If you don’t like it, don’t play it. If you think you can design a better game, go do it.
I did create my own.
Me too! :-D I used my A&A Europe 1940 board and pieces and created my own game, my friends and I play that more then anything else. It took a several games worth of play to balance out the rules and the set up but now i’ve got a great and well balanced game. Having done that and spent so much time trying to work out all the kinks and what not, keep the gamey-gamers in check while not taking away the open natuer of the game, it has given me alot of insight into what goes into making a game and how all the different mechanics work. It has also given me a great apperication for what Larry has done with these games, all the hard work he must put in and the wonderful job he has done, good on ya mate! :-D
One very important thing I have learned though is you cant please everyone, so you shouldnt bother to try. In my game everything flows together and balances out well, however there is still one of the group who loudly complains that France should be taken out of the game, or made an NPC or something stupid. He goes on and on about how France is too weak to play and always loses. Now, mind you, this might be because we always make him play as France (if he bothered to show up on time though he wouldnt have this problem :wink: ) but any argument he makes about how bad this certian part of the game is can always be countered by pointing out all the amazing things he does when he plays as the French. I found myself trying make fixes and adjustments to the game just for him, trying to make it so he would like it and stop complaining. Then I realized that I was wasting my time and was running the risk of ruining a good game to appease a small minority of my players (1 out of 7 in my case). People are always going to find ways to “break” a game and you can bend yourself backwards trying to please them, or stand firm and let the work speak of itself and keep to the spirit of the game.
Clyde,
This is not a matter of trying to please everyone. It is an issue of having a product not ready for market. I am not taking issue with the game itself. The problem I have with the handling of E40 and P40 is the the large changes to set-up and rules that is still ongoing. If to balance the game all that was needed was to add a couple units or remove a couple, that is fine, but the changes have been profound each time.
I too have an appreciation for game design, 3 games and 15 years later. But I also understand that if such large changes were warranted, then the game was nowhere near ready.
In any other industry, the company would get punished by the consumer. I can live with little issues, but not when they require such changes well over a year after release. And are the changes even going to be accepted by Avalonhill?
Ie: when I buy a car, I don’t want it to be a work in progress.
As a consumer, this is not unreasonable. $200 may not be much money to some, but it is plenty to me. Larry has lost my confidence, and I am not buying his products in the future. And I am not alone.
The main issue is there are probably a ton of people out there who own AAG40 (or just Europe or Pacific) and don’t know how broken it is and don’t know where to get more balanced rules.
The main issue is there are probably a ton of people out there who own AAG40 (or just Europe or Pacific) and don’t know how broken it is and don’t know where to get more balanced rules.
But unlike 1987, if you find something that is broken, you can google the game find AA.org and find out people already know. Didn’t have the luxery back then. No public sector internet.
The main issue is there are probably a ton of people out there who own AAG40 (or just Europe or Pacific) and don’t know how broken it is and don’t know where to get more balanced rules.
Agreed.
The consumer should be able to go to Avalon Hill’s website and find the fixes, and all future runs of the game should have the changes as well. They did that with AA Europe, as I recall? They included an addendum sheet in the game, as my copy came with one.
Let me tell ya Jim, I hear what your saying and I do understand your point, you make a very good case. That said, im going to say something that is going to sound crazy but, when I got A&AG1940 and first played it I didnt find it to be broken or have any balance issues. Right out of the box(es) we set it up and played it with out noticing any real problems or having any issues at all. Yeah it was an uphill battle for the axis powers but that made sense to us and was a welcome change to how these games usually played which was the US/Uk frantically trying to break through to Russia before Germany and Japan could squeeze the Soviets between them till they poped. Now it is the Axis who are frantically running around trying to accomplish their goals and we liked it, it was the right feeling to us, thats how the war was and even though some of the specifics of the war werent there (i’ve droned on about that stuff enough :-) ) atleast it felt right.
It wasnt until I found A&A.org that I realized anything about the “broken” things and all the changes. I think comming here has opened my eyes to alot of things with this game and helped me see it from many different perspectives but that is not inherently a good thing, nor is it inherently bad thing. I really dont take the set-up changes and the Alpha+billion seriously, that stuff is for the gamers who need them and I have always considered them optional. Sometimes they’ll come up with something that I like and i’ll incorporate it into my game, but some things I dont. I really think its up to the individual to decide what they like and how they will play.
Jen makes a very good point about Groupthink and the effects it does have on gaming groups. Some people need the rule changes and the setup changes cause they are inclined to abuse different rules in the game, some people dont. Its as simple as that, use what you want, ignore what you want and no one can tell you you’re wrong.
Clyde,
This is not a matter of trying to please everyone. It is an issue of having a product not ready for market. I am not taking issue with the game itself. The problem I have with the handling of E40 and P40 is the the large changes to set-up and rules that is still ongoing. If to balance the game all that was needed was to add a couple units or remove a couple, that is fine, but the changes have been profound each time.
I too have an appreciation for game design, 3 games and 15 years later. But I also understand that if such large changes were warranted, then the game was nowhere near ready.
In any other industry, the company would get punished by the consumer. I can live with little issues, but not when they require such changes well over a year after release. And are the changes even going to be accepted by Avalonhill?
Ie: when I buy a car, I don’t want it to be a work in progress.
As a consumer, this is not unreasonable. $200 may not be much money to some, but it is plenty to me. Larry has lost my confidence, and I am not buying his products in the future. And I am not alone.
I totally agree. I thought we were heading somewhere and when Alpha3 rules came out I was excited as everyone to see what improvements were made. Instead new aa guns are revealed that totally influence every corner of the board. It was a massive change to a units profile that will most likely end up breaking the game after the solution is found. It was the massive changes to the aa gun rules that came from nowhere( I never saw people complaining about aa guns on his site) that have soured me to the process. I think he doesn’t want gamers, he wants playtesters. So he’ll keep tweaking the rules until a few months from production of his newest project. I am with Jim in that I won’t be buying the next A&A product until it has been peer reviewed for at least 2 years.
It didnt really come from nowhere. We’ve been complaining to Larry for a while that Sea Lion was too easy. Instead of giving you infantry, he put some aa guns in and then nerfed them so they were far weaker against planes than before.
Exactly, he took an issue that was being complained about and changed a units profile all over the board. Influencing all powers. Not well thought out. He should have been concerned with finalizing this edition and not making major changes to unit stats.
It is a far cry better than dumping +4 infantry in England. At least the AA Guns dont have attack or defense values and are relatively expensive meaning they probably wont be replaced for Russia, England, America, Japan or Australia if you think about it.
I like the AA Gun changes. I think it really makes Germany a lot stronger while failing to increase Russia much at all. (Russia has 3 planes, 1 AA Gun can take out 3 planes. Germany has 11 planes, 1 AA Gun cannot take out 11 planes, it cant even shoot at 11 planes.)
I think this is a knee jerk reaction due to Sea Lion being made almost impossible on Germany 3 and not a real value judgement of the real impact on the game, personally. Not just you, but others too. I don’t think you are really seeing the powerful impact on balancing the game and getting it away from hoping for good luck in England. IMHO, of course. I’ve pointed out before how this can be very overwhelming for the Russians to manage. THey cannot possibly hit 3 or 4 large stacks of units, especially if there are AA Guns there. They would get depleted of their powerful units too fast. That means they have to retreat, meaning less income over the rounds for Russia, more for Germany/Japan/Italy.
Of course, it means London isn’t taken, so Engand needs to get on the ball and get SZ 125 opened up and start landing reinforcements FAST to keep Russia from collapsing.
I have yet to come to the conclusion that Sealion is out, that’s why I’m running that experiment. I do think it got harder.
Changing a unit statistic all across the board is my issue. I think we’ll find out why in a few weeks/months at most. That being said, I also like the new rules, I wish he had written his next game around these rules. Since they are going to have far reaching on board results, the starting setup is probably wrong and needs to be tweaked. New unit rules like this work best for new games, not games that have already been purchased.
I’m sure Axis and Allies 1937 will have the same AA Gun rules. ^_^
I don’t think they have as big of an impact as I think you think they do, however. American guns, useless. They’ll never be brought to bear anywhere, especially now that Kill America First is out of the question. British guns? Without Sea Lion they’re useless as well. Japanese guns? Seriously? I’m not wasting transports on these, so they’re useless as well. Russian guns but I can overwhelm them with German planes. German guns of course, very big use now, since you dont need a bunch to defend home. Italian guns have marginal use…great replacement for the guns in Germany so you can bring all of them from Germany.
And I think with the change to England, Sea Lion round 3 is out. Round 4 there is still consideration, but probably out due to cost.
@Cmdr:
It didnt really come from nowhere. We’ve been complaining to Larry for a while that Sea Lion was too easy. Instead of giving you infantry, he put some aa guns in and then nerfed them so they were far weaker against planes than before.
Sealion should always be a longshot for Germany. The game needs to favor the Allies. As it did historically. Germany will have its shot at winning, but it will come down to the Eastern Front, not Sealion. I totally agree with Larry, Sealion should not happen. Germany did not have the navy to conduct the invasion across the channel. Their best hope was destroying UK’s economic resources.
I dont mind sea lion happening, what I mind was how bloody easy it was and before Russia or America could be in the game. The changes at least give the allies a chance to make it hard for the Germans.
@manincellv:
@Cmdr:
It didnt really come from nowhere. We’ve been complaining to Larry for a while that Sea Lion was too easy. Instead of giving you infantry, he put some aa guns in and then nerfed them so they were far weaker against planes than before.
Sealion should always be a longshot for Germany. The game needs to favor the Allies. As it did historically. Germany will have its shot at winning, but it will come down to the Eastern Front, not Sealion. I totally agree with Larry, Sealion should not happen. Germany did not have the navy to conduct the invasion across the channel. Their best hope was destroying UK’s economic resources.
The whole point to keeping Sealion viable is to offer alternative modes of play for increased re-playability. I want to keep coming back to this game year after year, not quit playing altogether because the developer can’t seem to keep a direction in the development process. This game should not be a historical recreation because then the axis would stand no chance, the WW2 theme is great because it allows us to say things like, ‘I must have assassinated Yamamoto by P-38 because I just sunk the Japanese fleet!’ Or Kesselring in Italy, Rommel in Africa….ya know.
It just isn’t possible to do a WW2 recreation on a board game, look to Advanced Third Reich if you need to see why.
@manincellv:
@Cmdr:
It didnt really come from nowhere. We’ve been complaining to Larry for a while that Sea Lion was too easy. Instead of giving you infantry, he put some aa guns in and then nerfed them so they were far weaker against planes than before.
Sealion should always be a longshot for Germany. The game needs to favor the Allies. As it did historically. Germany will have its shot at winning, but it will come down to the Eastern Front, not Sealion. I totally agree with Larry, Sealion should not happen. Germany did not have the navy to conduct the invasion across the channel. Their best hope was destroying UK’s economic resources.
The game doesn’t need to favor a side. (And it’s tricky to say that history favored the Allies, when the change of a single person could have meant German victory - that being their supreme military commander.) And Sea Lion was possible - Germany just made a few mistakes and got unlucky with the enigma and stuff. The main thing is there shouldn’t ever be a single strategy that will almost always work and be hard to stop, such as the Alpha + .2 Sea Lion.
But Sea Lion is still viable. The only difference is that England does not have to abandon the entire world to make Sea Lion hard on the Germans, now they can engage on the global scale I think they were always intended to work on and not have to figure Germany is going to murder them if they dont give up their attacks on Africa, Med and give up their fleet.
@Cmdr:
But Sea Lion is still viable. The only difference is that England does not have to abandon the entire world to make Sea Lion hard on the Germans, now they can engage on the global scale I think they were always intended to work on and not have to figure Germany is going to murder them if they dont give up their attacks on Africa, Med and give up their fleet.
Yeah, I didn’t present my point clearly. Sea Lion is still viable, but it’s not as easy or necessary.
@Cmdr:
But Sea Lion is still viable. The only difference is that England does not have to abandon the entire world to make Sea Lion hard on the Germans, now they can engage on the global scale I think they were always intended to work on and not have to figure Germany is going to murder them if they dont give up their attacks on Africa, Med and give up their fleet.
Yeah, I didn’t present my point clearly. Sea Lion is still viable, but it’s not as easy or necessary.
Agreed.
@mantlefan:
@Cmdr:
But Sea Lion is still viable. The only difference is that England does not have to abandon the entire world to make Sea Lion hard on the Germans, now they can engage on the global scale I think they were always intended to work on and not have to figure Germany is going to murder them if they dont give up their attacks on Africa, Med and give up their fleet.
:roll:
Not this again. Just because it’s possible for Germany to take London DOES NOT MEAN that it is a reliably winning strategy anymore.
“Sealion is still possible” DOES NOT EQUAL “Sealion is still a good strat”
Well, from what i read here, she didn’t say that.
