Posts made by AdamGameSmith

@FranceNeedsMorePower

See you there! Personally, I can’t wait. I wish the tournament was tomorrow.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Yes, I’m planning on being in the Anniversary tournament.

@DoManMacgee said in Gen Con 2025 - AAR:

I wouldn’t say my “playing without a partner” was necessarily a mistake. I tried convincing any relevant A&A player in my life to partner with me. It just didn’t work out (and I didn’t want to miss the event outright). That being said I will continue to advocate that 1v1 should the official format for tournament play, even if I am in the minority. Most of the teams I played against were basically “the main player” and “the advisor who catches mistakes” anyway, in my opinion.

Yes, you did say in your initial post that you tried to get a partner for the tournament. I chose my words poorly. I should not have said “mistake”, I just meant it was one of many factors that put a hard road in front of you. My main intent was to call this out to anyone who is considering playing in future tournaments that playing alone is harder than you might guess. I don’t think I would get out of the first game if I’d tried it.

I can relate to that for other games, but I spent about 7 months prepping for this specific tournament format and have been playing semi-actively since 2008 (although I have never bothered with this one in Online Leagues, so my level of play isn’t as high as something like Revised for 42SE. Online Format Vs. F2F format are basically completely different games anyway, so that sort of experience wouldn’t necessarily help beyond a firmer grasp on the openings).

I can relate too! We didn’t quite spend 7 months prepping, but we did spend several months testing ideas when we could. Anyone considering a tournament run should, particularly if you have not played tournament rules. Where we erred was in using the first day and half of GenCon to do some intensive training/prep when we should have been resting up instead.

Yup. At least the Gen Con food is pretty good as far as convention hall stuff goes (I’ve played TCGs for most of my life, so I’ve had way worse).

Agreed. The food is good, my only complaint is the place is so huge, and with so many participants, getting to your favorite food stand during a short break can make you even more tired.

The 9-hour car ride on top of everything else was something I forgot to mention on my end. I’d like to imagine the lack of sleep affects everyone (mostly) equally though.

Yeah, that one I forgot too. I’m from philly, so again I feel you on that one!

Yeah. In my case I think physical conditioning is also a big factor. I should not have been skipping gym days in the month before the tournament for sure. That sort of thing was never a problem for me in the past but I just do not have as much natural stamina as I did in my teens/20s. Part of getting older I guess.

Yes, physical conditioning is another really important aspect for anyone thinking of going. Its easy to see a strategy game as a purely mental exercise, but if your physical stamina is lacking, it will absolutely affect your clarity of thought.

Anyway, thanks for the comment! Sorry that you were also not able to win it all. I can’t make it to the Dayton tournament later this year (just not in the cards money/time-investment wise, as November is crunch time for both my job and wallet due to Christmas), but will hope to come to more events next year.

Thank you for the post! Sorry for the long delay in response, I’ve been out of town.

I will be going to Battlefront, and I’m sorry to hear I won’t see you there, but I certainly hope to run into you at a future tournament. Until then, good luck to you!

@DoManMacgee

Wow. Thank you for providing such a detailed rundown of your games! I was also playing in the tournament, (I think you may have even helped me set up a board at one point.) . My brother and I were also semi-finalists, but on the other side of the bracket. I very much appreciate getting a chance to read an overview of many of the other games I didn’t get to play in!

I did not keep as detailed notes as you did, and could never hope to provide as detailed a blow by blow, but I will confirm that the German Carrier absolutely seems to be in vogue for Axis Players, though I agree with you that I think its over-valued. I will say that for all four of my games, the bid went to the Axis, and I never got a sense that anyone felt that was unexpected. I guess our side of the bracket generally thought the advantage was with the allies, and your side felt differently. I’m very curious to see how the bid went for the championship.

More importantly, I want to say that I could have written this post about your final assessment of your experience after last year’s tournament, which was my first experience at GenCon. The only differences would be that I played with a partner, so I could remove that mistake, but would have to add that I booked my hotel too late, leaving me with a cheap a hotel, too far away and lost sleep to a crappy bed an unnecessary travel back and forth

We played too fast for our own good. We tried to cram in too much practice just before the tournament. We did not bring enough snacks to the hall and had to fight through the convention crowds to grab meals between games. All of it derived from a severe underestimate of how a lack of sleep would effect our play. We lost on a mistake I would not have thought we would ever have made, and it was far from our only error.

If you have not played in GenCon or a similar tournament, you have to know that you will try to play at your max speed to get in the most game you can. Going fast and not sleeping is a recipe for mistakes no matter how experienced a player you are.

Reading the above give pause to new players that are considering attending a GenCon tournament. Let say that having made some small adjustments for our second tournament, I am far more satisfied with how I played. I won’t say that we didn’t have some small errors as the tournament progressed, but nothing that cost us the game, and at that point our opponents were also having small mistakes too.

The trick is to ensure you’ve got enough sleep and awareness that you won’t miss the devastating mistakes that will cost you the game. It is not hard to do, you just need to go in with an appreciation for what its like deep in the tourney. Hopefully this thread is enough to provide that for anyone considering attending for the first time.

Very small side note: You were correct that you could have placed the new Chinese infantry in Hupeh in your second game. The limit of three per territory only applies to the number of Chinese units in the space before you place. If the number you place causes the territory to exceed a number of three, that is ok. The believe that you can never have more than three Chinese units in any territory is a persistent misconception that stems from the fact that the wording in the original 2008 rulebook was not very clear. It was clarified in the official Errata that is available on this site (https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-50th-Anniversary-Errata-FAQ.pdf) but a lot players learned this game from that original rule book.

I think you were right not to make too big a deal of it though. One of the best parts of these tournaments is the spirit of fun and comradery between opponents, and its not worth spoiling that if it won’t have a major impact on the game.

Thank you again for the detailed recaps! I sincerely hope to see you at a future tournament.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

I’m going too. Really looking forward to this one!

See you there.

@flipperlord

It means the Axis get 3-5 worth of IPCs to place.

@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)

Hello,
I’m curious if anyone can help me with some general advice for in person Tournaments. For one thing, would it be a frowned on/weird to use small post-its to mark the board on my turn? I tend to forget a non-combT move from time to time, and I’m hoping the post-it method will be a better way to avoid that than having to double and triple check the board in a timed game.

Secondly, do teams talk in code at the table or do they just openly discuss in front of their opponents?

@The-Mink

Panther is right, but I’ll offer one more clarification. Your allies can help you defend, but not attack. Destroyers belonging to your ally don’t participate in your attacks, so they can’t help your air units hit subs even if they’re in the same sea zone.

When defending, they do participate, so a UK destroyer can help US planes hit subs if they’re defending the same sea zone.

@squirecam

Awesome, thank you!

Hi all,
I used to play this with NOs on, but lately I’ve been wanting to give it another go without them. I know with them on I traditionally give the Allies a hefty bid, but considering how much the NOs favor the Axis, I’m curious if anyone on here has an idea of what a fair bid looks like when playing without the objectives enabled.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Italy active on turn 1... What?:

@PizzaPete said in Italy active on turn 1... What?:

@SuperbattleshipYamato
Maybe there could also be a mechanism to forestall an Italian entry into the war even if the requirements are met if Austria-Hungary either (I’m still thinking of which house rule to do):

Turn Trieste into an Italian territory (Central Powers have one turn to evacuate)

Austria-Hungary loses 2-4 IPCs (unsure of the exact number yet), representing them ceding territory to Italy.

I like that idea a lot. It would add yet another layer of choice to the central powers, and it is a good historical fit too. Between the two options, I’m leaning toward handing over Trieste, but I’d want to try both a few times and see how it plays out.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

While I agree that there wasn’t much chance of Italy coming in with the central powers, the nations engaged in the war in 1914 could not be sure of that, and I think it would be interesting to try a game where the players are also unsure.

I like the die roll for the uncertainty it adds, but I’d be concerned to give something that could have such a big impact on the outcome of the game wholly to a die roll without first giving players an opportunity to exert some sort of influence on the outcome.

I wonder if it might be more fun to roll a die each round to see if Italy enters. If they do, the side they choose could be determined by the status of the western front. Maybe select a few territories and Italy joins whichever alliance controls the majority of them. The selected territories should be an uphill fight for Germany to get more than half of, and depending on how many territories are contested, there could be a tie, in which case Italy joins the entente.

This would not only add some uncertainty into when and how Italy comes in, but also some variation to Gemany’s strategy. A little bit more for the western front could pay back bigger than it cost you, or it could turn out to be a waste.

It’s not a terribly historical idea, but it could be pretty fun.

@shadowhawk

While all that is true and valid, if you want to talk unrealistic rules, I don’t think anything comes close to the fact that all the countries stay idle until its their “Turn” to do things.

Some things have to be abstracted to make a game work.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Which was considered by the US to be the biggest naval base in the pacific!

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npswapa/extcontent/wapa/paradise/paradise4.htm#:~:text=Truk Lagoon was regarded by,the war in September 1945.

@Poptech Your point about a base being surrounded is a good one, though it undercuts your own argument.

Being surrounded doesn’t mean your fuel and ammo ceases to exist, it means it won’t be replenished and you have to work with what was already on hand. Seems to me that since fuel and ammo are stockpiled at naval and air bases, territories that have them would be at a huge advantage when surrounded vs a territory that doesn’t and is surrounded, and units stationed there would be better off.

But since you either failed to read the responses or just dismissed the reasons the bonus movement makes sense, maybe it would be better to come at it from another angle?

Do you agree that naval and air bases existed in the second world war? If so, why do you object to their inclusion in the game? If you don’t object to their inclusion, what benefits do you think they should confer?

If you can answer those questions for yourself, you have a clear path to if you want to set up your game with the markers included, and what those markers will mean for your play group.

If you feel you’re already there, and you want to convince the rest of us that your way of playing is better, you might find you’re better able to persuade people by first understanding where they are coming from. Asking a question, failing to acknowledge the responses, and then acting like you’re the one who is not being listened too is not very persuasive.

@Azpathfinder

I’d say no he can’t for two reasons.

1. Scrambling is a response to an attack, not a move

2. Scrambling happens after a combat move is completed, so you can’t launch one against units that are mid-move.

Even though I think he’s wrong, it doesn’t mean he’s desperate or trying to bend the rules. It possible he thought this was a legitimate move, considered the move you’re making and thought “well I can stop that with a scramble”.

If so have pity. Losing a game because you misunderstood a rule is super frustrating, and can turn a player off of the game for good.

@polishpowerhouse

That is a great way to look at it. A fleet at sea or away from a fueling base has to rendezvous with a fuel tanker to refuel before moving full range. That rendezvous will cost the fleet time and fuel.

Meanwhile, a fleet departing from a naval base could be accompanied by a fuel tanker. Part way through your turn, the fuel tanker itself will need to head back to base to refuel that giant tank, but the fleet can continue on with the fuel it got from the tanker.

There wasn’t an option for refueling planes mid-air in the 40’s, but an airbase would have the resources and trained personnel to outfit your plane with one of these:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tank#:~:text=In aviation%2C a drop tank,often capable of being jettisoned.

Not to mention, as polishpowerhouse points out, taking off from dirt track is not the same as a proper airfield.

The shorter and less refined your runway, the more you’ll have to lean on the throttle to hit the speed you need for takeoff. The more you lean on the throttle, the more fuel you’re burning just to take off.

@chris_henry

Yes I received my copy Friday. I also have not had a chance to count the pieces, but the components look good and I’m thrilled to finally have a copy of this version of the game.

The early reviews stating the original printing didn’t have enough pieces to set up the first turn really turned me off, so I’m even more glad to see Renegade has taken steps to address that complaint rather than just reissuing it as it was, which they almost certainly could have done and still expected to see sales based on the prices used copies of 1914 were going for.

Most of all I’m thrilled to see that my fears of this and Anniversary never being printed again were not well founded.

@imperious-leader

I’ll admit that I haven’t played Revised in quite a while, but I think a buy of all tanks would be pretty easy to counter considering that for 15 ipcs you could get 2 inf, 1 art, and a tank that will beat three tanks on both offense and defense.

@always-wanderer

That one looks great too! Thank you again for sharing these great resources!