Posts made by Black_Elk

Yeah totally
Where’s the other thread?

Link me  :-D

I was thinking we’d probably go slow at the begging to give the 41 and 42 scenarios their time in the sun. But sooner or later the die hards will probably be down to try something new, based on the same model.

An optional add on scenario for 1940 and another for 1943, would be a cool way to round out the game. Provided no changes have to be made to the map, and its all just rules or unit positioning adjustments, it should be pretty easy to do. What would be ideal, is if we could come up with some cool ideas and then test them out using Battlemap and TripleA, as a way to gather feedback more rapidly. The first thing to do would be to playtest the hell out of 41 and 42, to determine what sorts of things we might want to adjust. Then use the 43 and 40 set ups to make the necessary changes. ;)

I think 1939 and 1944, would be a lot harder to do, but I suppose they might be possible. 1940 and 1943 are pretty close to the OOB timeline though. They should lend themselves to the game pretty.

So I know this isn’t exactly vanilla AA50, but I thought it would be cool to develop a 1943 varient for the current set up. I posted some thoughts on the TripleA boards, but I thought I’d post something in here too, just in case anyone has any cool ideas.

http://www.tripleadev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=10860

One idea would be to set the game in 1943, before Sicily and the Italian surrender.
This would give us a starting set up that looks something like this:

AA50-1943

• Climax of the battle of the Atlantic (March 16-20, when German U-boats sank 27 merchant ships)

-  Start of the Pacific island hopping campaign (Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Solomons etc.) and beginning of US sub war.

• First major German reversals in the East (Stalingrad/Kursk.)

• First wave of serious bombing raids against Germany, and the Doolittle raid on Japan.

• Rommel, Monty and Patton, all duking it out in North Africa.

-And, most importantly, the “Second Unified Front” in China begins to take back ground from the Japanese. Increased aid to Mao and Chiang, US air bases in China etc.

Sounds like fun to me  :mrgreen:
If we did go that route though, I think we should make it our goal to keep the map stuff essentially the same, and only tweak the starting unit positions. So an increase in production (+1 ipc to everything) would be out of the question, but we could still put some more starting factories down on the board. Romania for Germany say, or India, Australia, or Egypt for UK. This would allow for a more seamless board adaptation, in case anyone wanted to play an 43 game using our set up conditions.

So basically the idea, is to use all the same materials and rules, the same core set up, but just tweak it to suite a modified time line.  So instead of an early Barbarossa feel, we could set up a round 1 Kursk battle (lots of German and Russian tanks converging on E. Ukraine) things like that.

Basically just to kick ideas around at this point. First we’ll want to play 41 and 42 to death  :-D

I know I’ll sound stupid, but: what’s shuck-shuck in classic?

Well there are actually a couple different uses of the phrase “shuck-shuck.” I’m more familiar with the Revised version, but its essentially the same principle at work.

Usually a “shuck-shuck” refers to setting up a logistics scheme with transports and ground units, so that you can quickly transfer troops from one end of the board to the other. Basically, its when you leave a sea zone, pick up troops, and then return to that same sea zone to unload, all in a single move. In Revised, if you stick a definite article in front of it, “The shuck-shuck” move, then most assume that you’re talking about the troop train that ends in sz 4 (where you end up unloading 8+ units a round into Archangel or Karelia.)

Other popular shuck spots are sz 12 to E. Canada or UK, and back to Africa in one move. Sz 2 or sz 8, to E. Canada and back to UK in one move etc.  All these spots can be used together in conjunction, especially once the USA gets set up. So what you end up with is a long series of “1 move to pick up troops and then return to unload” that leads from the Atlantic coast of America, to London, and then onward either to Northern Russia, or Fortress Europa itself.

Some people will also use the term “shuck”, to describe any situation where infantry stacks are being maneuvered in a coordinated/sequential way. So some will people talk about shucking troops from W. USA, to W. Canada, to E. Canada for example (“the troop train out of Western”) even though no transports would be involved until they actually arrived in E. Canada.

I don’t know who coined the term, but I’ve been using it for about as long as I can remember. :)

I don’t know, Africa seems like a pretty good proposition.

If the Allies drop the ball, I imagine we will probably see a lot of Jap ships and fighters positioning around the Med. Sz 15 is pretty dangerous though with the bombers around, and Gs hit on Egypt is no guaranty. Could be that Italy doesn’t get a chance to expand all that much before getting turned back.

Africa is still a huge piece of the pie though. Maybe Italy takes it first, Allies reclaim it only to lose it again to Japan. Hard to tell at this point.

I don’t know. I thought I voted earlier, but I think I might have just put it on a wish list or something.

I wonder do you think BGG wants you to be registered for a while before they let you vote?
Right now I can’t see any option to give it a 1-10 vote.

-If the game is unbalanced in favor of the Axis, then my favorite solution would be a starting factory for the British in India or Australia.

-If its unbalanced in favor of Allies, then we should give Germany a starting factory in Poland or Romania.

Or maybe try both, and see if that balances out so we don’t need a bid anymore. You never know right?
Just a thought :-D

I much prefer a solution like that to the pre-placement bid.

I think issue has a lot do with the fact that Britain goes before Italy in the turn order.
So they could conceivably have 2, 3 or even more bombers parked in London and ready to go, before the Italians even play their second turn.

It pretty much locks down everything except sz 15 (and even that might be in range depending on Eygpt/TransJordan.) Seems pretty effective for the cost, especially for Britain and USA, since they benefit the most from early power projection. Italians can’t afford a carrier in the first round, and they’re unlikely to be able to in the second round either (especially without NOs), so the UK bomber thing seems to make the situation really hard on them. Caucasus is actually pretty easy to stack in the first three rounds, which makes the London-to-Stalingrad bomber route pretty easy to set up.

This just seems ridiculously easy to do.

With a bomber or two a round, the Allies can pretty much lock the Axis out of the med, before the Japs make much of an impact. I’m not talking about SBR campaigns either, just the normal effects of the reduced cost of Bombers down to 12 ipcs. Seems to make them way more useful than any of the capital ships.

For USA and Britain especially, bombers seem to be the name of the game.
How’s it playing for everyone else?

In AAR it is almost routine, when you are allowed technology anyway, to see 20 or so destroyers on the board for the allies.

I never buy destroyers in Revised.  :-D

Even with the technology advance, it still seems like a poor purchasing decision to me. Espcially with 2 trans or a Carriers at a cost of just 4 more ipcs. Plus, anytime you design a strategy around technology you are taking a huge gamble already. What if you fail to achieve the bombardment tech? And all that money on DDs, is money you’re not investing in transports or boots on the ground, which has gotta be giving the Axis some openings. Bedsides, if its a tech game, then what’s to stop someone from rolling Heavy Bombers, or LRA and screwing up the game out of the first round? Tech is too volatile in OOB Revised. The game is just better without it. Even in LHTR, it totally throws things off balance, and reduces everything to the craps game you mentioned above.

Do you A) Like 9 Victory Cities and play a game of luck instead of skill and strategy or B) Like a game where you have to actually win the game and Victory Cities are just those cute little stars on the map?

I really think the problem with VCs in Revised, is that they have no influence on the game other than the stated victory conditions. It just makes them too easy to ignore. They need to actually do something for you (in real gameplay terms) and then people might start to take VC wins more seriously. Tweaking the numbers or the locations alone won’t fix the problem.

Rules seem a little complex.

If you’re introducing them as a full player, why not get rid of the inf popping thing altogether?
I think if its going to be worth the effort, they should play using the same rules as everyone else.

I don’t think the KIF strategy is what everyone makes it out to be. Maybe you guys are playing against opponents who like to concede early or something.  :-D

For the endgame, you can’t just trade Moscow for Rome, in the same way that you can trade Moscow for Berlin. Plus Italy does not have a very large purse to capture, so it could be that you waste all your money and time trying to Kill Italy, and succeed, only to find the Japs in Moscow. Which turns the whole thing on its head again 2v2.

I guess if you’re the kind of player who always calls the game when a capital falls, the KIF thing would work. But the real reason why KGF was more attractive than KJF in revised, was because of the endgame dynamic. For the Allies, Germans in Moscow/USA in Tokyo was a deadlier proposition than Japs in Moscow/USA in Berlin, so they’d go KGF to ensure the endgame advantage. I think the Italy thing is going to have to be evaluated the same way (eg. can you afford to send everything into the Med, and still secure Moscow from the remaining Axis players? Is it worth it?.)

Just food for thought :)

Am I the only one pissed that this has turned into a KGF?

Trust me, you’re definitely not the only one irritated by this.

The game is balanced, its just you that play it wrong.

Man that statement is so far off the mark, its almost not worth addressing.  :-D
By that logic, every version of A&A is balanced. All you have to do is ignore the winning strategies, which the game mechanics recommend, and make esoteric purchasing decisions in the first round. But there’s a reason nobody does that… because they want to win the game.

The one directional playstyle should be taken seriously, and accounted for/discouraged by the rules and the starting unit set up. Especially since this has been like the one unequivocal complaint that everyone keeps voicing, across all the editions so far.  Fix the KGF already!  Put more Allied production in the South Pacific, so the Allies are forced to fight a Pacific war. ;)

I gotta go with IL on this one.

Its either gonna be Tank stacks, or Bombers+Infantry. Everything else just feels like a waste of cash to me.

Yeah P-unit, I feel the exact same way.
National Objectives were a good idea, but the implementation was not what I was hoping for.

I feel like they made the same mistake with National Advantages in Revised. There are just too many, and as a result people find them too hard to integrate into the casual game. I think the AA50 NOs just raised the bar a bit too high for most players. There should have only been 1 per nation, and they should have been engineered to compensate for the disparity in production (especially in the S. Pacific.) Simplicity and ease of use is the most important element of this game, and 1 per nation would have been much easier to track.

I think the problem is that Larry just gets all these people throwing nuanced House Rules at him all the time, and pushing him to increase the complexity of the game beyond what it should be. Almost all of the posts in the AA-50/Deluxe and AA-Advanced section of his website seem to be heading that direction. I don’t dig it though.

Axis and Allies was never that kind of wargame, and it shouldn’t be twisted into one.
If they really do move to anything other than a 6 sided die, the game will lose all its charm for me.

Right now I like the 42 set up, with no Tech and no National Objectives. :)

But then, I’d also want the board blown up to 2X size and placed on a lighted table with different LEDs that I can switch to change the color of the territory to the owning nations color.

Also, under the table should be a keg-erator with a spigot as well, I would think.

Lets have the tournament at your house. I’d totally show out for a board that glorious :D

I’m having a real love hate reaction to the National Objectives.

On the one hand I like the idea, because they provide a model for customizing the game (via addition House NOs) but then you have the issue of uniformity, and ease of use.

Right now I don’t think the NOs are changing the gameplay enough to warrant how complicated they are to explain and keep track of. If they were blowing the lid off the game, and producing intense dual front action every time, then sure, I’d be all for memorizing everything. But the current NOs seem to still favor a KGF playstyle that is only slightly different from the previous one.

A heftier American Nation Objective in the Pacific would have been nice. They should really be collecting closer to 50 ipcs a round if you want players to seriously fight in two directions at once. Otherwise you’re always going to get people going after the magnified “All Europe” or “All Pacific” gameplan.

If we gave the money to the bank instead, it would certainly make Moscow and Berlin a little less dominant. I think people would still rush the center of the board, but it might be enough to deter an all or nothing strategy.

I think Moscow and the Capital rules, are only one half of the problem though. The other part, and in my mind the more important part, is the distribution of production/IPCs all across the board. These are weighted so heavily in favor of the Eurasian landmass, that changing the capital rules alone might not be enough. I really think the only way we’re going to see consistent fighting in the Pacific is if more IPCs are distributed there. Adjusted capital rules would definitely help though.

The Question:

1.  What is your view on VC’s in general?

2.  What do you think is the ideal number of VC’s to win the game?

3.  Do you think this number should change depending on the 1941/1942 Scenario?

The Answer:

1. VCs are a good idea, but pretty much ineffective so long as the current “capture the Capital, take all the cash” rules are still in place. The stated Victory Conditions of Revised and AA50, are not enough to trump the familiar dynamic out of Classic. I think there are a number of reasons for this, not least of which, is the fact that there is not nearly enough consensus as to which number of VCs is best for gameplay. Since the recommended numbers allow for this much variation, it makes a “standard” victory condition even harder to settle on. For example, one player might prefer a 12 VC set up, another 13, and when they meet to play this is a rules point that they can now argue about before the first die is even cast. The old school victories out of Classic were essentially determined by player concession, and the chief determining factor behind concession had to do with the Capitals. Capitals have a real strategic value (within the general framework and mechanics of the game) because of the money thing, but VCs have no comparative influence on the game mechanics. They don’t have any role at all actually, outside of the ‘Victory by VC’ abstraction. If there was a more relevant game feature/element attached to them, even a small one like say +1 ipc per VC, or +1 inf unit at the VC, then everyone might start paying more attention to them.

2. Right now I don’t see an ideal, because of the current VC locations. Too low and you make the game too easy for the Axis player, too high and you have the opposite situation. 12 seems agreeable, but it also makes for a rather short game.  I don’t like it that we have to sacrifice game length for a two front War, and I’m still not sure that other players are going to hop on the VC train this time anyway, so it might be a moot point regardless. With Revised, VCs were typically ignored as irrelevant, since the OOB rules were not clear enough initially, and because VCs didn’t have any other in-game associations beyond the Victory thing. Instead people just reverted to the old concession scheme to determine the Victor, because it was more familiar and less contentious. I’m not sure that AA50 is going to change much with that, since no substantive alterations were made to the way VCs function in the game. They are still way to easy to ignore, because there are no complimentary rules surrounding them (like the money thing), and thus nothing to force their integration into the grand scheme of the game.

3. I think the VC requirement for both sides should be the same, and I don’t think the number should change at all. Instead they need to find a set number which works well for both sides, and add more VCs if need be, until it balances out it an equitable way. 18 VCs in their current locations are not enough, 21 would be better, but only if you start putting them in contested areas of the board. If you put 3 more VCs in North America, then you’d just end up with the same problem again. Right now the easiest solution would be to just knock off all the Capitals, and then start the counting (Washington as a VC is the perfect example of what we need to avoid) but even that leaves me skeptical. I think you really need something more concrete if you want the VC system to take off. Right now the official rules regarding VCs seem so shaky, it doesn’t inspire the confidence in the system that I’d like to see. If 12 VCs is best, then state that in the rules. Don’t allow people to make this part of the game optional, because if you do, then they will, and then we’re right back to square one again.

Something like this for China

I think the Red and Gold are appropriate if you want to properly represent the CPC part of the Second Unified Front. I think a red border ring around the KMT star would probably be good enough, but a thing ring of gold around that would be cool for Mao.

I understand the logic behind requiring the DD to be present in the battle from a game mechanics standpoint (basically because you just want people to buy Destroyers), but from a practical/historical perspective it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

Aircraft were an important part of the Allies’ anti-sub warfare strategy, and carrier based aircraft especially. I feel like either there should be no sub/aircraft interaction, or it should be unrestricted, because otherwise the DD stuff just introduces more unnecessary confusion into the mix. They create a bunch of peculiar sub-specific combat situations, that players then need to keep track of and argue about.

Here is some info on ASW tactics from the wiki, for anyone who’s interested. :)

WW2 Atlantic ASW Tactics

Many different aircraft from airships to four-engined sea- and land-planes were used. Some of the more successful were the Lockheed Ventura, PBY (Catalina or Canso, in British service), Consolidated B-24 Liberator (VLR Liberator, in British service), Short Sunderland, and Vickers Wellington. U-boats were not defenseless, since their deck guns were a very good anti-aircraft weapon. They claimed 212 Allied aircraft shot down for the loss of 168 U-boats to air attack. At one point in the war, there was even a ‘shoot back order’ requiring U-boats to stay on the surface and fight back, in the absence of any other option.

The provision of air cover was essential. The Germans at the time had been using their Focke-Wulf Fw 200 “Condor” long range aircraft to attack shipping and provide reconnaissance for U-boats, and most of their sorties occurred outside the reach of existing land-based aircraft that the Allies had; this was dubbed the Mid-Atlantic gap. At first, the British developed temporary solutions such as CAM ships and merchant aircraft carriers. These were superseded by mass-produced, relatively cheap escort carriers built by the United States and operated by the US Navy and Royal Navy. There was also the introduction of long-ranged patrol aircraft.

Many U-boats feared aircraft, as the mere presence would often force them to dive, disrupting their patrols and attack runs. There was a significant difference in the tactics of the two navies. The Americans favored aggressive hunter-killer tactics using escort carriers on search and destroy patrols, whereas the British preferred to use their escort carriers to defend the convoys directly. The American view was this tactic did little to reduce or contain U-boat numbers. The British view was influenced by the fact they had had to fight the battle of the Atlantic alone for much of the war, with very limited resources. There were no spare escorts for extensive hunts, and it was only important to neutralize the U-boats which were found in the vicinity of convoys. The survival of convoys was critical, and if a hunt missed its target a convoy of strategic importance could be lost.

Once America joined the war, the different tactics were complementary, both suppressing the effectiveness of and destroying U-boats. The increase in Allied naval strength allowed both convoy defense and hunter-killer groups to be deployed, and this was reflected in the massive increase in U-Boat sinking in the latter part of the war. The British developments of ASDIC, Centimetric Radar and the Leigh Light also reached the point of being able to support U-Boat hunting towards the end of the war, while at the beginning technology was definitely on the side of the submarine. Commanders such as F. J. “Johnnie” Walker RN were able to develop integrated tactics which made the deployment of hunter-killer groups a practical proposition.