Topics created by Black_Elk

@Black_Elk

Cool. I think it works. If using the smallest one you’ll also need to add India.

@black_elk Rock On !!!.png

@black_elk said in Working on a New Map 40/41: Seeking Suggestions:

perhaps with some map making type tutorials in the same way that Pact of Steel 2 taught how to create an xml and such

:+1:

I was just trying to visual what the coolest possible legacy product for me would be.

A 3 or 4 section split map, so that its easy to move or store a set board. A rigid material that doesn’t get wet or bend, or worn from folding (since its sectional.) Something printed on metal would be coolest, because that would allow for Cyanite style magnetic sculpts and also a way to stack the sectional board, using pylons or columns like an inch or so high, you could stack a set board on top of itself with the sculpts in place for easier storage on top of a shelf or corner of a table (since A&A is such a long game that would be particularly rad).

A double sided map would be sweetest, with the obverse serving as the main base map, and the reverse something more customizable. So maybe a political historical theme for the front map (all the pretty national colors, with the labeling of things like VCs or starting territory control with little roundels etc being printed directly on it.) The reverse side could be a more stripped down build-it-yourself topographical map, showing the basic territory and sz divisions, but using movable control markers to indicate things like VCs and starting territories control. On upside down, it could then service multiple scenarios or different start dates.

Magnetic sculpts, with chips, baseplates and risers for easy grouping and stacking.

WW2 nation themed unit trays, dice, and dice tower.

The underside of the box lid itself, could serve as a large battle board field for multiple encounters per turn. Something that shows the base attack/defense power (“hits at”) in Rows 1-4, and shows moves remaining on the attacker side (“moves left”) in columns to the far right or left of each row 1-5. That way all the critical gameplay information is preserved when moving sculpts from the map to the battle box and back again. Movable battle markers could be used to indicate which square on the battleboard field corresponds to which territory or sz on the map. Since there is a lot of room on the box lid, you could also have a field/marker that is used to expand a territory or sea zone that is becoming overcrowded. Similar to the blow up boxes on the Classic map, but more adaptive.

The inside of the box base could serve (as it often already does), for rolling the dice and housing the sculpt trays, but with a tower this would make it easier to save space.

Using a sectional map rather than a folding map, with pylons everything could be stacked on top of itself, even for a set game. And then moved around easily from spot to spot. Basically a longer box, with a narrower attack profile hehe

The 1942 game map in print is 40″ x 26″ but its comprised of two folding pieces of cardboard which is harder to move around without a backing and takes up a lot of space when set. Global and AA50 also use folding maps. A rigid sectional map that was more like 12x24 in 4 panels would be larger when playing but easier to transport when set, and a lot smaller when stacked so you could have something a little closer in total size/space to the game box itself. Just a few inches taller. With magnets stuff wouldn’t shift around, so it’d be easier to leave out without dominating the room.

Then for the manual something like a gamemaster’s guide, or a players handbook or DMG in D&D but for Axis and Allies. Like with a layout of the standard rules for the scenario or campaign that comes in the box, but also with a section at the end on the history of the game, and ideas for how to customize or create new scenarios, paint sculpts, add to the game and whathaveyou.

Something like that would be platinum plus. Take all my loot hehe

@DoManMacgee

Yeah there are some funky dice results. Worst one is they exacerbate the RNG problems by doing a multiplier–so in one battle they rolled 1,2,4,4,5,6 but the x6 marker fell on the 1 and 2, giving them 12/18 hits on 18 '2’s. Disappointing given how hard it would be to roll 1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,4,4,4,4,5,6.

Some of the players are plenty good, its not really a good idea to let noobs on your team its better just to play the whole dang team yourself.

Still some problems with lag but already seeing improvement.

Indications from the latest Q&A would seem to confirm that A&Aonline won’t have a lot in the way of set up adjustment, at least in early access. So I’m suggesting this rule as the only thing I can think of right now to reset the playbalance in a way that will actually work with the game we get.

I still don’t know what sort of patterns would ultimately develop on balance, but at least it is a way to get something new going for a 1942.2 that strictly uses the boxed starting set up.

I imagine this only works for PvP, so not sure how they will handle solo play vs the AI.

I was referring to @Black_Elk 's project.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog That’s similar enough to what was done in AAC, the “Russia can’t attack on their first turn” rule. Basically, it gave Germany a turn to get their valuable Tanks and their irreplaceable FTR out of their indefensible positions in Russia. This change gives Germany a stronger initial force, which snowballs, as it takes Russia/UK longer to kill Germany, which in turn gives Japan more time to gobble up IPCs on their side of the map.

For 42SE, giving the Allies a turn to not die saves:

The USSR IC in Karelia, which means it could be a feasible point to hold for a few rounds.

The entire UK Fleet, which speeds up the UK/US’s deployment to Europe/Russia/Africa.

The US Atlantic Fleet, as some German openings favor sending a sub or two after the US East Coast on G1.

The US Pacific Fleet, as no J1 attack on it is possible.

The US FTR in China, which can be redeployed to either help the Soviets or link up with the Pacific Fleet.

Great idea. Hope to see it implemented in-game.

Another thing regarding balance, unless you have three turns off really bad rolls, Japan can take India on turn 3 and there’s not much UK and US can do about it. Scenario was in a tournament, using LHTR setup, a bid of 11 or 12 to Allies, and sunk or severely damaged the fleet in SZ 37. I was even warned almost exactly how it would go down and I still couldn’t stop it.

It’s hard to stop roughly 12 ground units, 2-3 fighters, 4 bombers, and a battleship bombardment. (I think those numbers are about right, might be more).

@Eqqman When I was playing this heavily (played a lot in Season 1 and got to Platinum, got too busy with IRL stuff + got fed-up with bad dice luck Season 2 and haven’t played much past my qualifier games) Players didn’t start becoming competent until like high Gold Tier in Ranked. Especially the Axis Players, as the balance in 42SE (even the Gencon Rules, which is what Ranked uses exclusively) is in-favor of the Axis to the point where a lot of Axis Players can do totally wonky stuff and still win through the sheer advantage (at least on-paper) that the Axis have in the starting setup (win rates in Platinum Tier are probably more even, but the Allies are much harder to play at a high level in 42SE than the Axis are, IMO).

I use a bit different set up in my games. Bombers do well at strategic bombing while still keeping other options.

inf 1/2/1 3Pu AA
art 2/2/1 4Pu AA +1 attack bonus to infantry
arm 3/3/2 5Pu AA blitz

fig 2/2/4 5Pu 2 air at 3 air def
bom 2/1/6 6Pu 2 air at, strategic bomber

sub 2/1/2 4Pu
tra 0/0/0 5Pu
des 2/2/2 6Pu
cru 3/3/2 9Pu AA bombard 3
car 1/2/2 12Pu AA
b.s 4/4/2 16Pu AA bombard 4 2HP

trench 0/1/0 3Pu 2HP, repair, only one can be placed per territory per round.

Well I’m still not sure how simple it is to implement a group phase like the warchest concept I mentioned.

Might be advisable to keep regular war bonds in the back pocket. And the +5 for capturing an enemy VC as outlined in the master thread would be good to have as a toggle. Since at least we know both of those mechanics work in tripleA.

But yeah I think the warchest VC concept has promise, if it can work in 1942.2, I’m pretty sure it will work even better in Global.

This is 1942.2, not Global 1942. The US starts at war.

@Marshmallow:

It would be even more effective if the US could spend its money to build bases on Allied territory, regardless of whether or not the US owned the territory.

For that matter, the US should also be able to produce units at the factories in France (as a whole) on its turn even after France (the territory) has been liberated. Historically, the US provided everything for the French army after the liberation of Paris – the French could not supply their own army at all after Paris was liberated.

Marsh

This!  :-D

@Krieghund:

I’ve been talking with Larry about this issue, and it’s under review.  We’d be very interested in knowing how changing Sierra Leone to an original UK territory would impact game balance, so any feedback from games played that you fine folks can provide will be appreciated.

More discussions about the Sierra Leone change can be found in the G40 forum section here…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37805.0

If you guys get a chance to test this change, it’d be great to hear from you. I think its pretty exciting because this is the first time in a while that an official change to the Errata/FAQ for 1940 has come under consideration from the designers.

Particularly helpful would be some feedback on how this change impacted your impression of overall balance in the Europe 1940 game, or the Global 1940 game. Did it adjust the way you played, or the need for bid (or reduce the amount of that bid)? Did you see any new opening strategies employed? Was it fun? Etc.

The more test games we can look over the better. So if you’ve been waiting for another chance to take a crack at Europe 1940, or Global 1940, now would be a great time!

Thanks again, and good gaming all!

@Black_Elk:

Again, it’s not the be-all end-all by any stretch, granted. But still the option for a base in 87 is better than no option. Or that was my thinking when I called it a potential game changer.
:-D

Absolutely, and I agree -
I know the game would be improved and not diminished in any way if Sierra Leone were made to be a British territory at game start

We like to use an “Arms Buildup” instead of setting up the game the same way every time. People spend 7 rounds gradually building up the forces they want before the action starts. This adds a lot of variation to the games as you have different hot spots in different areas of the map depending on how the setup went.

I still like the idea of the Russia bomber to help even things out.  It hasn’t helped me in my games however it does give Russia a chance to actually win in Ukraine and pose a threat to Japanese transports.