We use OOB + FAQ b/c that typically has any updated rules clarifications. The FAQ states starting VC + 3 for both sides.
Rules were stated in the first post of the sign-up. There was also a post later where I did mention VC + 3 prior to the start of the tournament.
I understand the Axis adv and the possibility for what might be “cheap” wins.
However, I’m not sure its simply easy to say the Axis are going to get those 3 and win. It’s certainly possible BUT the Allies can do some real nifty things with double digit bids. I’ll save any bid discussion for the 1942 forum.
The reason we are using OOB + FAQ, is that it is easy and uniform for every game. We do not have a large catalog of 42.2E games on this site. And without a large sample size to reference the best course is to use OOB + FAQ. I picked what is easiest to administer and rule on. If we get bad results, then so be it. Then we’ll know. I’m guessing by the time we get to the semi-finals and finals the quality of play will be high enough to where a “cheap” win won’t be really possible. Either the bids will be high enough or the players will be good enough, or a combination.
This map is far from balanced. Bids will go into the twenties after the first round after the axis win every match.
The victory conditions just compound the problem plus you leave no room for players to negotiate vcs which is contrary to what people are used to.
If the Axis do have 9 VC, is it common for the Allies to then come back and win?
Or are you just playing out the inevitable? You just want to see your yellow and grey hordes sack Moscow or invade Alaska and then Canada.
Cause if you are playing out the inevitable, then what’s the difference.
(that is if the Axis are stacked in Kar, Ind and HI without losing Fra or trading Rome)
It seems to me the Axis are well on their way to winning that game anyway. 10 VC or not.
If it is common for the Allies to comeback from a 9 VC deficit. Then they probably shouldn’t have trouble keeping the Axis at 8 in the first place.
Well it is expected the axis hold Karelia and India by round 2 or 3. There is nothing the allies can do about it unless they get a 40 ipc bid. What can the allies take and hold in the first 3 rounds? Nothing. In this game the allies are screwed and have nothing to look forward to at all for the first 3 rounds. Then when they have enough forces to do an attack, the axis make the income the allies make and to make matters worse the axis start with more stuff and the axis took 2 industrial complexes away from the allies, making the positional map advantage even stronger.
Like I been doing 20 something bids for the allies and having no problems winning with the axis, it usually just goes into russia and russia has fun, I build 10-12 units a round (1 bomber 9-11 inf/arty) and eventually life is easy. Because with my air on france, I defend and I force the allies to invest so much into carriers and fighters that by the time they get enough transports to make a D day happen… Europe is already a fortress. If they go KJF, Japan makes more money than USA after round 3, Russia is a cakewalk (UK cannot build naval without USA help). It is just a really silly game.
Hawaii does not win or lose the game. Making the game end at Hawaii forces USA into the pacific, USA makes less money than Japan after round 3, starts with way less stuff. UK needs usa to build naval in the atlantic because every seazone around london is 2 spaces away from france. All germany has to do is match Russia’s ground forces then spend the rest on air, wam bam you come out huge and on top.
What I am saying is, the allies start the game in a lose lose situation. They go atlantic, they lose the game after Karelia, India, and Hawaii. They go pacific they lose Russia and possibly london. Plus Russia is easy to bomb out of the game for germany. Matter of fact bombing is a huge economic payout, it costs 2 ipc to bomb on average 1/6th of 12 to bomb an average of 3.5. Super official rewards not to mention 2 infantry + bomber is a more reliable way of fighting than infantry + fighter when trading 2 dollar territories.
Not to mention Karelia makes Germany so much less tank reliant compared to revised.
The main issue for me is the principle of the axis or allies winning without taking a capital city, that is ridiculous. Ramming pacific down people’s throats is no fun either, Pacific board sales are much lower than Europe board sales, because people do not enjoy the Pacific theater as much as the European one… I enjoy the Pacific when I am Japan… not when I am the allies, because the Pacific sucks… it is all boats and oceans with no hope, every hit costs someone 6-20 ipcs, one big naval battle and that is it… the game right there has been won or lost in an ocean over some spice island, the winner may as well proclaim “THE SPICE MUST FLOW!”
At least when the allies win or lose the battle for france someone can say, “I will be back.”
I understand the developers are trying to encourage Pacific play… the problem is the axis start with more stuff, the allies lose both ICs within the first 3 rounds so the axis have even better positioning than ever before. The axis also catch up in income super fast and overtake the allies. The allies just too weak, not like aa50 or revised, the allies get to do attacks round 2 or 3 in those maps. That is more fun for everyone involved.
@Cow:
What I am saying is, the allies start the game in a lose lose situation. They go atlantic, they lose the game after Karelia, India, and Hawaii. They go pacific they lose Russia and possibly london. Plus Russia is easy to bomb out of the game for germany. Matter of fact bombing is a huge economic payout, it costs 2 ipc to bomb on average 1/6th of 12 to bomb an average of 3.5. Super official rewards not to mention 2 infantry + bomber is a more reliable way of fighting than infantry + fighter when trading 2 dollar territories.
Not to mention Karelia makes Germany so much less tank reliant compared to revised.
Actually, since you don’t do the 3.5 damage when the bomber is shot down, the actual expected value is (5/6)*3.5-2=0.91666…
@Cow:
The main issue for me is the principle of the axis or allies winning without taking a capital city, that is ridiculous.
I definitely understand. It reminds me of Magic 84 with Classic, you could get 84 ipc without getting a Capital and it would feel cheap for the Axis.
I think in most cases players will end up playing for a Capital to fall.
I will not be monitoring or rule lawyering the games unless someone specifically requests some type of ruling in which case I will go by the rules.
The last thing players want is a buttinski saying “you can do that or you can’t do this b/c of rule 123…”.
If in the course of playing players use good sportsmanship to others and grant mulligans for bad dice allow extra move a turn later b/c they forgot to move some far piece in non-com. That is fine and between those two players. I will have no way of knowing unless one of the players objects and requests a ruling. At that point I will have to rule and make a judgment according to the rules.
Anything special for me to do so the slaughter of my Allied troops can begin? Which version of TripleA do we use? This is my first Play By Forum game, do I just use my user/pass for the board to sign-on.
A new stable triple A version (1.8.0.7) is online. Is there a recommendation or rule for the use of a certain tripleA version for reasons of compatibility (e.g. 1.8.0.5)?
I don’t know about any compatibility issues. I’m still on 1.8.0.5, but I’m assuming compatibility should be good.
Anyone else have more detail?
What is a “mulligan” Darth?
Thanks.
@Private:
What is a “mulligan” Darth?
Thanks.
I think it’s where you let someone reroll a bad combat (or an entire combat move).
Yep, it is just a do-over.
Its a golf term. :-)
You hit a bad shot. So you just place a new ball and hit another shot.
Still waiting on you Magic Q :-D
Had a chance to look things over yet?
Yep, it is just a do-over.
Its a golf term. :-)
You hit a bad shot. So you just place a new ball and hit another shot.
Now that is sportsmanship! Not sure I am quite that sporting. Apologies to anyone I have previously played who thought I should have granted a mulligan. It had never occurred to me!
