Questioneer

A possible counter to the mentioned strategy earlier is to bring back the AA rule from Revised- AA guns fire upon aircraft passing in/out/through territories. I personally liked this rule and I think it would justify the higher $6 price tag on them now in AA50.

You would still have to eliminate SBRs completely though- they are way too powerful OR make the hits be limited to the value of the territory not "twice" the value.


There's either gonna be a lot of adjustments to this game for tourny purposes or it will just go down as a novelty game. The game mechanics of AA50 are just not as smooth as Revised, but we still have to give it some time- which was Ben's assumption also.

questioneer wrote:A possible counter to the mentioned strategy earlier is to bring back the AA rule from Revised- AA guns fire upon aircraft passing in/out/through territories. I personally liked this rule and I think it would justify the higher $6 price tag on them now in AA50.

You would still have to eliminate SBRs completely though- they are way too powerful OR make the hits be limited to the value of the territory not "twice" the value.


There's either gonna be a lot of adjustments to this game for tourny purposes or it will just go down as a novelty game. The game mechanics of AA50 are just not as smooth as Revised, but we still have to give it some time- which was Ben's assumption also.


When I first seen this, I thought Ben was going to SBR Germany round 2 with 4bombers. That was the bait, what he did was take those 4 bombers and sunk the Italian navy in one shot. It was expensive for him but more expensive for me. Now without an Italian navy (or barely any European navy at all), Africa would be lost, the threat of Cauc attack gone and Italian/German expansion shrunk very early. In otherwords, w/o the Italian navy, Italy is no threat at all and a liability to the Axis. (This is really an indirect KGF- could really turn into a KIF)

Now after some observation, there was a counter to stop this in round 2, but nearly impossible to stop by round 3. By that time Britain could have 4 bombers in Cauc (ready to sink the ships) and US will have 5 bombers in UK ready to clean up the ships or SBR like crazy. This opens an expressway of ships to France or NWE or Alg or Italy.

The only real "fix" for SBR is to have fighters defend vs air attacks. Unless you have CAP (which was an optional rule Larry later added), the allies should win every time. The lack of bombing limits (like AAR had) makes CAP necessary.

As to the Italian fleet, you have to prevent it from sinking. Thus, you need to purchase a carrier and get 2 fighters aboard it ASAP. You should be able to figure out how to get this by Round 3.

squirecam wrote:
The only real "fix" for SBR is to have fighters defend vs air attacks. Unless you have CAP (which was an optional rule Larry later added), the allies should win every time. The lack of bombing limits (like AAR had) makes CAP necessary.

As to the Italian fleet, you have to prevent it from sinking. Thus, you need to purchase a carrier and get 2 fighters aboard it ASAP. You should be able to figure out how to get this by Round 3.

the fighter escort rule helps, but I don't think they help enough. Gotta get rid of that rule that says that you can bomb and IC "twice" its value- should only be to the value of the territory- twice the value is too devestating.

With the Italian fleet problem. A carrier is not gonna be enough because by round three you can have 9 bombers possibly in range! In the 42 version its like 6-7 bombers ready by round 3. Also, bring back the AA rule from Revised where planes get shot at each time they pass through a territory with and AA gun! That will make the AA guns worth the $6 price tag at least.

Any time Axis puts money in the water it favors the Allies hands down!

questioneer wrote:

squirecam wrote:
The only real "fix" for SBR is to have fighters defend vs air attacks. Unless you have CAP (which was an optional rule Larry later added), the allies should win every time. The lack of bombing limits (like AAR had) makes CAP necessary.

As to the Italian fleet, you have to prevent it from sinking. Thus, you need to purchase a carrier and get 2 fighters aboard it ASAP. You should be able to figure out how to get this by Round 3.

the fighter escort rule helps, but I don't think they help enough. Gotta get rid of that rule that says that you can bomb and IC "twice" its value- should only be to the value of the territory- twice the value is too devestating.

With the Italian fleet problem. A carrier is not gonna be enough because by round three you can have 9 bombers possibly in range! In the 42 version its like 6-7 bombers ready by round 3. Also, bring back the AA rule from Revised where planes get shot at each time they pass through a territory with and AA gun! That will make the AA guns worth the $6 price tag at least.

Any time Axis puts money in the water it favors the Allies hands down!

Then move the jap fleet to sz 38, then 34, then the med R3. In 42 Japan goes first.

Think OTB. No strategy is flawless.

Ben's not too bad, but he's not unbeatable.