Posts made by Bridger

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Bridger:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Umm, capitals were historically the primary objective. Also, if you’re able to capture a capital other than France, 99% of the time, you’re going to win anyway. The ipc’s represent the purchasing power lost by the collapse of the government.

That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that it makes the game stale and repetitive.

repetetive? If you don’t want Moscow, you don’t have to go for it. You can have Japan invade Australia and Hawaii instead.

Sure, and I could invade Brazil with Japan too  :roll:

It’s repetitive because it is the optimal strategy.  Sure, if you want to play sub-optimally you can do all kinds of stuff.  But if you don’t care about winning why are you playing the game?  Game systems don’t work unless all players buy into the goals of the game.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Umm, capitals were historically the primary objective. Also, if you’re able to capture a capital other than France, 99% of the time, you’re going to win anyway. The ipc’s represent the purchasing power lost by the collapse of the government.

That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that it makes the game stale and repetitive.

@calvinhobbesliker:

FYI, on this map, capetown is in SW Africa

Johannesburg then.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Bridger:

@Flashman:

This is the fundamental problem caused by the archaic “Capture the Capital” rules: however you try to avoid it, the game always comes down to the Axis trying to capture Moscow before the Allies bring their combined industrial muscle to bear.

This makes Moscow the inevitable prime objective for Germany (except perhaps London, which must be achieved without Japanese help), and as the above posts suggest this is only likely with Japanese help from the east.

No matter how many territories Larry places between Moscow and Manchuria, or how many false diversions towards “Victory Cities”, the C-t-C rule will always bring those Axis armies towards Moscow like a giant magnet.  The huge benefits of closing down the Russian economy are still so vast that any other Axis strategy is completely insane.

This is why so many house rules delete the rule in favour of a power being able to collect money from every territory it holds regardless of capitals, and produce units as long as it has a factory remaining.  In other words, the Axis must close down the Russian economy by stages, capturing all it’s industrial centres in turn, rather than the inevitable drive to Moscow.

There should in fact be 5 such centres in Russia, with Kiev (west Ukraine) and Chelyabinsk (Novosibirsk) having factories and respectable IPC values.  Japan can cast envious eyes on the Siberian factory, but with the race to Moscow no longer the key to everything, a long term Pacific adventure may be more rewarding.

This.  Fucking THIS.  I’ve always hated the capitol capture rules.  They are the only things that immediately end the game no questions asked, so it’s the only goal of any player.  It makes the game extremely repetitive because the only feasible capitol to capture is Moscow for the Axis and Berlin (maybe Rome, though it’s much harder to pull off) for the allies.  If you remove the capitol capture rule and make victory cities a more thoughtful component, the game play would be significantly more diverse.

Axis don’t need to take Moscow, London, or any North American territories to win.

I never said they did, but since capitol capture is an instant win (in 95% of cases) it still has a huge impact upon optimal play.  There is very little incentive to do anything else with the instant win condition dangling there so easily.

My ideal house rule would be to remove VCs in locations which never see any action (washington?  LA? Ottowa?  Are you serious?) and provide an instant win for axis and instant win for allies based on VCs (one which is attainable without capturing capitols, forcing players to attack/defend more than one spot, thus increasing possible strategies).

Off the top of my head I would add a VC to South Africa (Cape Town) and then say:

Axis win with:

1. Total of 12 VCs between the two theaters
   OR
2. 6 of the 7 in the pacific
   OR
3. 7 of the 10 in Europe/Africa.

Allies win with:

1. 10 Total VCs Starting End of Turn 4
   OR
2. 4 of the 7 in Pacific Starting End of T4 (they start with 5 on T1)
   OR
3. 7 of the 10 in Europe Starting End of T4
   OR
4. Capture of Japan (very hard to do compared to Moscow if Japan is paying attention, and only provided to prevent Japan from ignoring it’s capitol in favor of land rush).

Would need to playtest this to see if it’s too easy for Axis/allies and need to maybe adjust a number or two.

Then I would weaken the capitol capture rules to only give half cash to victor and still allow loser to earn income and produce in remaining factories (even build one if neccessary).  This would provide a reason for the Quebec factory to exist (in case London falls).  This, IMHO, would provide a much more dynamic game.  Does Italy drive hard for Cape Town?  Do the brits fight for Africa (and it’s two VCs) or try to stall them in continental Europe?  The US cannot ignore Japan because if they take all VCs but 1 (honalulu, calcutta, or sydny most like) axis win.  Japan has a much bigger incentive to work historically and not drive for Moscow.

@Gargantua:

There is nothing wrong with Capital Capturing rules.
CtC rule has almost no impact on game strategy for anybody past begginer and possibly intermediate players mixed with beginners.

Wrong.  You just spent an entire post describing how this game is all about economics.  Then you want to tell us that the biggest posible economic swing in the game (capitol capture) doesn’t matter as an incentive?  :roll:

@Flashman:

This is the fundamental problem caused by the archaic “Capture the Capital” rules: however you try to avoid it, the game always comes down to the Axis trying to capture Moscow before the Allies bring their combined industrial muscle to bear.

This makes Moscow the inevitable prime objective for Germany (except perhaps London, which must be achieved without Japanese help), and as the above posts suggest this is only likely with Japanese help from the east.

No matter how many territories Larry places between Moscow and Manchuria, or how many false diversions towards “Victory Cities”, the C-t-C rule will always bring those Axis armies towards Moscow like a giant magnet.  The huge benefits of closing down the Russian economy are still so vast that any other Axis strategy is completely insane.

This is why so many house rules delete the rule in favour of a power being able to collect money from every territory it holds regardless of capitals, and produce units as long as it has a factory remaining.  In other words, the Axis must close down the Russian economy by stages, capturing all it’s industrial centres in turn, rather than the inevitable drive to Moscow.

There should in fact be 5 such centres in Russia, with Kiev (west Ukraine) and Chelyabinsk (Novosibirsk) having factories and respectable IPC values.  Japan can cast envious eyes on the Siberian factory, but with the race to Moscow no longer the key to everything, a long term Pacific adventure may be more rewarding.

This.  Fucking THIS.  I’ve always hated the capitol capture rules.  They are the only things that immediately end the game no questions asked, so it’s the only goal of any player.  It makes the game extremely repetitive because the only feasible capitol to capture is Moscow for the Axis and Berlin (maybe Rome, though it’s much harder to pull off) for the allies.  If you remove the capitol capture rule and make victory cities a more thoughtful component, the game play would be significantly more diverse.

@Krieghund:

Kamikaze attacks occur on the Allied players’ turns, not on Japan’s turn.  Like scrambling, they are a reaction to enemy combat movement.  As a result, any attacking carriers’ planes will be in the air, unless they belong to an ally and being carried as cargo.

If this is the case, it is quite unclear in the rules.  I reread that section a number of times and it seemed to indicate that it would occur at the beginning of the conduct combat phase after allied units “had” been moved into a sea zone with the kamakazi symbol.  The use of the past tense here could indicate that the units in question were moved there last turn, not necessarily “just moved.”

I personally prefer the interpretation where the kamikaze attacks happen right after allied movement phase, but that is not how the rules word it.

This is a bit ambiguous, but this is how i read it.  Any clarification?

Our situation is as such:

American carriers outside iwo jima (captured last turn).  Japanese moved in the entire japanese navy and air force and decalred kamakazis on the carriers.

If they are damaged, the planes on the carriers do not participate yes?

If they are destroyed, the planes go down with the carriers, yes?

Or do the fighters/tacs launch in the movement phase before the kamakazi attacks?

And the rulebook is ambiguous, but it seems to indicate that kamakazis can be used during th conduct combat phase, and since it’s a japanese power it’s on the japanese turn.

Update:

We found a section in the carrier section that says the carriers always launch planes when they come under attack and the planes are always considered to be defending in the air.  This seems to apply to kamakazi atttacks as well.

@RJL518:

after all the complaints that WOTC has received concerning the pieces and the battle strip and the errors in the rulebook…we will have to just wait and see…but im getting europe anyway…its gonna be a blast to play A&A on the large board when combined

You (and people like you) are the reason they made a low quality $90 game.  “they did a terrible job but i’m going to buy it anyway” wtf?

I see a lot of people mentioning the british taking the Dutch East Indies while they are still “neutral.”  This is not allowed as per the errata that is currently posted.  No neutral countries can attack other neutrals until japan attacks them.

Was there a large need for bombers to go down to 12 instead of 14?  At 14 you’d still see them bought in force by UK or US or even Germany sometimes.

I agree, taking out the CC rules without adding another way to “end the game” wouldn’t work well for the game’s length.

However, i think the way to end the game is built in.  Play to 12/13 VCs with no CC rules.  I think that keeps the game at a decent length and adds more depth.  The All for Berlin/Moscow strategy isn’t as powerful in this variant, leading to other possible strategies.

I think it is broken, because it adds game ending punishment on top of something that is already extremely devastating.  Does it have to give all the money to enemy and prevent full production in order to be effective?

What if the only special rule involved giving up your money to the bank but you can still produce out of small factories (though obviously with no money on the first turn after capture).

Isn’t that enough to produce whatever desired effect it is designed to produce?  Is the full money turnover and lack of production element really required to generate the type of play the rules intend to generate?  I guess that’s really a question that depends on what Larry and the other designers wanted the rule to accomplish.

You make some good points (especially about rome being left unguarded).  However, in such a situation I think if germany liberated Rome before Italy’s turn, this would simply simulate rome being faught over for a long period of time (as it was, in fact, during the war).  Instead of a single invasion going in and holding the whole territory in one landing, you must follow up on the attack (or have attacked with enough troops to defend) in order to truly hurt your opponent.  A single throwaway suicide invasion represents what, historically?  The allies go in and loot Rome (for the IPCs with CC rules) then ship those off and lose the divisions they sent there?

Why should we reward that suicide invasion?  You are correct in that no CC rules would give less incentive for the Italian’s to leave strong defences there, but doesn’t it also lower the incentive of the allies to attack (even a weak target) unless they think they can hold it?  Is the loss of 6 IPC worth of infantry worth the disruption to german lines and the 6 IPC gain (i think that’s how much rome is worth in A&A50?)?  What are the other opertunity costs you could have done with those transports and units?

It seems to me it would still be valuable to capture an enemy capitol, especially if you can hold on to it, even without the CC rules.

I understand your apprehension about a situation where Japan discounts the loss of tokyo and just surges on into Soviet territory with mainland factories, but I guess I actually wouldn’t mind that too much.  I would prefer to see the game fight over the whole map than always over europe.  Besides, if Japan has lost it’s home island, that means it can’t defend it’s other island properties or it’s mainland properties (such as manchuria, where it most likely has a complex).  So i doubt it would be able to just “ignore” the loss of the home islands.

*This is a gameplay discussion - I understand that losing the capitol historically would be very very bad, but that’s not reason enough to put it in a game that is only loosely based on history IMHO.  It needs to serve a gameplay function, and not hurt the game in the process.

I don’t think there actually needs to be any special rules for capitol capture.  To me, as long as capturing a capitol has such amazingly powerful implications (they can’t produce for two turns, capturing party gets a huge boost to their income), it’s going to dominate the strategy of the game.

If the current capitol capture rules stay in the game, it seems the major strategies will always revolve around capturing berlin for the allies or capturing moscow for the axis.  Everybody seems to agree that once one of those things happens the other side can’t come back (or is very far from making a comeback).

If you remove the special capture rules, it’s still a HUGE blow to capture someone’s capitol (they lose their biggest IPC generator, and their biggest (sometimes their only) production center.

This is why japan players always try to attack the soviets.  Even when Larry makes it harder, they still try to do it, because it’s still more worthwhile to kill moscow and fight a pitiful little war in the pacific, than to actually go for VCs and fight over the whole map (wouldn’t it be more interesting if we fought over the world and not just Europe?)

I wonder how the game would play at 12 VCs and no special capitol capture rules (can still produce and keep money when capitol is captured).  I actually played a game on the Revised map where someone added a lot of VCs (many mirroring the A&A50 ones) and it felt very tense as the axis constantly got one VC away from victory then the allies managed to grab back Leningrad just as japan captured Sydney.  I liked that game a lot for that reason.  The game was also well balanced, as the allies came back almost to win (multiple times), but some really bad dice rolls killed them in a climactic eastern front battle.

What do you guys think about the capitol capture rules?  There’s a very important balancing act done by every game (especially territory based strategy games) that i call Perpetual Comeback mechanic vs. Slippery Slope Mechanic.  The capitol capture rules are an example of a slippery slope mechanic.  Many Euro games whereby the person in last place gets the more favorable starting position for the next turn is an example of a perpetual comeback mechanic.

A slippery slope mechanic rewards the winning player for being in the lead/punishes the losing player.  Basically a slippery slope mehcanic causes the player that’s farther behind to fall further behind.  Usually game mechanics by default will reward people for being in the lead, you don’t need to help it by adding extra rules that make that reward even greater!

I will quote a wise game designer who introduced me to this concept (link to article at the bottom of this post):

@Sirlin.net:

For example, imagine that every time your team scored in basketball that the opponent’s team lost a player. In that game, falling behind is doubly bad because each basket counts for score AND it makes the opposing team less able to score points of its own. The actual game of basketball does not have this screwy feature though, so real basketball does not have slippery slope. Scoring in real basketball puts you closer to winning but does not at all hamper your opponents’ ability to score.

A perpetual comeback mechanic is a mechanic that rewards the losing player/punishes the winning player.  These types of mechanics are sometimes required if you want the game to be fun, as many games start out (by design) heavily in favor of slippery slope.

Just think of the two as the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (game mechanics).

A game too far on the slippery slope side ends up being really boring past a certain point because everybody knows who is going to win and you’re just going through the motions.  If an RTS game was too slippery slope, for example.  Winning the first battle means you will probably win the game - as every battle you win increases your chances of winning the next battle.  So why keep playing after the first battle?

A game too far on the perpetual comeback side ends up being very annoying for skilled players who would like to be rewarded for doing well, and not punished.  It could even make the game so random that skill doesn’t matter (i’m looking at you MARIO KART!).

So you neither want slippery slope nor perpetual comeback mechanics to define your game, but if we take a look at A&A, what do we see?

Slippery Slope:

1. Capturing territory takes away IPC from the loser and gives it to the victor (a swing 2x as big as the IPC value of the territory).
2. Capturing territory with an industrial complex/AA gun takes it from the loser and gives it to the victor (the delay in production for the capturing side is actually a limit on this slippery slope mechanic).
3. Winning a battle well (you killed more IPC than he did) means you have a greater chance of winning the next one (your TUV compared to his is higher than it was before the battle).
4. Capturing a Capitol gives you a huge money boost, and completely removes the enemy from being able to produce anything, effectively killing off their power if you manage to hold it.  (this is added directly on top of 1 and 2, both of which are more exacerbated with capitols due to the high IPC/production value of the territory)

Perpetual Comeback mechanics:

1. defending is usually more cost effective than attacking - (inf stack + planes much more useful on defence)
2. Once someone starts to gain a lot of territory on an opponent, the losing party gets to focus all of their forces in one place and strike at the thinned out forces of the enemy who is far from their production facility.
3. Planes Cannot land in newly captured territory (this would be an even bigger perpetual comeback mechanic if it allowed for planes to land in “liberated” territory but not “captured” territory).

Can you guys come up with any more?  Now we’re at the subjective part of the argument.  Are the Capture Capitol rules needed in order to prevent the game from taking too long?  Are they necessary to make up for the perpetual comeback mechanics of the game?  I would say no, because Slippery Slope Mechanics #1 and #2 are both very powerful and are even more powerful when you consider the importance of capitol IPC and production.

What are your thoughts?  Are there, in fact, other game-winning (either 13 or 15 VP) strategies that work better/are easier to pull off than capture moscow/berlin?

BTW - you can check out a great article on Slippery Slope vs. Perpetual Comback game design here:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback.html

@P-Unit:

I dislike both Victory Cities AND National Objectives, for the same reasons. First, they create a black hole affect, almost forcing players to congregate to specific areas of the board. While this can, and usually does, result in play closer to the historical time line, it lessons the strategic options players have and makes each game play out similarly (I prefer games that allow for various strategies). The second reason I dislike both, when either or both are used, is that variable VCs and optional NOs make the game SO different that everyone has their own personal preferences and it’s hard to get everyone to agree on how to play because everyone has their personal preference and knows how the game flows and has their own strategies under the ruleset they use.

These reasons may seem contradicting, but they aren’t. I really hoped they would have one way to win the game and balanced the game with that in mind, and tweaked the game so that it was playable in a resonable amount of time. As it is now, the 15 VP game takes no less than 6 hours, usually 10+, and 13 VC games can be over in 2 turns. Too much chaos.

I agree they should have just gone with balancing one section.  I also dislike the capitol capture mechanic as it seems to be a bit too much of a slippery slope mechanic.  Maybe it’s necessary, but i wonder what the game would play like with more contested VCs (less like ottowa), and don’t have any extra penalties for capturing capitols.

I mean, the capitol of most countries is often it’s biggest IPC territory and most powerful industrial complex.  Losing this is a big enough blow without the additional money transfer and lack of production ability anywhere else.  Maybe the game would be too long without it, but it seems to keep the game squarely stuck on the tired “get to moscow whatever the cost” for axis and “get to berlin whatever the cost” allied strategies.

Until the capitols are less overwelmingly important, berlin and moscow will always be the main targets of the game, and thus limit the strategy :(

@TG:

12 seems to be the magic number for me.  15 is really stupid IMHO.  It’s basically saying “well, you got 14 VC, that means you must have complete domination of the game right now, but that’s not enough!  You have to play through another two boring turns because everybody already knows the outcome!”

The more I think on it, the more 12 settles on me as the “right” choice.  I think 12 VCs really captures the excitement and urgency of a sweeping board game.  But whether the correct number is 12 or 13, that’s up to the playtesters (you guys) to foresee.  I’m hoping this issue gets resolved quickly, because there’s nothing more unsatisfying to players than changing How You Win The Game.

Just a thought, but do guys think the VC requirement for both sides should be equal?

12/13 seems like an acceptable number for the Axis.

11/12 seems like a better number for the Allies.

If you look at the Victory Cities list from my initial post, you will be hard pressed to think of a game state the Axis can recover from if the Allies control even 12 VCs.

With 13 VCs, Allies victory depends on taking Paris, Warsaw, Rome/Berlin, and Calcutta.  If the Allies take just two of these three (Paris, Warsaw, Rome/Berlin), then frankly, they’ve won.

Now you guys are all screaming at me for the countless times you’ve seen a lone Berlin hold on until the Japanese effort arrived.  To say the least it’s probably the most rewarding way for the game to end.  But if the Japanese player can’t take Calcutta (#13), what hope does he have of taking Moscow?

The reason I postulated 11 VCs is because it provides an impetus for the Japanese to go after Sydney or Honolulu.  If the Japanese takes either, they’ve forestalled an Allied victory until the fall of Berlin.  The American knows this and will fight to maintain possession.  The Pacific is a battleground.

A slight against this argument is that forcing Japan to go after Honolulu/Sydney limits her efforts in Russia.  However, I contend that Japan should make a move towards either early in the game and if America counterattacks (abandoning the Europe first strategy), then Russia should never be in a position to take Warsaw.

Maybe instead of making it more complicated (one side needs fewer VCs than the other) we could change one VC so it’s not a “gimmie” allied VC and is instead more contested?  My suggestion would be move ottowa to Cairo and keep it at 12 for both sides.

@Silent:

The only reason is that even without surprise attacks subs for let’s say 24 ipcs (4 subs) beat 24 ipcs of destroyers (3 destroyers) on both offense and defense on average.

I guess that’s a decent enough point.  I guess i just want germany to have a naval game but it doesn’t really exist :(

Bring back convoy spaces! :P  (or even an optional rule - for every sub germany has in the atlantic at the end of their turn - UK loses that many IPCs.).

I never liked the implementation of destroyers in A&A.  Basically all one player has to do to innoculate themselves against sub attacks is build a single destroyer per fleet.

So US and UK each build a single 8 IPC unit (or maybe two) and it completely removes the unit from play for the germans.

Huh?  Why should 16 IPCs completely invalidate a unit’s usefulness?

I always enjoyed the house rule of the destroyer’s ability to cancel sub’s specials being a 1-to-1 ratio.  I.E. a single destroyer cannot stop a vastly larger number of subs.  Are the ASW capabilities of the destroyer endless?  no matter how many fleets of submarines, this one fleet of destroyers can stop all of them from getting a sneak attack?  It seems bad from a gameplay and realism perspective.  Instead, for every destroyer present, one sub loses it’s opening fire/submerge/submersible abilities.  So if you attack a fleet with 3 subs and they only have one destroyer, two subs still get opening fire.

This makes much more sense in terms of gameplay and actually allows for utilizing a sub strategy as germany.  Anybody have any reason this shouldn’t be the case?

12 seems to be the magic number for me.  15 is really stupid IMHO.  It’s basically saying “well, you got 14 VC, that means you must have complete domination of the game right now, but that’s not enough!  You have to play through another two boring turns because everybody already knows the outcome!”

Most sides would concede by the time the other gets 13 or 14 VCs, 15 is just stupid.  You know the game is over at 13, it might as well be the official end game.  if somebody can come up with a scenario whereby one side gets 14 VCs and the other side is still in a position to win, be my guest.