North-West Europe

[shermantank]

@Imperious:

Yea the 3-2 tanks still mess up this game. If AAE had 3-3 tanks it would be worse because the Soviets cant really buy them. Germany invades Leningrad plus normal attacks, builds all infantry, then G2-G4 its a bunch of tanks and shuck to Moscow. Try it and see.

The playtesters are never Hardcore AA fans. just goobers from AH fantasy game department.

sad/.

They need hardcore A&A fans. They would play the new game at a higher level than the goobers could

[JohnBarbarossa]

Well, the playtesters from AAE were Don Rae and his playgroup. I can hardly call that goobers.

Apart from who is testing, I think it is difficult to spot things like that. Playtesters get a limited amount of time, and most of the time the rules get changed after that and the game is published without extensive testing of those new rules.

Especially when AAE came out there was only one game to referer to. People were so used to defend two fronts, that noone came up with the idea of throwing everything at the Russians. At least not at playtest time.

[Adlertag]

@JohnBarbarossa:

Well, the playtesters from AAE were Don Rae and his playgroup. I can hardly call that goobers.

I dont know about his playgroup, but Don himself really was a funny guy that easily would exceed your imagination. Now after finished playtesting A&AE, Don closed down his own A&A Message Board and deleted everything, because he belived that the US Government had set-up 9/11, and let CIA blow up the Twin Towers, so they got an excuse to start war against the muslim world of terrorists. Yes, Don wrote all this on Larry’s message board, but Larry deleted that thread very soon, because folks startet bashing each others. I was there man, I know.

[JohnBarbarossa]

@Adlertag:

@JohnBarbarossa:

Well, the playtesters from AAE were Don Rae and his playgroup. I can hardly call that goobers.

I dont know about his playgroup, but Don himself really was a funny guy that easily would exceed your imagination. Now after finished playtesting A&AE, Don closed down his own A&A Message Board and deleted everything, because he belived that the US Government had set-up 9/11, and let CIA blow up the Twin Towers, so they got an excuse to start war against the muslim world of terrorists. Yes, Don wrote all this on Larry’s message board, but Larry deleted that thread very soon, because folks startet bashing each others. I was there man, I know.

Sorry for staying off topic.
I agree with you Adler. Don simply went nuts. I was there too.

But a madman can be a good tactician. Just take a look at the German Leaders in WWII and you know the answer to that.

Don’s contribution was the way he approached the game, in a very scientific orderly way. His essays were very well written. And therefore he is a potential good playtester.
As a player he is average I think. I played him once online and beat him (before that I thought very highly of him). But also don’t forget the other playtesters. Kevin Shaw was a very decent player. I played with and against him a couple of times online.

[Funcioneta]

@Craig:

Other game companies are better at having ‘living rules’ for their games that are amended along the way because of player feedback.

Ugh … I suppose you are not suggesting ‘living rules’ as Warhammer or Magic the Gathering. We don’t need a new confusing faq or game expansion each 2-3 months, that is a world of pain  :|

[Lucifer]

I would rather have updates/upgrades maybe once each year, and patches for rules like LHTR, 2, 3, 4th ed. but not too often.

And the 9/11 attacks, I guess that was kamikaze attacks not intended by “game designers”…  :|

[italiansarecoming]

Back on topic ilike the idea of 2 spots in eastern europe looks a lot nicer and shows how much fights are in that small patch p.s. make canada a small player giggles… we helped

[Funcioneta]

@Craig:

No. I am talking about companies like GMT, MMP, etc., which have the game designer taking input/feedback from the hardcore gamers online and at the game conventions that they frequent.  This way the errata that is gathered over time is put into the rules and is easily accessible to all.

Craig

So, they correct the rules in another prints, true? If so, and the rules only change as much one time a year, it’s OK  :-)

[Krieghund]

@Imperious:

Anyone know what the playtesters thought?

The playtesters didnt say anything about the really thin national tokens from Revised

They didn’t say anything about miscolored cruisers from Guadalcanal or being short two infantry from Axis and Allies Bulge.

Playtesters have no say in what the final physical components of the game will look like.  They never even see them before the game comes out.

[italiansarecoming]

playtesters if they asked us to do the playing we wouldnt be talking"

[Imperious Leader]

Playtesters have no say in what the final physical components of the game will look like.  They never even see them before the game comes out.

Thats not the case for all playtesters. They comment on the map artwork and components along the way, but during playtesting a final version of the game may not be available. WOTC does everything ass backwards so its entirely believable to assume the opposite of what should be done in all aspects of production.

WOTC track record for proofing things is horrible.

[italiansarecoming]

@Krieghund:

@Imperious:

Anyone know what the playtesters thought?

The playtesters didnt say anything about the really thin national tokens from Revised

They didn’t say anything about miscolored cruisers from Guadalcanal or being short two infantry from Axis and Allies Bulge.

Playtesters have no say in what the final physical components of the game will look like.  They never even see them before the game comes out.

Totally these play testers maybe could get to play a few more times this would make the game even better!

[Black_Elk]

We need to make the computer game first, then playtest the rules under the new format, before committing them to the physical gameboard.

It will save time and money in the long run, and the games will be much easier to playtest. Doing it the other way around makes no sense to me. You’ll always get in way more games playing on the computer than you ever could face to face. Most of the people using tripleA and abattlemap were able to break the Revised game within just a few months of its release. People on these boards and others (Joe et al) were able to spot problems with the set up almost immediately.

The best way to improve the design and create the strongest game possible, is to have open Beta Tests. And the only way you can do that is with an online game. I think this is the most important step for the A&A community to make. We need a PC or Console game to organize around, and then playtesting would be a breeze. Larry could set up the conditions, run it through a test, and then consider the feedback all before a single mold has to be cast. You could take pre-orders through the site, much like we have set up here. I think it would be the best thing for the franchise, but you have to open it up a little. Give players more control, set things up like they do over at the Vault http://nwvault.ign.com/  or similar sites for games like Total War, or AoE. No reason why we shouldn’t be able to set up something similar for Axis and Allies.

[italiansarecoming]

You can fix the comp. game but not the board game reallly smart idea!

[Zero Pilot]

Actually Elk is simply pointing out that the computer version makes it extremely easy to prototype alternative setups and things. Instead of a half-hour just to set up the board to try something different or off-the-wall (be it rules, set-up or gameplay) it’s like type-type-type click and you’re trying it. Post your best file on a forum and you’ll have dozens of people trying it and providing feedback. So then you apply what you learned in the computer version to help you define the “definitive” board set-up (if there is such a thing.)

Then, (and this is big) you include the computer version in the box!

I had this exact same thought too when AA50 was announced. Why would you not do it that way? It sure wouldn’t take long to see the consequences of the 12 IPC bomber and the 6 IPC sub. (!) If I were LH and AH I would have done some serious prototyping in well… I guess their Gleemax thing. But I’m sure they didn’t. I have no doubt we’ll see an AA50LHTR. ~ZP

[Adlertag]

@Craig:

But I think that they see it under the law of diminishing returns- “Get it pretty good and go with it.  The extra time spent fine-tuning it won’t make it that much better and in the meantime we will be losing money.”

So how do you explain november 18 ?

[Imperious Leader]

So how do you explain november 18 ?

They forgot to market the $100 game and the bean counter who counts the infantry goofed again shorting the obligatory 2 infantry and switching the cruiser colors again. Also the marketing is tied intimately with sales of turkey on Thanksgiving so drunk people who know nothing about the game will buy it out of haste thinking its a festive thing to do?

WOTC motto:

“Don’t buy stuffing, get stuffed with AA50! its only $100 bucks and you don’t need to know anything about it either and its less on the calories”

[Black_Elk]

2. Control- This is probably the more important issue in this discussion.  They don’t want that much input from the outside.

Larry brought in a select group of us to do some preliminary playtesting and Hasbro/WotC wasn’t totally down with that.  In the end it still happened, but then our part was over and the playtesting focus shifted to the people at WotC.

Which means that things were changed by them after we were done.  Some for the better, some not.

It all boils down to control.  They have and they like it that way.

Here’s the problem as I see it: There’s just no way that a small group of playtesters, even an expert group of highly informed and experienced playtesters, is going to be able to tease out all the flaws in a set up. The reason has everything to do with the fact that players mimic each others strategies, and piggy back on each other’s games. This is especially during the preliminary phases of playtesting.

I’m fairly sure I can imagine what the process is like: Larry probably has certain notions about the way the game should be played and ties to design the set up accordingly, but then the players spot a weakness in the set up, and start doing something different, that he didn’t anticipate. Eventually someone breaks the set up (ie discovers the optimal opening/counter opening) but before there’s time to fix it, the game is already slated to be shipped out.

That’s the problem with conducting all this playtesting Face to Face: its just inefficient and takes way too long. Even PBEM testing would be faster, but I feel like we could do so much more if we had a official computer translation of the board. You could still keep the control at the highest levels, but at least do a serious public Beta test, before you send it to the presses. I gaurantee you, in like 3 weeks after its release, someone out there will on a strategy to break the set up. Then we’ll have to institute a standard bid (like we always do) and try and correct for the imbalance. We could do all this before the game is even released though, if the suits would just get behind us on this one. I’m really surprised that there hasn’t been more emphasis on the PC end of things, especially since half of the people buying the new stuff next month, probably only learned about A&A via the Hasbro CD game. I mean, if it wasn’t for that thing, we probably wouldn’t even have a Revised game to play.

The future is online. A&A needs to snap to it, and start making the most of the new format.

[Nuclear]

I think the best type of playtesting really is just to get a bunch of people who have never played Axis and Allies before, or are just regular people who might only play once or twice a year.  It is easy to understand a game and to play it in weird ways if you are already fimilar with how it works and functions to a high degree.  But to have nobodies play it would do the following:
1. Make it so that the rules are easy to understand and comprhend, not like Battle of the Buldge which I do not know of anyone who truly understands how to play it.
2. Will make the set up more balanced and correct, as nobodies would pretty much be playing the game in a way that common sense seems to dictate as the best strategy, or the strategy that seems to be the best from having to think things out for a few mintues.

But that is just my experience with things.  Give it to the least experienced and least knowledgable on the topic or area, and if they cannot understand it or use it in a way that shows there to be something wrong or confusing, then you need to correct it.

As for the new format of having a CD game.  It would be nice and great, but there is also still the nice aspect of being able to play a game in front of live people face to face, and getting those nice little plastic units.

[Imperious Leader]

Personally, I think the games should include a CD for a computer version of the game or at least a demo of it where WOTC has a complete software version of every AA game to sell you.

also they should have custom piece sets and rules for additional pieces so you can keep adding all sorts of unique cool pieces. These would be sold in boxes of say 10-12 new pieces for each side and some neat new scenarios for the game.