Posts made by Black_Elk

Most of my thoughts on Victory Cities are based on my experience with Revised. Over the past three years I’ve helped to run a few gaming clubs, TripleA is probably the most popular. I’ve played literally hundreds of games over there, and observed many more, and I can say definitively, that players are not paying attention to VCs in their Revised games.

It was determined early on (I’d say within the first 6-9 months) that the VC arrangment was unbalanced, and that games ended too quickly, without a decisive win. People didn’t add extra VCs, like Cousin Joe and I suggested, and they didn’t bother to rework the number needed for Victory. It hardly mattered to most people whether it was a 9 VC thing or an 11 VC, or whatever, if it didn’t work, then they just ignored them altogether. The attitude people took towards VCs was that they were a gameplay balancing mechanism that failed to come off properly, because they created ‘artificial’ victory conditions - victory conditions that didn’t seem to relate much to the other gameplay mechanics.

I think the idea of bonuses is good, but the way they are determined right now is rather complicated. You need to have out your manual and the listed territories to figure out what’s going on. The groups of territories needed for the bonuses are not clearly indicated on the map (like in Risk say, where each continent is color coded.) I expect that people will quickly memorize these distinctions, but for the new player it adds a bunch of unecessary stats tracking. The reason I say VCs are reduntant under such a set up, is because I can almost gaurantee that people are going to ignore the VCs in favor of what’s really important - the bonuses.

In AA50 France will be significant, not because of the Paris VC, but because of the Bonus money you get from controlling the territory. If VCs were linked directly to the cash bonuses, then players would regard them as significant in there own right, instead of just as an afterthought. If the money came from the VCs, instead of from these territory blocs, I think people would start to embrace the VC concept, because VCs would have a real impact on the gameplay. I’m not really sure how to explain it better, which is probably why I sound a bit repetative. :)

So do you think winning with control of Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, Rome, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong-Kong, Manila, Calcutta, Honolulu and Sydney is a cheap win?

I think that unless control of those territories is backed up with some kind of overwhelming cash advantage, or by a real gameplay mechanic (instead of just being a nominal victory) then, yes, I don’t think people will be satisfied with it.

Trust me, the last thing I want to see is a return to the Moscow centric game. Personally I wish Larry had done away with the white sea route to Karelia and closed the Panama canal altogether, but that was never going to happen. What I really want is for the Capital dynamic to be altered in favor of one based on Victory cities, but that won’t work unless the VCs have some intrinsic value of their own (that goes beyond just the nominal one that they have right now).

Having bonuses tied to the hip of VCs wouldn’t make VCs reduntant, it would make them meaningful.

Thanks Dante and 03321, I will correct those in the next one.

I have to say though, I wish a little more attention was paid to the Eastern Europe section of the board. Hungary Czechoslovakia is a comparatively small stretch of land, especially when viewed next to some of these other divisions. You can tell from the shape of the German space that it is meant to include Austria and the Sudetenland, which doesn’t leave room for much else. Poland is just huge, no matter you want look at it. Its definitely exaggerated.

I rather wish that that the Hungary Czechoslovakia space was a more general ‘Central Europe’ space, that included Bohemia and Austria. It would make more sense to me to have a detour space separating Germany from Italy, than the current solution of fuzzy borders along the Swiss Alps and the port of Trieste. Oh well

In any case I will redraw Poland this afternoon, so that the connections follow the board properly. :)
I will also redraft Eastern Ukraine, or whatever its supposed to be, when I do that. I think they should just call it the Don, or the Don river valley, or Kursk. I don’t know though, its hard to say. On my map the Ukraine is already drawn in its entirety and correctly, so to call the rest of it Eastern Ukraine or Northern Ukraine etc, is a little misleading. I hate to get rid of the accurate borders to replace them vague ones, but I think that’s what I might have to do in this area of the map. Belorussia is already pretty far out there, so I guess its not too big of a stretch.

Correcting Afghanistan to the misspelled name does seem a little ridiculous, but we can do that too. It’s gotta be a little embarrassing that it slipped through though, especially since Americans are much more likely to notice, now that we have so many troops on the ground over there. Maybe we should throw them a bone and just fix the error. Up to you guys if we want to include the ‘h’.

As for Larry’s website, I wasn’t able to register or post on those boards, so I just sent an email to the admin. Guess I’ll have to wait see if anything comes of it. Cool link though man, thanks for that.

edit: I will also fix the names in China to agree with the stuff posted in the other thread. It makes me happy to hear that the other Russian space is called ‘Ural’ instead of Omsk, as originally speculated. It makes much more sense this way. I might end up redrawing Novosibirsk in a few spots now. Thanks Krieghund :)

Thanks man

I was just informed of some additional spelling errors, so I will revisit the map key again tomorrow. Will add the sea zones in too, just for reference.

If you want I can post the materials I used to make these things, or I can email them to you if you like. I have a bunch of flag markers and such, for different nations that I made around the same time as the map. Just let me know if you want to check it out. :)

Jasonwclark AT gmail.com

where AT=@

Yeah I drew that map up from scratch over the course a couple years. I think I’ve redrafted it like 100 times now hehe, but I finally settled on this one as the projections for the major continents and land masses.

If you want to use the projection to make you own maps I don’t mind.:)
Just drop my  name somewhere in the credits if you end up using it.
Jason W. Clark

I tried to make the basic underlying map as versatile as possible, but I also have bunch of drafts with with city circles and sea zones all drawn in. My dream is to make a game called Domination 1900 out this one, and then other scenarios for different periods. Kind of out there though I know.

Here the 1900 map, rough draft but has most of the ideas layed out

Also a Red Dawn cold war concept.

Some others too, but I probably shouldn’t hijack Hobbes thread to show off. :)

I made this game. Well, half of it anyway. Its a little cheesy probably, but mostly because of the limitations of the game engine. I can say that some unit values have been adjusted for game balance. Zeps, Cav etc. I think the latest version is well balanced.

I spent many hundreds of hours working on this thing, but there are some parts of the map I’m still not happy with though. The Western Front and the Africa Boxes are not as straight forwards as I might like, and some other elements could be improved. Convoys work well, but aesthetically I don’t dig how tripleA draws them in.

When I first made the map with Surtur, the idea behind the game was that it would be exclusively PBEM. That’s why the first round is so ridiculously involved. I wanted a map where players could spend a good amount of time trying to map out their turns, so that the game would seem more dynamic in email. If you look at the turn order and the pricing structure, over all money, the whole thing is geared toward long turns in quick succession for email games. Usually it takes about two weeks to finish PBEM. Some people still go after these endurances matches in the lobby though.

Anyway, I’m glad to here that at least a few people are enjoying it. I really just used it as an excuse to push the Misc Image feature, and to see how far we could push the A&A ruleset. Mostly we were just experimenting with ideas though.

Pact of Steel was originally done in the same way. I just wanted to see if we could open up the code to include more than 5 players, and to test some other ideas. I’m still surprised how many people took to the idea. For me it was always kind of a novelty and inside joke to have Italy in there. What we were really more interested in was messing around with the Pacific hehe. Still I think these custom varients can be fun.

Ultimately I still enjoy the Revised map the most, and I prefer the standard dice rules. It was fun to branch out though and try to make other games based on similar principles. The thing I was the most proud of with the Great War, was the naval game, which is still a lot of fun. I also think it demonstrates the idea that more money and more production encourages players to try more radical builds.

I don’t think it would ever work as a board game though. Too many units and territories to keep track of, even on the computer it tends to get a little overwhelming. :)

Thanks for checking it out though. If you ever want to PBEM just drop me a line jasonwclark@gmail.com

Oh and here is a screenshot in case anyone is still interested

Don’t worry dude, I’m definitely down to nit-pick :)

How’s this one feel?

I should also mention that the colors and text will look a little nicer in the next version. I just went with Arial and web colors because it was quick and easy to read. At this point I’m more interested in just getting down the correct info, and double checking that all the connections correspond. Unit graphics will come next, probably about 50x50 pixels relative the current size of the map, maybe a little/larger or smaller depending. I think the zones should be large enough to handle this with minimal spill over. I also tried to preserve the detail when possible by grouping islands with each other, to an associated landmass (Iceland to UK, Sicily and Sardinia to Italy etc). I think it should do pretty well.

Let me know if other things need work too. I don’t have time to redraft it again tonight but I’ll polish it up some more tomorrow.

PS. I didn’t know Larry had his own development website. Thanks for the link man. I’ll have swing by there sometime and say hello. I’d love to work on something like this for real. I’ve been doing it my free time for a while now, (making maps and tinkering with A&A scenerios) but it would be a lot of fun to really step it up and take the board design to the next level. I helped to make those tripleA games, Pact of Steel and The Great War and did some other related work (on BW 1942 and some others), not sure if anyone has had a chance to play them, but that’s how I killed most of my time these past few years. Good times

I think I could maybe make a meaningful contribution to the map design if given a shot.
Always loved A&A, even going back to the elementary school days. :)

edit: I sent an email to the admin for that website. Guess I’ll just have to wait and see if anyone digs the idea.
Thanks for the heads up though man

Nice, good eye man. Yeah I just put the names in earlier this afternoon, and was working mainly from memory when I punched them out, so spelling mistakes or a missed space would not surprise me. I will correct the ones you mentioned in the next draft.

I already reworked the baseline to include that Sahara fix. Hopefully this will feel a little better.

Thanks again for the input. :)

Good call man. Thanks for the feedback :)

In the next draft I will extend the Sahara space a little bit, so that the two are no longer touching. Beyond trying to preserve a general accuracy for the territory boundaries, I also tried to beef up some of the more important spaces so that they would be able to house more units. My thinking in this region, was that its better to have a smaller Sahara space and more little room in North Africa if possible. The Libya fix should be easy though, I’ll add it to the list and rework the AA50 draft tomorrow.

Anyone notice any other problem areas?

Also, sorry for the slightly janky pixelation on those maps. I tried to design the baseline so that it would work with the tripleA engine, which means 1 pixel black lines, gif files and such, on account of the raster graphics system. The AA50 draft posted above was just something  I put together over the past few days. If I was going to do a real version for an actual gameboard, it would look much nicer and cleaner. In case there are any doubts about attention to detail, or my work ethic, here is a link to my CA Gallery page. Shameless promo hehe

This is a map I made using the info that’s been collected so far. The World Projection is an original design that I’ve been working on for the past few years, which I call “The A&A or Larry Harris world projection.”

Its basically halfway between Mercator and the gameboard. What I did was to distort the geography so that Europe and the Pacific would be larger, while still trying to preserve a degree of relative accuracy and distance over all. Some of the sea zone geometry was tweaked slightly, to fit with redrafted shape of world, but I believe all the connections are the same.

AA50 Map first rough draft

Larry Harris World Projection (Original Baseline map projection, with all minor political divisions still in place. Based on a roughly 1900-1930 set up.)

Copyright Jason W. Clark 2008

The colors for the AA50 one will need to be tweaked and all the labels corrected, but I plan to keep working on it until I achieve perfection. Hehehe  If someone could give it the once over for me though, that would be sweet.

Take care all
-J

P.S.
It’s one of my small goals in life to meet Larry one of these days and help design a world map projection for the game board. So if you guys ever run into to him at a convention or whatever, tell him to drop me a line sometime. I’ll work for peanuts and beer. :)

jasonwclark@gmail.com

This is where the Stanovoy range is located.

It makes sense as a name for the new territory, but still doesn’t explain the logic behind naming the Vladivostok/Primorsky territory “Buryatia” when the actual province of Bury is much further to the West, alongside lake Baikal.

It should just be called Buryatia, since the province of Buryatia falls within the scope of that space. Chita is to the east of Buryatia if you look at real map. Irkutsk would probably fall within the scope of the Yakutsk territory or Evenkia as the map is currently drawn. The naming convention are sometimes a little peculiar though.

I’d be a little disappointed if the territory that borders Manchuria is still called Buryatia in AA50 though, given the way the map looks now.

This where Buryatia is actually located, in case anyone cares :)

I just can’t imagine any serious Axis/Jap players attacking the United States over Russia.

Even now in the Revised game, nobody completely ignores Japan, its just a matter of how and where the Western Allies choose to face them. Most people prefer to confront the Japs via Africa or Russia, because its safer than committing to the pacific, and because realistically, there’s no way to win as the Allies that doesn’t involve taking Berlin. Similarly, there’s also no way to win as the Axis that doesn’t involve taking Moscow, so everyone just sends their troops to the middle of the board, since that’s where the real contest is invariably decided anyway.

People who refer to a KJF strategy in Revised as though it was a game winner are just deluding themselves. Only an idiot loses Tokyo to the Americans. The KJF properly executed is just stalling tactic to neuter Japan for a round or two, before completely redirecting the focus to Germany… Just like attacking North America with Japan is a stalling tactic to distract them away from Europe/Russia for a round, before completely redirecting the focus on Moscow. They’re holding maneuvers, not game winning strategies.

To reiterate, unless winning by Victory Cities seems decisive, players will just ignore them in favor of capturing a Capital. If winning by 13 VCs or 15 VCs, or whatever it ends up being, seems like a cheap win, or an inconclusive win, then people aren’t going to go for it. They’ll just fall back on the older dynamic, where you don’t win until you’ve taken a Capital.

Clearly if anything is going to change the basic gameplay dynamics in AA50, its going to be the cash Bonuses. That’s why I think the bonuses should be tied directly to individual Victory Cities in 1:1 sort of way, otherwise the VCs are just redundant.

In about 6 months from the time it first hits the shelves, it will start to become clear what the ‘winning’ strategies for either side are.

A few months after that (once the game is picked up by the PBEM and TripleA crowds) we should get a better sense of how deadly the best strats really are. Game brakers will need to be addressed first, then all the expirimental strats teased out.

After a year we should know approximately what sort of bid is needed.

I think its pretty unniversaly agreed upon now, that Revised requires a bid of 8 or 9 pre-placement in order for the Axis to have a real chance. I think most conservative players favor the North Africa bid, because nothing sucks harder than losing in Egypt. Bids on the Eastern Front are not uncommon, or for an extra Axis transport, but Africa is still the most popular by far. I think that’s what its going to come down to here as well…

Which battle in the first round is the most critical for the Axis, and will a bid be needed to ensure that the battle goes as it should?
Seems to be how the bidding process has worked in previous versions.

The main issue I have with the bonuses is that they are difficult to explain and keep track of.

Axis and Allies is already so complicated and tricky to introduce to new players, I worry about the learning curve. Having nation specific rules for China built into the game may also be little confusing for newcomers. I think it would be much more straight forward if the rules were consistant for each player. I feel like we should be simplifying the general rules, rather than adding more specific and nuanced ones. For example, a simple cash bonus based on the number of VCs controlled, would be much easier to explain to the noob, than “if you control territory x y and z as Germany then you get 5 ipcs.”

Victory Cities are a good idea, but in order for them to work properly, we might have to ditch the current Capital dynamic altogether. Right now, the ability to steal the other guy’s money and leave him with no chance to purchase that round, is the only way to gain the decisive edge. Consequently, everyone I know who plays Revised does so with the clear emphasis on Moscow and Berlin (either offense or defense) because those are the easiest capitals to go after. Its far more likely for example, for teamates to just start sending aircraft and units towards the weak link capital to prop it up, rather than using those same units to make ultimately futile attacks in a more esoteric direction. 9 times out of 10 the Axis go after Moscow, while the Allies schuck troops towards Russia via Africa or the northern route, while trying to clamp down on Berlin. The basic pattern is remarkable consistant going back to classic, and it keeps happening each time, because of this cash grabing thing.

I think the only way we can make a real change, is to give the Axis another option for victory beyond Moscow.  VCs could maybe do the trick, if we elimanted the ‘take the Capital and you get all the cash!’ rule and just replaced it with bonuses/penalties based on how many VCs you control. Unless you do something about the capital capturing/money dynamic though, I think people will still just go for the easiest target and ignore the non-essential stuff. Also, if winning by Victory Cities is like winning on a technicality (instead of the overwhelming in-your-face Victory that comes from seizing an enemy Capital) then people will probably just continue until the capital falls anyway. So there’s that too

Benghazi is the spot for Italy. Tripoli and Tobruk have a tendancy to steal the spotlight, but for logistics and the campaigns in north africa, I think Benghazi makes the most sense by far (for another VC in any case.) Another possibility for the Duce, might be Athens.

Egypt is already critical for either side on account of the Canal, so I think it would make sense, and certainly concentrate more attention on North Africa. South Africa is a bit of a stretch, but it would give the Italians a real target to shoot for. Seems to me that if we have Italy as a playable faction we might as well give them something to do right?  Go Graziani hehe.

Ottawa and Washington I don’t really understand. I know as political capitals they fit the bill, but in terms of the history and as realistic war objectives, they were never really threatened. I think you can make a strong case for San Francisco and London as possibilities, but I’d rather the Victory Cities were scattered in more accessible regions of the map. I would prefer a heavier concentration of VCs in the Pacific for example, at least one more. Iwo might work too if Singapore doesn’t grab you, or Rangoon. Or possibly Victoria (in Western Canada) if the idea is to force the Japs to go after North America. It stills seems kind of odd that there are no Victory Cities in Africa though, since that was a major theater of opperations for much of the war.

Also, I really don’t see the benefit of having this overlap between Capitals and Victory Cities.

Why not just leave the capitals as their own seperate thing?
Instead of Moscow as both a capital and a VC, why not say that its just a capital, and save the VC for someplace more interesting, like Vladivostok or Murmansk? Instead of Berlin, how about Bucharest? Its not like there’s any long standing convention that states that all capitals have to be victory cities as well. Classic didn’t even have VCs (which is probably why most Revised players continue to just ignore them as irrelevant.) I’m sure the rules and game board have been printed already, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still establish our own standards after the fact. :)

I suspect that some additional Victory Cities may be required (via a house rule like we did with Sydney, Honolulu and Stalingrad for Revised.) Ottawa and San Francisco may work on occassion, with a concerted naval effort by the Axis, and some mistakes or poor luck for the Allies, but I don’t think anyone here expects Washington to ever be in play. Probably the only way players are going to take Victory Cities seriously, is if they can consistantly win by focusing on them, as opposed to just taking a capital. The Axis in particular, need a way to achieve victory that doesn’t involve Moscow; otherwise the game will always be focused on triple teaming Russia. We need some more VCs on parts of the map which are likely to change hands regularly.

I would propose 3 additional Victory Cities.

-Benghazi (Libya)
-Singapore (French Indo-China)
-Cairo-Suez (Egypt) or Cape Town (South Africa)

That would give us 21 to work with, and a few in Africa, which seems appropriate.