Not problem solved for 20 invasions of France, Karelia, and Caucasus each game.
We’re talking about the new upcoming 1940 games aren’t we? Maybe your games of A&A:Europe play out differently than mine?
No actually were talking about the global games AAE40 and AAP40 can be combined in one game. In AAR Typically the Allies retake france, get pushed out and retake it and back and forth because the game allows for double collection. If you add up all the times where this happens in a typical game it is basically a time waster because if it was not encouraged by the rules players would not be doing it and not rolling as much. Secondly, the double collection results in greater piece density which also means more ‘stuff’ to fight with’ hence more rolling.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on September 14, 2009, 06:58:43 pm
Quote
This can lead to long lags of all building and no fighting, or worse yet a complete stalemate.
This is your central point. It will defiantly lead to fewer invasions where double collection occurs which causes both sides to buy more units, hence more dice rolling, hence longer game.
After playtesting it over 5 years i can say it leads to shorter games, because once you got a huge army in france and Germany cant do anything about it, it poses a real problem. Before UK barely takes it ( just to collect the money and for no other reason), Germany retakes it with overwhelming might, then pulls back and leaves a token force. It does this because it knows its builds can cover the attack and knows that it will also take advantage of the trick in double income collection and this process repeats.
Rather a situation where you model it a little bit better and at least introduce a unit that can cause fear for the token British raids. A Blockhouse like what we have in AA-D-Day can replace a huge army with the possibility of making such raids a big sting and preclude these nuisance raids.
The old 1981 Nova edition solved the double collection problem. The turn you capture a territory you would collect income from the opposing player instead of the bank. That way a war ravaged territory generates no income instead of double.
I’m also not convinced that each side buying more units slows the game down. Nor have I ever played a very long game and credited the length to too many small battles or too much dice rolling. Battles and dice do not make up the bulk of a turn.
Larry wont change the rules on income collection. However, a blockhouse may help by other means make such gambles harder and get the allies to make more serious attempts to retake france. Also. if you have more units it does make the game longer. Next time you play add in 50,000 more pieces and see how that goes. That proves it makes it longer, so by inference a game where you got 30 extra pieces also takes longer. Each combat where the allies invade and get wiped out in various invasions also takes longer. If they were in UK just building up and landed with the Americans, i bet the result is Germany stays put and tries to get in its counter the following turn, which may be too late.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on September 14, 2009, 06:58:43 pm
With the blockhouse people will make sure they have enough to take the spot from counterattack, which leads to a quicker result, rather than piecemeal attempts to secure the same territory over and over again with NO RESULT. I feel the game will have a quicker result.
There will always be dead zones in A&A.
As long as the game allows for double collection, then yes. My issue is to minimize these because its a function of the game and not anything remotely realistic.
