Was it worth adding ART to the game?

@Imperious:

The game needs some kind of ports to protect fleets and or artificial rules to prohibit:

Allies in Baltic
Italians into Atlantic

Disagree

The game needs another German fighter and a Soviet Bomber and perhaps another Soviet fighter so that the Soviets have alot of new options
Agree

No more Japanese in Russia crap… different victory conditions for both axis… basically they dont work together and they should not

Agree with Japan –> Russia, victory condition should always be total domination as was the case in WW2

Same goes for Soviets. If the game is 1 v 1 the Soviet player should have rules for auto play because the coordination of the 3 allies with one guy playing all three is totally bankrupt. This has nothing to do how the war was fought.

Thus the Soviets have their own victory conditions as well.

IN this way its will be possible for one ally to win and one axis player to win… no more “”““TEAM””“” wins… good greif!

hmm… maybe…

The only thing that came close to a real Axis and Allies game IMO is back in 1998-99 when the CD rom came out and allowed 4-5 players
and the goal of that game was to by diplomacy motivate your allies to adopt a strategy and stick with it knowing all the time you had a weak link player who could mess up and your own skill can compensate for his shortcommings and still win the war. This added a truly unigue game that was lost on all the 1 vs. 1 crowd. I think thats what made the game fun: the idea that you needed to rely on the skills of others to win and you could be a good negotiator and motivate to agree to your idea what victory would be according to your view.

Good point. I started playing 1vs1 a few weeks ago, after seeing some (opening) moves that would make
our side lose the game in 3-4 rnds, and the newb didn’t know how, why and  what he was doing

The game needs a Mechanized Infantry piece attack 2 defend 2 and move 2 cost 4

Probably, yes

The game needs cheaper naval

Hmmm… cool BB’s at 12??? W00t :-)

The map should be 50% larger minimum and drawn much better

The game needs some random ( but sequential) card system to address developments in the war and get rid of technology in its present form. Its bankrupt ideas. Their are not enough technology ideas represented.

The game needs a historical time frame e.g a turn = 4 months, you are now in turn 5 (spring 1943)

The map needs to represent the world in 1939 to allow for all kinds of scenarios for shorter and longer games

for tournaments a 1943 scenario would be nice and make for shorter game.

Combat rounds need to cost a player money… if you keep attacking this is not cheap by any means

Disagree. U lose units by keep attacking for several rounds of combat.

AA guns are a joke … get rid of them

How bout: Each AA fire one shot. No other changes

Fighters must boost tanks

Tank hits must go on enemy armor
Disagree, this is tactical management

defender should be able to retreat… the current system is a joke… the defender is like frozen in time taking punishment without recourse.
Probably, yes

their are a hundred other things to list… this is just the top 10… i could go on

Good thinking, but I’m afraid that much of this will make the game more complicated. Too (much) complicated I’m afraid.
A game could last 1-2 hours, or maybe 7-8-10 hours. 10 rnds or more means more than a working day. (I don’t work atm :))
I don’t want to a game to last any longer than now, although this can vary a great deal in different games.
Larry said he regret the sub rules…. too confusing.
The game will not be better by just making it more sophisticated.

Allies in Baltic
Italians into Atlantic

Disagree

Well it creates an artificial implement for German strategy. They basically need to buy a fleet ( usually a carrier ) to avoid getting invaded by American and British fleets is a limitation on the critical German battles it must fight against the Soviets. The German fleet was not created to protect Germany from invasion it was used to attack transports and sink them and avoid direct military confrontation. The game totally lacks any substantial German strategy of using subs to defeat england which they tried in both world wars. IN AA this simply does not exist… in AA for Germany to survive in Baltic they must by a freeking Carrier? This is not a solution that i want made for me.

The game needs cheaper naval

Hmmm… cool BB’s at 12?HuhHuhHuh? W00t smiley

NO and you know thats not the idea. BB at 20, DD at 10, CA at perhaps 15.

Combat rounds need to cost a player money… if you keep attacking this is not cheap by any means

Disagree. U lose units by keep attacking for several rounds of combat.

well a nation cant be constantly engaged in combat. there are periods of quiet and rebuilding of strength especially in the winters. Id like to see some logistics in the game on a very small scale. IN some games they allocate “combat actions” which cost money because they resemble stocks of oil and materials to fight huge offensives… this is not free combat.

Tank hits must go on enemy armor
Disagree, this is tactical management

But its totally unrealistic to allow infantry to take the hits from armor battles. Tanks fight other tanks and men fight men. at times they mingle but it allows people to hide behind that stack of ‘elite units’ and they never get touched.

Id like to see a kursk type of battle and bleed the enemies tanks. It would be really cool and if you think about it it would allow for more tank buys as players seek to send tank armies to destroy the enemy. This = less infantry BTW and thats a good thing

tank hits could also go against artillery which is considered ‘armor’

@Bean:

Revised is surprisingly well balanced, considering Harris probably didn’t have the time to test it extensively. It seems to be off by 6 or 7 IPCs, which really isn’t a whole lot, enough for 2 units on the board, which is great considering there’s something like 1200 IPCs of units total on the board with all sorts of territory parameters to consider.

Well…. I’m pretty sure that the best lobby players would not play me without a bid, if they play axis.
And few would go below 8. Thats 1 unit pr. TT, with 2 units pr. TT maybe the bid would be 7-8.
The reason why, is that I think I would win :-)
If I’d play the best lobby players (bid 9 triplea ladder rules, LL etc.) it would be a mismatch. Rnd 3-4 the game would be closed,
although I could possible perhaps drag the game out to 6-7 rnds before losing a capital, it would be much sooner that it
would be obvious that I couldn’t win. With reg dice there would be more uncertainty, but the best lobby players
use LL.
So while axis need 8-9 bid with ladder rules, and 6-7 with fullplacement (?) rules, I don’t fully agree with the statement that the game
is balanced.
Revised is much better balanced than classic, but I think that Larry feels comfortable with that axis needs bid to win.
In 1941-42 (real WW2) they could not win, they had to make different decisions from 1935 to be able to win the war.

defender should be able to retreat… the current system is a joke… the defender is like frozen in time taking punishment without recourse.

Yea, but they would take a round of free fire from the attackers right?

Yes probably like they do in the war game: world war two. It works well.

this allows the defender to leave a rearguard force to make a few rolls and take up the hits as the better units leave and fight for another day.

Problem with that system is it can trick the attacker to stuck him into the territory and then get counter attacked. I have used it many times myself in other games.

what i have learned is to allow an other rule to be used:

all units that have at least one movement point left over during the combat phase can use that last MP to get out of territories they just took to avoid this problem.

So while axis need 8-9 bid with ladder rules, and 6-7 with fullplacement (?) rules, I don’t fully agree with the statement that the game
is balanced.
Revised is much better balanced than classic, but I think that Larry feels comfortable with that axis needs bid to win.
In 1941-42 (real WW2) they could not win, they had to make different decisions from 1935 to be able to win the war.

yes the games not balanced, but i favor the idea that the German player can make a few changes on placement example: exchange up to X IPC worth of pieces and convert them to other pieces and combine that with something they used in AAE by giving the Germans 6-9 IPC of units as standard to buy extra junk.

Problem with that system is it can trick the attacker to stuck him into the territory and then get counter attacked. I have used it many times myself in other games.

Yeah that’s what I was thinking, it wouldn’t really solve anything because now that both sides are constantly strafing in and out which is what it looks like normally.  :roll:

all units that have at least one movement point left over during the combat phase can use that last MP to get out of territories they just took to avoid this problem.

Oh man that’d be so annoying to keep track of which units had movement points and which don’t….

naw its easy. only tanks can move 2 so you just separate the ones that moved two from the rest. Usually they will all have 2 MP left anyway.

it wouldn’t really solve anything because now that both sides are constantly strafing in and out which is what it looks like normally

It would allow the defender a chance to attack with his tanks instead of losing them because you didn’t roll well enough and your fodder was stripped away. Getting stuck w/o fodder is not good because it creates artificial battles where your just going after money because tanks cost more compared to infantry. That mechanism is wack. its nothing like any warfare of any period. Battles should only be useful because you need to have a real advantage to win a battle… not some cheap thing where you exchange off your infantry for enemy tanks. If infantry went up w/o tank support it would get chewed to pieces. Id even have a modifier of +1 for tanks defense if this happens.

@Imperious:

Well it creates an artificial implement for German strategy. They basically need to buy a fleet ( usually a carrier ) to avoid getting invaded by American and British fleets is a limitation on the critical German battles it must fight against the Soviets. The German fleet was not created to protect Germany from invasion it was used to attack transports and sink them and avoid direct military confrontation. The game totally lacks any substantial German strategy of using subs to defeat england which they tried in both world wars. IN AA this simply does not exist… in AA for Germany to survive in Baltic they must by a freeking Carrier? This is not a solution that i want made for me.

The German AC strat is no longer used by the best lobby players….it’s not a stupid move imo, but I think it’s not the best G strat.
Decent players sometimes buy AC G1, and sometimes G2 if UK don’t attack sz5.
The G AC buy is a hard one to decide.
“G must buy AC”?? Sry but u r wrong on this one.
In my games I don’t get many ipc for holding sz5. In triplea it’s zero ipc, this is a bug perhaps?  :roll:  :-)

U r right on the sub matter.
Subs r very poorly depicted in A&A, the battle of Atlantic almost made the allies lose the war on the western front.
Russia would prevail after Stalingrad, but for UK, US, France etc. the German subs were a big pain in the ass.

The German AC strat is no longer used by the best lobby players….it’s not a stupid move imo, but I think it’s not the best G strat.
Decent players sometimes buy AC G1, and sometimes G2 if UK don’t attack sz5.
The G AC buy is a hard one to decide.
“G must buy AC”?? Sry but u r wrong on this one.

what i said:

They basically need to buy a fleet ( usually a carrier ) among other things…

i didn’t say they MUST buy a carrier. I said the game usually requires some naval builds to protect the allies from going into the Baltic and to protect the German fleet. They are basically stuck because the fleet must fight because the game has no ports to hide into and the rules have no qualifications for allies just sailing the Denmark straights unmolested> Its totally ridiculous as this area was mined and the ships would sink. They usually need something and the reason they should buy fleet units is for an entirely unusual reason which the game introduces and its totally unhistorical. Thats my real point

Ok, we agree with that G don’t have to buy fleet in baltic, but if G want to protect the baltic fleet they must buy some
navy for protection, because the game don’t allow ports. The G subs, trans and DD’s could hide in the ports instead of
being sitting duck. Yes, the game should implement ports for that matter. I think a harbour would fix that.
Let’s say 1 MP to move from port in baltic to sz 5, and same for Italy and the med fleet.

And while I’m on it: subs get to chose their targets, perhaps for the first rnd of combat only.
If 2 or more subs attack the same sz, first rnd of combat subs attack at 3.

About pac. I think it’s not wise to change many rules radically. Maybe a single rule or a single unit, but the pac TT’s need revision.
Jap shouldn’t be allow to attack Russia if Russia doesn’t attack Jap first. This means a whole game can be played without
combat between Russian and Jap forces.
The most obvious changes to make US go after Jap, or vice versa, is to make islands in pac more valuable.
This is wrong according to historical facts about production on islands in the pac, but I think it’s the most practical
solution to make powers fight over TT’s that is not usually contested in todays map.
The premise is that ipc value should determine not only economical resources, but also strategic value.
I personally like Norway at 3 ipc :)

I like several of your ideas for A&A to become more historical correct and more realistic according to war and battles in general.
The question is how to do it without making the game any more complex, and not more confusing than it already is.
I already mentioned that it should not take longer to finish a game that it does today.
Sometimes I prefer to relate A&A with chess. U can teach a ten year old to play chess according to rules
in few hours, and that’s it! The kid will learn as he play, either against other kids or even adults. Not so with A&A  :evil:
If u have never played any A&A variant, u need several days, using up to 5-7 hours each day for up to a week perhaps,
to get a hold of all rules, unit values, and how to play somewhat wisely.
In triplea the program does that for u, but originally both classic and revised are boardgames.

I think Larry was thinking about port defense where aircraft in an adjacent territory to the sea could defend. Heh heh, that’d be scary huh with 6 fighters in W. Europe also defending the Baltic without having to buy a carrier O_O!

Some plays on IL’s ideas.

1)  Change the Technologies too:

Heavy Bombers = 2d6 damage can kill two units or 1d6+1 SBR damage (I still hate SBR, but you’ll see why I allow this later.)

Super Submarines = Submarines now do SBR damage to convoys.  1 IPC per submarine within 2 spaces of enemy industrial complexes (maximum of land value and that’s including rockets and SBR damage.)  Submarines attack at 3, defend at 2.

Rockets = No Change.

Combined Arms = Same as LHTR 1.3 except Battleships also act as AA Guns

Jets = Same as LHTR 1.3

Mechanized Infantry = Infantry may move two spaces and blitz as tanks do. (Think America’s Mechanized Infantry advantage.)

2. AA Guns should fire each round of combat. Max 1 shot per gun, per round hits are applied to fighters, then bombers.

3. SBR changed so bombers may remain over their target until shot down by AA Fire or maximum damage has been done.

4. Japan may not attack Russia and Russia may not attack Japan until America or Germany falls.

5. America MUST use at least 50% of their income on units to attack Japan. (Yes, that means you have to have 50% of your units attacking Japan.  No it does not have to be 1 battleship in the Pacific and 1 in the Atlantic.  But you cannot have 200 IPC army in Europe and 100 IPC fleet in the Pacific.)  FDR was under a lot of pressure back home to attack Japan and a lot of pressure abroad to help with Hitler.  Not to mention, this helps balance out that Germany can expect no help from Japan with Russia!

6. Neutrals should be attackable for 1 IPC at the cost of 5 IPC. (ie, if you attack Mongolia and pay the $5 charge, you get $1 for every round it is not liberated.  Liberating a Neutral does not get you the $1.  You would have to attack it after liberation and pay the $5 charge.)

7. Artillery hits on a 1, still costs 4, but does not move into the territory being attacked, it attacks from an adjacent territory in the opening fire step of the game.  Infantry are no longer supported by artillery and all infantry attack at 1 and defend at 2.  Artillery defends at 3.  If used for combat in opening fire, it may NOT move.  Just like if an AA Gun fires a rocket it cannot move that round.

8.) Fighters not used in combat may fly patrols against enemy bombers.  If you attack an industrial complex, the defending fighters may attack your bombers at 3 or less.  Bombers may return fire at 4 or less. (This is assumed to be your fighter escorts attacking the enemy fighters.)  This combat is limited to one round.  Any surviving bombers may engage after any AA Fire is rolled.

9. Each combat costs $2.  If you attack 3 territories, you pay $6 to be paid out of your collect income phase.

10. For each successful defense you are paid $1.  This is in recovered plunder and salvage.

If many of your ideas would be implemented Jennifer, I would not play that game.
It would not be A&A.

@Lucifer:

If many of your ideas would be implemented Jennifer, I would not play that game.
It would not be A&A.

Way to give me specific details on what you don’t like and why.

1)  Change the Technologies too:

Heavy Bombers = 2d6 damage can kill two units or 1d6+1 SBR damage (I still hate SBR, but you’ll see why I allow this later.)
Super Submarines = Submarines now do SBR damage to convoys.  1 IPC per submarine within 2 spaces of enemy industrial complexes (maximum of land value and that’s including rockets and SBR damage.)  Submarines attack at 3, defend at 2.
Rockets = No Change.
Combined Arms = Same as LHTR 1.3 except Battleships also act as AA Guns
Jets = Same as LHTR 1.3
Mechanized Infantry = Infantry may move two spaces and blitz as tanks do. (Think America’s Mechanized Infantry advantage.)

+++++++great!

2. AA Guns should fire each round of combat. Max 1 shot per gun, per round hits are applied to fighters, then bombers.

++++++++++ yes something like this is better, not sure about fighters… they are after all shooting at slow level Bombers and fighters move too fast

3. SBR changed so bombers may remain over their target until shot down by AA Fire or maximum damage has been done.

++++ more brilliant ideas

4. Japan may not attack Russia and Russia may not attack Japan until America or Germany falls.

++++ as Per AARHE rules!

5. America MUST use at least 50% of their income on units to attack Japan. (Yes, that means you have to have 50% of your units attacking Japan.  No it does not have to be 1 battleship in the Pacific and 1 in the Atlantic.  But you cannot have 200 IPC army in Europe and 100 IPC fleet in the Pacific.)  FDR was under a lot of pressure back home to attack Japan and a lot of pressure abroad to help with Hitler.  Not to mention, this helps balance out that Germany can expect no help from Japan with Russia!

++++++++++ yes i hate the choice of KGF or KJF i want both! I am not sure about the amount as 50% but your on the right track IMO

6. Neutrals should be attackable for 1 IPC at the cost of 5 IPC. (ie, if you attack Mongolia and pay the $5 charge, you get $1 for every round it is not liberated.  Liberating a Neutral does not get you the $1.  You would have to attack it after liberation and pay the $5 charge.)

+++++++++++++++ kinda like Xeno games rules, I would at least have some armies and diplomacy

7. Artillery hits on a 1, still costs 4, but does not move into the territory being attacked, it attacks from an adjacent territory in the opening fire step of the game.  Infantry are no longer supported by artillery and all infantry attack at 1 and defend at 2.  Artillery defends at 3.  If used for combat in opening fire, it may NOT move.  Just like if an AA Gun fires a rocket it cannot move that round.

+++++ very avant garde thinking… i like this> You should have mentioned something like this before. Nobody has ever come up with such an idea and its very original IMO.

8.) Fighters not used in combat may fly patrols against enemy bombers.  If you attack an industrial complex, the defending fighters may attack your bombers at 3 or less.  Bombers may return fire at 4 or less. (This is assumed to be your fighter escorts attacking the enemy fighters.)  This combat is limited to one round.  Any surviving bombers may engage after any AA Fire is rolled.

+++++++ well id rather employ the AAE rules for escorts

9. Each combat costs $2.  If you attack 3 territories, you pay $3 to be paid out of your collect income phase.

++++++= good

10. For each successful defense you are paid $1.  This is in recovered plunder and salvage.

+++++++ outside the box again. interesting.

Great ideas really!

Yea, I like the idea of the AA Guns firing once per combat round and the defenders shot down getting a chance to shoot like normal casualties.  After all, do you honestly want me to believe that the AA Gun crews leave their positions after firing once and pick up their grease-guns to continue shooting at the planes?  I think not!  Likewise, why should 4 attacking fighters have the chance to all be shot down before they can fire?  What’s that AA Gun made out of!?!?  I didn’t think they had the phalanx system in World War II. :P

I appreciate the comments on the artillery bombardments.  Not completely my idea, just a new application of it.  Some have talked about Artillery functioning from outside the territory, I just expanded it to act like bombarding battleships, made it harder to kill (after all, artillery was usually dug into the high ground when possible, not like you could sneak up and put a grenade under it. :P) but weaker on attack (since it’s a free hit removing the defender from play without a return shot possible, just like getting hit by a battleship or destroyer bombarding you.)

Still thinking about the technologies.  Not uber happy with them yet, but I think they’re better then what’s in the box.  Maybe the Combined Arms should make Destroyers have the AA Gun ability not battleships…but then, while that’s more historically accurate, it makes destroyers a little too powerful.  Battleships with it isn’t so bad, you don’t exactly buy 5 battleships in a game.

As for the 50/50 split with America (could be 0/100 Germany/Japan too, mind you) I just like the idea of forcing America to actually attack Japan.  This alone should end the need for a bid in this game.  If you need one, it’s probably 2 IPC to Japan so they can build 3 submarines and a destroyer on round 1. :P

@_@ I’m really too lazy to discuss potential changes, it tires me out because of the possibilities. I’ll just let Larry do his thing and let you guys discuss since I really don’t know much about WW2 and how much realism should make it into the game without making it more complicated than it already is (and it is probably already too complicated if you look at the steep learning curve).

What thread is this again?  Seriously, you guys are so far off topic, you’re not even in the same zip code as this topic . . . :roll:

It’s not so much about historical accuracy as just rebalancing the game so bids are not needed.

Larry’s been hinting at massive changes, it is very difficult to speculate on that those are or how they will work until he releases the details.