Posts made by aardvarkpepper

Wrote a document a while ago regarding changes between 1942 Online and board game. 41 pages long, though I ended up cutting it short.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17F3TotY7HEKeiLv3ewlfYotQv_hWXqh5PDo7B0exXpY/edit?usp=sharing

The development team needs to go in and test rulebook implementation line by line. There are just loads and loads of little things all over the place that I didn’t even get to in that document.

My impression is there’s a real possibility 1942 Online is only ever going to be a compromised version of the board game.

==

On another note, I started writing an AI for Axis and Allies. Which is fun for me, so there’s that at least. :relaxed:

@djensen said in Getting your IPCs back if you don't deploy:

It definitely speeds up the game. I feel like timed tournaments should move to this as well.

Can’t agree - whether this is regarding getting IPCs back if you don’t deploy, or whether this is regarding buying and deploying at end of round.

The speeding up, sure. Personally I’d favor allowing purchase phase after combat movement.

But purchasing after combat means a player knows outcomes of battles. The game then becomes less about risk management and more a simple optimization exercise.

As to getting IPCs back if you don’t deploy - I can’t really favor it. Had a game in which UK player ideally would wipe out a German fleet by buying a carrier to create a legal landing zone for additional fighters. By board game rules, the UK player would have to have placed the carrier, then the carrier could easily be wiped on the German player’s turn (they had plenty of air force). But by 1942 Online rules, the UK player didn’t even have to place the carrier; they could buy the carrier to create a potential landing zone, then not place the carrier, never giving Germany an odds-on attack against a poorly defended 14 IPC unit.

1942 Online has a load of changes to the board game - non-use of allied transports and carriers, floating fighters when defending carriers destroyed, submarines can’t be ignored, blitzes are automated and can’t be opted out from, sea unit movement, just this big list. I wish I could say I thought the changes improvements, but I confess to being disappointed.

“stratbombing is a wash without the +2 bonus” - what +2 bonus?

“can’t take Moscow . . . won’t necessarily win you the long game” - yeah, Axis have France, Italy, Berlin, Kiangsu, Phillipine Islands, Tokyo. Then say they grab Karelia, India, and Hawaiian Islands, that’s enough.

But then, I feel if Allies can’t grab Karelia in KGF or maintain control of Hawaiian Islands in KJF, then Allies are probably losing anyways.

A 7-round KJF isn’t representative of how altered carrier rules affect the game.

As to making most people happy - that’s as may be, but when you have stuff like altered transports and carriers, floating fighters, casualties assigned after each sub-group of like-valued dice rolls instead of after all casualty rolls in a sub-phase, defensive profiles changing gameplay because of unresolveable issues - well.

Then there’s things like movement lines covering things up or unit icons covering each other and unit counts up or bugs or visual presentation or such things.

Then too there’s alternatives that offer options to view full game histories at each sub-phase of combat as well as positions before combat, noncombat moves, &c &c.

It’s not that TripleA is completely ideal either mind. Like casualty selection emails can get pretty weird, let’s face it. If you really want to do things “fairly”, you have to send the game state after combat moves completed and ask for casualty assignation after the first round of attacker hits connect. Then you need more back and forth emails for subsequent rounds of combat. So it’s not that TripleA had some ideal solution to asynchronous play either.

But then, you look at 1942 Online and though there’s a lot of nice things to be said for how it looks and thoughtful little things like Map Notes (too limited for my taste but it’s *something) and defensive profiles (better than full auto-assignation) - it is what it is. If it’s not implementing rules properly, it’s not.

If they had made Axis and Allies Zombies, then that would be one thing. If they had made Summer 1942 or something, and made clear it’s not supposed to be based on any extant board game version, that would be another. But supposedly it’s based off Spring 1942 - just with these odd changes that affect gameplay.

I could maybe be a little more forgiving if there were proper mathematical tools for risk assessment, extensive tutorials including in-game AI assists past scripted tutorials, a really great AI, ability to review game state history along with an ability to play back appended notes (not the Map Notes, but more detailed and extensive notes for extended commentary, or even audio files to be played back while viewing the game) - I mean, if there were something that made 1942 Online distinct, stuff that you just can’t find elsewhere.

But as it is, well - it does look nice. And the price tag is low. But I don’t get things just because they look nice and have a low price tag.

Of course I did get 1942 Online. But then, it’s in Early Access. So it could change.

Well it’ll turn out how it turns out.

French Equatorial Africa, well. Maybe they had family there and wanted to visit?

==

As to being aggressive / rude at tournaments - no. If they’re deliberately stalling you, they’ll be well prepared for aggressive or rude responses. I’d guess typical rejoinders would be “he’s shouting at me so I need a moment to think” (trying to get the judge to penalize you for delay, not them) or “would you check this guy out, can someone do something about this” (delaying the game further) or a bunch of things I can think of actually that I’ve seen in other tournaments though I’ve never been to an A&A tournament. Best thing I think is just remain calm and get a judge.

I mean, maybe it’s all an honest mistake (or maybe that player just really needs to take their time), who knows? Maybe you’re overreacting. (Maybe not. But maybe.) And if a judge comes along, probably they won’t penalize anyone for stalling, things being what they are nobody wants to make waves, but if you complain about that player and another player complains, at some point that player’s going to get a reputation. So make it official, it’s the best way.

==

As to fighters not landing / crashing when a defending carrier is destroyed - that was known behavior, not a bug, as far as I knew. It’s in the list of changes Beamdog published that changed the original rules - along with defender profiles and inability to use allied transports and carriers. Well if they’re calling it a bug that’s fine by me; I prefer the board game rules anyways.

@squirecam said in [Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?]

Do these developers even play the game?

Well imagine you’re a casual player and maybe you played once or twice, and you thought it was fun, then after years of never thinking about it maybe your company has a job doing it, then of course the office gets together and does some games, and everyone’s a casual player and has a good time, but maybe foresees some difficulties with certain features so changes are made. And of course nobody thinks anything of these changes, because stuff like 60% as opposed to 85%, or changing key timings so there’s 85% instead of 35%, or whatever, so what? I mean, that’s for nerds right? Does anyone take that sort of thing seriously?

Then some very fervent but inarticulate people say “omg you can’t do that!” but well, you know, EVERY game has their diehards, so who’s to say what’s actually the case? Maybe if casuals are the target market, the concerns of diehards aren’t actually so serious?

I said something about allied transports and carriers being a big change, what with changing UK fighters to India if you want to try that, importance of combined fleet timings, and whatnot, but woosh! the point was missed. it’s like, well, the rules are the same for both sides right? so what’s the big deal?

I mean, sure, right, if they didn’t play the game, maybe they would take it more seriously, my guess is they did play the game but maybe missed some of the finer points.

. . . those finer points which STAB YOU LIKE A SWORD IN THE HANDS OF A SKILLED PLAYER :white_frowning_face:

oh well hopefully they’ll come around.

@taamvan said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

@squirecam I wont convince you, but I disagree. The game works great and AAA has glaring flaws I can’t overcome. Mostly I just want to play with my buddies, y’all.

which flaws?

I mean, AXAO you can’t use allied transports or carriers. Defending fighters float if their carrier’s destroyed (don’t need to land at all, just stay in the sea zone). Defensive profiles eurgh. I mentioned attacking the Japanese submarine, but there’s loads more times when def profiles just don’t get it done. Then there’s things like needing to assign casualties after each group of similarly valued units, unlike having all rolls in a sub-phase totaled before assigning casualties. Bugs. Like if you have a submarine and there’s an enemy submarine in the same zone (applies to other stuff too I think) then you can’t move your submarine out of combat unless it’s into a another combat; unlike in the board game you can’t move to a neutral sea zone and just hang out at all. Also various bugs.

Error: Uncaught TypeError: Cannot set property ‘width’ of null Please reload the game

Well it’s early days for AXAO yet. Still Early Access, this stuff is supposed to happen. Well we’ll see how it turns out.

Tournaments are different to AXAO. Larry Harris setup, bid, games called on time so decided by +1 VC, AXAO doesn’t implement the rules per board game.

It’s like, I don’t think they can even be compared. OOB East Indies attack and two-territory Russia attacks are all unstable. 30%+ failure at East Indies, and a little dice swing on Russia 1 can be pretty nasty. Bid makes a big difference, plus the Larry Harris setup.

As to +1 VC, I really don’t know that I’d go 100% tanks on G1 in a normal standard game of 9 Axis VC / 10 Allied VC.

@DoManMacgee - French Equatorial Africa, not French West Africa? Brazil, yeah that’s just not right. But if it’s French West Africa, I don’t think it’s necessarily bad. Well maybe it is bad but I don’t think it’s bad because I might do it sometimes. And of course I have three whole weeks of experience on this board. Maybe two and a half. Whatever. So if I do it, it can’t be bad, right? :relaxed:

Stipulating we’re using OOB with the additional restrictions of AXAO - (i.e. no use of allied transports or carriers, defending fighters float instead of having to land or be destroyed if their carrier dies, defensive profiles (which are a big change, I could go on) -

OK anyways if Germany does 2 subs to East Canada and 2 subs air to UK battleship and lands fighters on NW Europe and Finland, then UK probably has no fleet to start. And if the UK player was using the default defensive profile, if the Russian sub joined the UK fleet then it didn’t submerge and is probably dead too. So UK is looking at Baltic cruiser and transport which is inconvenient to Russia, and has zero fleet, plus probably there’s a German sub hanging out. But all UK can build is destroyer and carrier if it reserves 9 IPC for 3 infantry at India. And if it does that, then it gets whacked by 1 sub 6 fighters 1 bomber, never mind what happens if UK tries to kill the German cruiser (which probably isn’t the worst idea considering London might be threatened) and loses a fighter in the process. Regardless, UK1 fleet drop probably not good.

So US1 builds fleet while UK does whatever. Then what does US2 move do?

Well if Germany grabbed Trans-Jordan on G1, UK might want to pull Egypt units to take it back. If UK attacks Libya probably Germany stacked it so that isn’t too good. If UK sits where it is, Trans-Jordan and Libya both attack and crush them. If UK runs into Africa and pulls German units after them, that’s not the worst, but Germany can just push up into Transjordan, UK units in Africa can never catch up, then Germany has a little pocket force in the Persia region. So none of those are maybe too great, so maybe UK hits Trans-Jordan.

Well if that happens then Germany marches into Africa, and what happens? US can drop to French West Africa and fight them off. If Germany fights them, that uses up some of Germany’s attention and stretches Germany’s logistics, so that’s not the worst use of some US units that couldn’t even think about landing in Europe any time soon. If Germany doesn’t fight, that works out okay too as UK income is preserved. US could drop to Morocco but that risks getting stalled out. But south of Africa, really hard for Germany to push to.

As to G1 tanks, G2 ftr, G3 bomber, G4 infantry . . . well on AXAO I can believe it wins. What with all the Russian players trying to hold Karelia with way too few forces, or buying Russian bombers, or stacking Buryatia where Japan just whacks them, or things like that, woo.

Edit - anyways I got sidetracked. So the thing is US1 two carriers and destroyer, US2 fighters and US1 fleet moves to Africa, UK3 builds fleet, US3 moves to reinforce UK fleet. Depending on what’s going on, maybe US1 three destroyers and a carrier, etc., maybe Japan flies a bomber to Karelia, little variations. Anyways US fleet really doesn’t have much other place to go than Africa if Germany’s zoning north Atlantic with subs on US2 (US fleet can’t reach UK waters), so US1 fleet drop only reaches London on US3 anyways . . . right? So then Africa makes more sense because hey.

I’m interested in the full records. Particularly the W Rus strafe reasoning and aftermath. Was it a retreat into Karelia? If yes, no need for further explanation on that count, though I’m still curious about the exact distributions, attack roll results, and defender decisions, esp. as 42.3 is Larry Harris setup right? and Germany took the bomber as an early casualty at Ukraine it seems?

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

I’d hardly call Russia buying INF all game and turtling in Moscow “correct play” in 1942.3, but to each his own. I have no tournament experience in this version but I imagine a marginally more aggressive Russia build (at least 1 Tank bought every few rounds) would yield better results.

Well I mean three Russian fighters seems like a super luxury to me, but as far as 8 infantry goes at least on the first turn, I’m not sure I’d really say that’s passive. The way I figure it, Russia needs casualty count and infantry are what you put out. Germany has this big logistics problem getting stuff to the front. So you build more infantry, you trade with fighters and artillery, you keep building infantry, you do strafes and stuff, more infantry keeps your unit count healthy while Germany feeds into it.

But infantry ALL game, I don’t know. Like, I think I would stick some artillery in there if I had infantry stacks, maybe not R1 or R2 or even R3 but . . . all game, all infantry? I mean, I could see it in some games but I’d want to see a game record to see how that all played out.

Isn’t that an exaggeration after all? I mean if you had three Russian fighters, didn’t you have to buy one? Or does patch 42.3 change that up or something? I don’t know.

“The UK traded a stack of tanks to fend off the german ones coming out of africa” - really, German had a stack of tanks in Africa? Is that normal? I don’t think I would expect it.

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

I’m interested in seeing one of your replay files if Germany is killing your USSR by only building Tanks and Strat Bombers in 42.3. Doesn’t seem like very cost-efficient trading to me.

Well German tanks repositioning can be really nasty. But still.

Also I’m thinking about the effects of tournament rules, what with timers and things. So if the Axis just contain 7 VCs then they win? How do games usually go on time? To the end with 9 Axis or 10 Allied VCs?

Because the tournament thing is pretty big imo. It’s like okay if Moscow is threatened normally maybe you pull out of India but if it’s a battle for 7 VCs before time’s called that’s less an option.

(edit - After having played more and read some old posts by Hobbes, I agree 8 inf is not the way to go in the now-implemented LHTR setup. If you have a good successful Ukraine strafe and retreat to Caucasus and everything goes right, then 8 inf can work. But if Ukraine doesn’t go well or if Russia captures Ukraine, then Russia loses a chunk of its attack power on R1 or G1 respectively. Then Russia can’t really punish German incursion especially with Japanese fighter reinforcement.)