AA50: Anniversary edition
-
Hi! Is there a game version that exactly mimics AA50: Anniversary Edition (both 41 scen. and 42 scen. maps and units)? I've played the version III, but it does differ a bit from the board game, doesn't it?
-
@Calaf15 It does differ a bit from the intended game, and I could make a list about it, but first I'm curious to know your list of all things you believe are different from the board game you know (as some differences are actually official errata).
-
@Cernel said in AA50: Anniversary edition:
..., but first I'm curious to know your list of all things you believe are different from the board game you know (as some differences are actually official errata).
@Calaf15 I am very curious about that, too.
-
@Calaf15 me three!
-
What is the version III of the anniversary edition?
I have just an old v3 mod that contains stronger Germany/Weaker Japan, Sea Zones, Air battles, Bunkers, upkeep, unusable captured factories, China can place any type of unit etc...
-
@Schulz bunkers? that doesnt sound like ww2 v3
-
@ubernaut and @ all WorldWarII v3 1941 and WorldWarII v3 1942 are the Triplea versions of Anniversary. They are quite accurate in my opinion since I own the original.
-
@prastle And because he is so old... he was there when Larry hand drew the first version on a paper napkin.
-
@prastle yeah think he's confused about which map he's actually playing.
BTW envious of you
is your map still in one piece? -
-
@prastle said in AA50: Anniversary edition:
@ubernaut and @ all WorldWarII v3 1941 and WorldWarII v3 1942 are the Triplea versions of Anniversary. They are quite accurate in my opinion since I own the original.
Agree... but I am always interested in map rules questions we might have overlooked
-
@Panther Seems I have seen ghosts, then. I haven't got the boardgame available here, so cannot check, but when you say it's a duplicate if the AA50 game, I believe you. So: "It does differ a bit from the intended game, and I could make a list about it"
Please do! -
@Calaf15 No, sorry, I don't have the time right now to dig deeper in and create such a list (that @Cernel mentioned by the way). I have been following the TripleA development for more than 10 years now. My main concern has always been rules compliance.
I can say today that at least regarding v3, v4, v5, v6 rules compliance is very close to the originals, with some minor issues here and there (for example victory conditions are not always 1:1 but that is pointless in games anyway). And of course the wwII_1940_versions are great, too, with some open but manageable issues we already have a list for (see game notes and Github repos).
But I am happy to comment on the issues you have identified.
-
@Panther No nits from me; found TripleA recently and love it and the great work invested in giving us A&A online.
-
If you mean the map design itself, that'd be on me. The main thing I tried to do was make a world map that looked somewhat less blob-like than the boxed AA50 gamemap (more realistic in terms of the relative shape of places like Africa/Mid-East/China etc), so that some of the wild distortions of the boxed map would be less pronounced. This also meant some slight re-shaping of territories or sea zone geometry, though all the connections are the same. Basically I was trying to strike some kind of balance between a map that would be able to house the requisite units wihout overcrowding, while not being so distorted as to be almost cartoonish in its blob factor, or so large (in terms of the average display) that you'd have to constantly zoom or scroll to get past large regions with near zero activity in normal gameplay. One of the things I found problematic with some earlier maps, was just that they were so large, whereas most people I knew preferred a faster drag around the globe, so I tried to find something a little bit smaller that would work.
You may notice for example that the TripleA AA50 map is actually smaller than the tripleA Revised map at 100% zoom, despite having more territories and sea zones, which was intentional. The thought was that most people would hopefully be able to play at something around 75% map zoom, still seeing the critical game info at a glance but with minimal dragging to get around the map. The original idea was to use smaller standard unit icons (also at a scale closer to 50%) but I think the centering still treat them as if they were 100%. Unit crowding is a perennial issue in A&A games, especially with multi-national stacks, but basically I thought there would be some advantage to having mid-scale game where players could view more of the map at a glance without having to zoom-in/out a lot, which is why I started with a more compact baseline.
As for rules implementation, I think if there are any departures it probably would have to do with the fact that tripleA doesn't strictly enforce a separation between combat movement and non combat movement. (Basically you can move Non Com during combat if you want, and the game engine won't stop you.) This could present a couple situations that would need to be player enforced, but on the whole I think its up to spec.
-
@Black_Elk said in AA50: Anniversary edition:
though all the connections are the same.
Except for a bunch of neutrals. Did you do that on purpose, since it doesn't matter? Why?
As for rules implementation, I think if there are any departures it probably would have to do with the fact that tripleA doesn't strictly enforce a separation between combat movement and non combat movement. (Basically you can move Non Com during combat if you want, and the game engine won't stop you.) This could present a couple situations that would need to be player enforced, but on the whole I think its up to spec.
There are a lot of "departures", though nothing really major, even without considering general matters like this one.
-
Yeah more or less. I'm not even sure we had attackable neutrals as a base feature when I was drafting it, and wasn't considering mods, so just seemed like something that wouldn't really matter to the gameplay. I think when I did it I was either trying to create a more pleasing sz or tt line (avoiding diagonals that tend to look worse when the map is rescaled) or just trying to squeeze in a little more real estate for some tt or sz where I thought we could add another unit before spill over occurred. Also tried to fit more of the warp into the neutral spots when needed, like Sahara or whatever, so that other areas wouldn't have to be as blob like. Some things like that. I just wanted it to look more recognizable as the world, since the boxed A&A games use some really extreme distortions, some of which didn't seem necessary for a digital version, where you don't have to fit all the chips and such, spots like Gibraltar for example.
ps. the biggest compromises where made on the Eastern Front, since the boxed game has Moscow like 3000 miles from where it should be hehe. Even taking plenty of liberties, that's a distortion you can't really avoid the way Larry drafted it originally. But I tried to make Europe and the Med as large as I sensibly could, without entirely altering the shape of Africa or the Mid East. Same deal trying to preserve the gameboard depiction of East Asia, without totally compressing China into something that no geography student would recognize lol.
ps. Another thing that might look a little strange is just the number of islands and such. Those were basically just to indicate more territory locations that I thought might be useful later on, when I hacked up the earlier map to make the first domination ones. But here stuff is just grouped to whatever the major territory was in the AA50 map. So like Line is part of Hawaii group for game purposes, or Guam gets grouped in with whatever sz division made sense. Most smaller chains are just attached to the larger adjacent tt and serve no real purpose, except that I liked how it kind of made the world feel fleshed out, or the battle for worthless islands somehow more epic hehe.
-
@Black_Elk Your China looks way better than the original (this doesn't say much, as the original is hideous there), and it is also way more sensibly spaced for gameplay. Moscow beyond the Urals has always been one of my pet hates, but I've always rationalized it thinking that is not actually Moscow, but it is the Urals, that would also make sense since, productively, that was maybe the centre of the Russian production; I don't mind distortions for gameplay, but the fact is that also the relative connections are messed up, making Moscow closer to Archangel (or Novosibirsk!) than to Leningrad, and telling you that in order to move from Moscow to Leningrad you need either to go through Belorussia or Archangel, both being totally, and by far, not in between of Moscow and Leningrad. The other issue I have with the original drawing is that it makes look like the world is squeezed at the Equator, while it should be wider there (for example, Caucasus is given as closer to Indo-China than Manchuria).
On your drawing, I think I've only 3 complaints:
- The drawing for the Panama canal is telling that you need both Panama and Northern South America to get through.
- You moved "Scapa Flow" away from the British battleship.
- You could have cut some more space for 7 Sea Zone, where a lot of stuff tend to pile up, overflowing all over France and beyond.
-
Yeah I agree, esp the point on sz 7. I actually think it could be recarved in a couple places. Sort of did it on the fly, but I think Mike handled most the integration, map details like centering and such was on Zero I think. That was like my last year in school I think so I just threw together the baseline and dipped hehe. Anyone who wants to clean it up should def feel free. Some of the details like the tanks on Stalin's nose, and Il Duce's island birthmark me laugh. Might be fun to spruce up now that the board is back with that last reprint.
Not a huge fan of the map blend either, it's way too light.
ps. the equator after warping is basically riding a weird wave that crests and drops as you scroll from left to right. The only way I could really think to deal with the compression of mid east/central-south Asia and to stretch east Asia was do like a wonk half-rotation, that would at least pull Russia/China in a direction that kind of made sense to me. But yeah, not sure it was right on the money there. The compass rose would be a little confusing, with some bends in the arrow lines hehe.
-
Also I definitely agree about the points made for Russia. Weirdly I think what he could have done is reorient the main Russian production center from "Russia" to Arch, make that territory larger and then just call it Northern Russia or something similarly catch all. West Russia, or South Russia would likewise probably make more sense or something generic. Or like if Arch didn't exist, but was just folded into another tile. Because then you could just kind of imagine some distortion going on where people are maybe less familiar with the scale. But yeah, the way Leningrad is set up relative to Belo and E. Ukraine and Moscow has you thinking the distortion should be going one direction, but then Russia Arch and Urals are doing something kind of different. I feel like just stretching the main "Russia" territory down from the top would probably have been easier, and a little more like how I imagined the distortions going on in the Classic board, where Karelia was like all encompassing lol. Having the main Russian production hub adjacent to sz 4 would also have been kind of fun I think for the endgame, whether its Allies trying to rush in aid, or Germany reorienting with some kind of safe harbor. But that's clearly a ship that never sailed.
