I use painters tape… :-o the blue stuff from H-depot.
Its not pretty, but it sticks enough to hold the boards together and I tape it to the table too. Its easy to take off and it doesnt stick enough to tear the boards (just dont tape the backs of the boards…that paper rips). :x
Just tape the very edge at the connection points and one peice along the two ends and the board stays; it solves the waroing issue too because the board is taped to the table.
The 1" wide roll fits in the box too.
a44bigdog
For those of you that have not discovered playing here through the forums I would urge you to give it a try.
Will do; you make it sound easy and not all that time consuming…surely I can find 15mins a day to play one game. :-)
Hope you did not take offence to my mamma basement comments…just messing with you… :mrgreen:
a44bigdog
I currently have 8 games of AA50 underway at the moment, 6 on the forums and 2 face to face games.
How the heck do you play 8 games at a time? Do you have 8 game boards? And even if your ar just gaming on a PC board on line; how the heck do you find the time to play all those games? Do you not have a job? Family? Friends?..…a LIFE outside of the computer/gaming world? :?
Man…I thought I was addicted to A&A and WW2 history :-P …you guys must not even sleep! I hope anyone that games that much at least finds time to shower everyday. :-o Let me guess, some of you really do live in your moms basement and you don’t have a job…just like one of my cousins boys…he plays world of war craft more hours every week than I work and sleep. :cry:
I’m sorry, maybe it’s my age but I just find it hard to believe that anyone is able to play games that much. With that many games being played at one time, you guys must have really high IQs because how in the heck can you keep all the details of each game clear in your heads? And if your telling me your keeping the details on the PC and just reviewing them every time before you make your moves it sounds even harder to imagine anyone being able to play that many game since the games release because now there’s the extra time required to review the game that you wouldn’t need to do in FTF games.
Call me crazy, dumb, stupid or maybe I am just a really, really, really bad A&A gamer and I just don’t know it, but with that many games rolling around in a persons head (on line or FTF, I just don’t see how it is possible to play all those games at one time with any measure of skill and clarity.
I cant even play 3 games of Texas holdum on line at one time with any measure of skill or clarity (they all just blur together and I cant keep track of which game is which or who is playing certain hands and not player other hands) and that is a very simple game compared to all the details of an A&A game.
You guys are my new heroes! :-D
Funcioneta
Now the questions:
1941: what is the reasoning to say the game is balanced when you can kill an enemy power (China) in round 1, before even that power gets her first move? What is Japan losing if they kill China round 1 (being the advantages of doing it clear)? Really needs axis this to win?
And now for 1942: you cannot kill China J1, but you can still kill their lone and last offensive unit, the fighter, without losing focus in other areas, J1; it’s so easy that is a no brainer move. What is the reasoning for this? Really needs axis this badly to win? What is Japan losing if they kill the fighter J1?(because the advantages of doing it are pretty obvious)
Granted I’m not one of the play testers (or the designer…obviously) but, part of the answer(s) to your questions seem obvious to me. :-)
Evolution…and…Game Scale.
The game has evolved over time to what it is now by making small changes to the game in an attempt to better reflect history while still trying to keep it in line with its original design and “scale”.
A&A is not/has not/ will never be (hopefully) the type of game that takes into account EVERY stinking little detail of WW2 history. Its scale is hugely abstract which makes details of history easily lost to playability and personal observations and interpretation.
As far as the China thing, history shows that even Japan believed that they needed to get rid of china first before taking on the rest of the “world” (they attacked in 1937 and some historians would argue that that was really the beginning of WW2 not the invasion of Poland by the Germans in 1939 that everyone talks about being the start of the war.)
So to make the changes to China that have been done just goes to show (IMO) that someone is reading there history books and trying to incorporate that part of history into a playable part of the game.
WOW! :-o :? :roll:
Cmdr Jennifer
…with over 100 games now, and I stopped counting a while ago, I can say that currently it looks really balanced with National Objectives in 1941.
You say you have already played over 100 games (you lost count?). :? You must play this game everyday or something; didn’t it just get released on November 18th 2008 or something like that (69 days or so ago?)
100/69=1.45 games a day
Average game length/time to play a single game = 4 to 7 hours (rough guess…since I’ve only played 4 complete games of AA50 so far)
Total estimated game time for 100+ games = 400 to 700 hours (rough guess)
69 days x 24 hrs a day = 1656 total available hours since the games release date.
1656 hr – full time job (including travel and lunch time 11 hrs a day for 9 weeks) 495 +/- hours = 1161 hours left
1161 hrs – sleep (8 hrs a day) = 552 +/- hrs = 609 hours
609 hrs left for “free time” in 9 weeks since the game release (for the average Joy/Jolene to have a “life”.)
Granted, I didn’t take into account the thanksgiving and Christmas and new years holiday time or available vacation time, but come on…100 +/- games since November? Maybe just a wee bit exaggeration on how many games of AA50 have been played…especially if your using those condoms you mentioned earlier…and from you picture (if that’s you and not you “so much cooler online” picture), you don’t look like the type of girl to still be living in your moms basement. Do you not have a job (or family) or something?
Maybe you’re playing non stop marathon (no sleep) gaming weekends… :evil:
10 weekends x 2 days each weekend = 20 days x 24 hrs a day = 480 hrs / 5.5 (average single game length) = 87 games leaving 13 games to play over the holidays. Yea, yea, :wink: that must be how you have been able to play 100+/- games since November. Which could explain some of this debate (already) over “balance”; maybe some of your (our) determinations to date of what is skewed (unbalanced) in the game could be from a lack of sleep :wink: (and “relations” :-o …because I still cant figure out when you would have had time to play all those games and still have time to use those condoms… :-P and have a job/life).
I’ve only had my game since December 18 (5 weeks), and I’ve played 4 complete 1941 games, .25 of another 1941 game and 1 other 7 hr 1942 game that ended with out a winner because we ran out of time and I had to stop playing at 7:30 a.m. :cry: to make it home in time to have breakfast and spend the day with my wife. :-D And that last game was the 2nd game played that night; we started at 4 pm the night before with a 1941 game that ended at midnight and than started the second game.
:| Sorry to mess with you like that Cmdr Jennifer (ok… :oops: maybe I’m not…and I’m just saying that so I don’t look like a total jerk), but again, until this game (like AAC and AAR) have been rigorously played; discussing game balance on it is premature to say the least.
I don’t doubt that there will be patterns that will emerge that show a certain ADVANTAGE or DISADVANTAGE for a certain Power or Side in the AA50. I’ll bet they will be very similar to the ones that have emerged in AAC and AAR. After all, ALL the A&A games ARE BASED on the geopolitical history of WW2. And any game that is based on history is BOUND to have “imbalance”. I just wish we could agree to call it something other than balanced or unbalanced; talking about these games like they ar “broke”. The A&A games are not broke; they are just based on history.
I don’t know what (if any) history books (shows) everyone is reading (watching) but the “BROAD BRUSH” history of WW2 was that the Axis DID have the advantage at the start of the war (especially when Russia was more “partial” to the Axis than the Allies…1939 “joint invasion” of Poland) and the Allies GAINED their advantage(s) over time to a LOT of various factors (diligence…and some luck in battle to name just a couple). :-D
So far, ever single game of A&A that I’ve played since classics release has been in keeping with that history. (the little of it I know).
That’s why if players are ALREADY seeing those “typical/historical” “patterns” they/we shouldn’t be surprised. If anything we should be praising the efforts of the designer and play testers for doing such a good job with balancing the game WITH history.
Granted this is a game, and part of the fun of a game is to be able to win no matter what side you are playing on. So, IF EVERY game of A&A played (as it was designed) were to finish with the Allies ALWAYS winning…I wouldn’t want to play it. I play A&A because I want the chance to rewrite history not replay history. If I wanted to replay history…I’d just watch the history channel.
So again, if your/we are already seeing similar patterns of advantage/disadvantage emerging in AA50 we shouldn’t be surprised…its WW2 history.
But if your ALREADY debating about playing a certain set up (1941 or 42) with or without NOs because of the beleif that the gaem is “unblanced” (broken), might I suggest that we/you turn towards the bid…once again. If you want to play the Axis all the time becoause your so SURE that the Axis is the side that is going to win , than give the bid to the allies to offset that personal (perceived) advantage/disadvantage.
But please…can we stop talking about BALANCE as if the game(s) of A&A are somehow “broken”?
The games are not BROKEN…rather they are BALANCED…WITH history.
atarihuana
chess white goes first> advantage… that’s why in pro -tournaments a draw with black is a good result.
How did I know someone would say something like that? I almost put that…point…in my earlier post. :|
In chess (not that I am a great chess player or A&A player for that matter) :-o some could/would argue that going first IS an advantage…and others would argue going first is NOT an advantage. BUT (I don’t know all the “details” to support this…I’m not a HUGE chess fan) but it IS EQUALLY POSSIBLE to win a game of chess no matter if you are the white army or the black army. Going 2nd is not a 100% proven, guaranteed unarguable disadvantage. (or is it?)
TG Moses VI
Builder_Chris, whether it was your intent or not, it seems like your post couldn’t separate the forest from the trees.
That WAS my intent. :wink:
In A&A some would argue that “such and such” is an advantage…and some would argue that that same “such and such” is NOT an advantage. The only fact is that it IS equally POSSIBLE to win a game of A&A no matter if you are the Axis or the Allies. (Right?)
TG Moses VI
No single game is “balanced,” as the outcome of every roll is unpredictable, though after rigorous play testing, patterns start to emerge.
Exactly my point also; BUT are these patterns (of advantage or disadvantage) that have emerged from play testing; are they truly unarguably, guaranteed, provable, measurable advantages/disadvantages? Or are they PERCIEVED advantages/disadvantages?
Each Power/Side in the game has its different…challenges…to overcome in the game. I won’t argue with that at all. But this game (thanks in large part to the dice and in part because it is BASED on history) has way too many immeasurable factors; HOW can anyone truly determine if A&A is unbalanced game unless we reduce the playing field to identical starting factors?
EVREYTHING that IS A&A would need to be reduced to the CORE…basics…much like those of chess to be able to have a “balanced” game.
***The board would need to have an even/equal number of spaces (both of sea and land)and the spaces would need to be arranged so that Continents are the same size, seas are the same size and the positioning of the continents and seas are equally located in relation to each other on the board.
***Both sides would need to start with the same equal amount of game board spaces in their control (Axis gets half the land and sea and Allies get half the land and the sea)
***The teams would need to be the same size (1-v-1, 2-v-2, 3-v-3, etc.).
***Each player would need to start with the same amount of each type of available units (i.e. 8 infantry, 2 tanks, 2 fighters, 2 bombers, 2 carriers, 2 subs, etc, etc, etc…)
The mechanics of the pieces are already EQUAL; just because the Germans have different molds for their pieces than the other Powers do for all of their pieces does not give anyone an advantage or disadvantage (they may look different BUT they ALL work the same).
***IPC values of territories would need to be adjausted to be exactly equal also.
You could reduce the factor of the dice by playing LL (Low Luck) or to make it even more fair you could make it so that each type of unit attacks and defends with the same number (i.e. infantry 1/1, fighters 3/3, bombers 4/4, etc, etc, etc…) OR you could even reduce that to chess like battles, the attacker ALWAYS wins.
A&A is not, has not ever (thankfully) been designed to be THAT TYPE of game. If we truly want true “balance” …play chess…or Stratego.
The primary thing to keep in mind (IMO) is that A&A is this; A Historical Strategy Board Game.
Historical –
1. of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research.
2. based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg.
3. having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian’s study of the historical Jesus.
4. narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past.
5. noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics.
Strategy
1. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson’s strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.
Board Game
1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another.
2. any game played on a board.
Simply because of what A&A has been DESIGNED to be; (A Historical (no matter how loosely some may argue that it is) Strategy Board Game, A&A is bound to be “unbalanced” in some way shape or form.
How bad one BELEIVES that balance is skewed in favor of one Power or Side is (IMO) PURELY a matter of opinion rather than any measurable FACT or any “broken” mechanics of the games design.
So rather than attempting to balance A&A by rewriting/redesigning the game(s) and trying to figure out how to make them something other than what they have been designed to be by rewriting rules that each of us have/could come up with to “correct” the imbalance of the game, why are we not rather ACCEPT…admitting…agreeing…that A&A IS unbalanced (like life…like history) and admit that that is partly why we play it. I know that is a big part of why I play A&A; I like the challenge of trying to rewrite history…as imbalanced as that may have been.
And one last thing…even if there was a way to determine/prove that A&A is an unbalanced game; would any of us argue that it is a game that is NOT worth playing BECAUSE of that imbalance? I don’t think so.
So, I personally have come to believe the “almighty Bid” is the perfect way to “correct” the “imbalance” of any A&A game.
If you really do think the game is unbalanced use a bid. It’s a great simple way to offset any PERCIEVED advantages/disadvantages (CHALLANGES) that a Power/Side and even an individual player might have.
I have a friend that believes I am TOTALLY nuts for giving him an 8 or 9 IPC bid at the start of a game of AAR if he is the Axis and we are playing a 12 city victory condition. He thinks I’m also equally in sane if I give him an 8 or 9 IPC bid at the start of a game of AAR if he is the Allies and we are playing an 8 city victory condition. I don’t believe I am because I perceive/believe that in a Long game the Allies have the advantage and in a short game the Axis have the advantage.
…after rigorous play testing, patterns start to emerge. (showing advantages/disadvantages)
Agreed.
The KEY to what balances EVERY A&A game is operational tempo (Axis) balancing industrial might (Allies).
Also agreed.
Which leads me to my final point; to discuss balance in AAC and AAR is good fun debate…BECAUSE…they have endured such rigorous play testing. But to discuss the balance of AAA is premature to say the least. As Craig Y Yope said on this same subject on Harris Game Designs forum, “give it time (before we/you decide if AAA is unbalanced)”.
Over time patterns WILL emerge (perceived and/or “proven”). And when that happens, I would advise using a bid over any rule changes.
:mrgreen: peace
Has there EVER been a discussion on some forum (this one or any other one) that explains, no DEFINES “balance” in A&A?
I ask because unlike a game of chess, HOW do you TRULY DETERMINE IF A&A IS balanced? :?
Chess IS a perfectly balanced game; I don’t think anyone would argue that…would they?
Here are THE key components that MAKE chess perfectly balanced:
***2 player game
***2 equal “armies” (1 black army, 1 white army with each army consisting of one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights and eight pawns. 16peices in each army)
***Played on a square board of eight rows and eight columns of squares. The colors of the sixty-four squares alternate and are referred to as “light squares” and “dark squares”. The chessboard is placed with a light square at the right hand end of the rank nearest to each player, with each queen on its own color.
***Pieces are moved to either an unoccupied square, or one occupied by an opponent’s piece, capturing it and removing it from play.
***All pieces capture opponent’s pieces by moving to the square that the opponent’s piece occupies.
Now THAT is a balanced game!
A&A is anything but balanced…when compared to chess. :-P
So, when ever I read discussions on game balance for A&A; I can’t help but to pull my hair out! :| Because what…if anything…is balanced in A&A? How is balance in A&A defined? What are THE KEY THINGS that make A&A a balanced game?
Even if we look at simple examples of combat between two of the same units we see that even in the combat system there is very little balance.
Only when we match the following example do we find balance in the combat system.
1 tank against 1 tank; the attacker hits on a 3 and the defender hits on a 3 and each tank rolls one die and each has a 50% of scoring a hit.
1 bomber attacking 1 fighter; the bomber attacks on a 4 and the fighter defends on a 4 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 67% chance of scoring a hit.
1 artillery attacking 1 artillery; 1 attacks with a 2 and 1 defends with a 2 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 33% chance of scoring a hit.
1 fighter attacking 1 tank; the fig attacks with a 3 the tank defends with a 3 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 50% of scoring a hit.
I’m sure there are some other example like this but…my point is…WHAT else is balanced about A&A?
With little exception do any powers start with the same incomes, I don’t think any power starts with the same number of territories or the same number of tanks, fighters, bombers, battleships, etc, etc, etc…
So…HOW is balanced defined in A&A. I’m sure everyone has IDEAS of how to balance it…but with all of the 50,000,000,000,000 potential factors that COULD/WOULD/SHOULD contribute to game balance…HOW IS BALANCED DEFINDED IN A&A?
Without a clear definition…and if everyone has their own idea of what balance is…how can balance even be discussed? How can ANY A&A game ever be truly determined to be balanced or not???
I’ve tried to come up with the Key factors that DEFINE balance and the only reasonably close (and yet still very abstract) explanation that I can imagine that truly DEFINES game balance in A&A is this;
Balance (in A&A) is the perceived notion that all Powers (& Sides) have an equal potential to achieve victory through the diligent use and execution of the games Ends, Means and Ways within the legal bounds of the games rules.
Which, if that truly is what defines balance in A&A…than all 3 of the global games of A&A (A&A classic, A&A revised and A&A 50th) are all balanced. :roll:
Yup, I agree, there is a fine line between “historically ACCURATE” and “historically PLAYABLE”.
In my opinion, if ANY game is TOO accurate I might as well watch the history channel or read a book because there is no need/fun in playing it, I already know that the Japanese lost WW2, why would I want to play a game were the player that plays the Japanese always looses just because it is “historically accurate”. :cry:
But, at the same time, because it IS a history game that touts the fact that it IS a history game, some things should/could be “historically SIMULATED”…better?…while still giving players a “fair/balanced game”. (Balanced to me means that both sides have an equal or nearly equal chance to win the game. That’s why I like the idea of a “bid”, because a game can be “set up historically” and players can take/give a bid as they believe/think they need to in order to “balance” a players “chances” to win….just a side note.) :-D
That’s why I think this topic is interesting, 8-) because the way the aircraft are “simulated” in it seems to make them too weak. :-( They “feel” weak to the point that they don’t “feel” “good enough” to be considered “historically accurate”.
Do they need to be SO accurate that we would need to worry about how much fuel and munitions and turning radius and assent and descent rates for the various aircraft, :roll: or how much whisky or Saki that the pilots could keep on board? :lol: No way man! Not the kind of game for me! (Although I wouldn’t mind to “use” the whisky or Saki while gaming.) :-D
But, even history “enthusiasts” like myself, with my limited knowledge of the Pacific in WW2 believes that air power WAS a major influencer in the pacific theater of war, and the air power in this game seems to be…limited…and only usful on defense, and certainly not any kind of “threat” on their own merit on the attack, which is how most books and documentary’s have lead me to understand them to have been. And that kind of “general knowledge/belief” doesn’t even take into account the various “advantages or disadvantages” of all of the aircraft that were really used…I haven’t a clue about any of that. :oops: Just generally speaking, wasn’t air power in the pacific “arguably” a significant factor in the war over the pacific? If they were there, I don’t believe they are being given justice in this game.
Do the aircraft in the game make GOOD gaming mechanics and solid logic and fun? I think they do…so far…but I’ve still only had the chance to game this thing two times :oops: so take that into consideration when you read my thoughts too. :-P
Don’t get me wrong though, I still think the game is way cool fun, just not as “aircraft strong” :evil: as I was anticipating it to be.
The ideas that I’ve read on this thread about “how to make fighters more of a threat/realistic” are pretty cool and do seem to be more…in line…with “history”’ but unless I’m misunderstanding all of the cool stats that dinosaur has put together for us, with out “redesigning” the game (some might call it…tweaking the game) the only way to make the aircraft in the game (as the game is designed) more of a “threat” is to have the fighters used as “escorts” for the bombers, right? :?
Granted, I’ve only played this game twice so far, :oops: (so pardon my limited experience) but those stats seem to be in line with what I experienced with the aircraft so far. :|
I was expecting for the fighters to be much more of a threat in the game (as they arguably were in the real pacific) :roll: and found in short order that you need a lot of them to make them any kind of “real threat” on their own merit (as was arguably the real case) :roll: .
Barring any “redesign/tweak” to the rules, if dinosaurs rule of thumb (as I understand it) is to have one bomber for every “target” you plan to hit and to have 3 or 4 fighters per bomber to help the bombers “do there job” than players would need to make forces something like this….
1 or 2 bombers, that would need 1 airstrip on the board to launch the bomber(s) from (if they planned to attack anything further away than sea zones C, E, F, G or the islands of Bougainville or Choiseul for the Japanese or sea zones D, H, I, K or the islands of Guadalcanal or Malaita for the US) and they would need anywhere between 3 and 8 fighters for escorts and for those fighters to match the range of the bomber(s) they would need 2 to 4 “forward” airstrips or aircraft carriers or some kind of combination of forward airstrips and aircraft carriers, right?
I don’t know about other players experiences, but 1or 2 bombers and 3 to 8 fighters is not an air force that is any kind of “real” threat on its own merit in this game. :-o Unless these aircraft have a large fleet that they are “escorting” or that is “attacking with them”, a force this size just is not a threat. :roll: I have yet to have enough aircraft from a force this size survive the attack air phase to be any real threat on the attack sea or attack land phases.
Following dinosaurs rule of thumb, that would mean that a player wanting to make their airpower any kind of real threat (on its own merit), would need to send in about 6 bombers. Those six bombers would need three airstrips to launch them from (if they planned to attack anything further away than sea zones C, E, F, G or the islands of Bougainville or Choiseul for the Japanese or sea zones D, H, I, K or the islands of Guadalcanal or Malaita for the US) and those six bombers would need about 18 to 24 fighters to escort them, and those 18 to 24 fighters would need 9 to 12 aircraft carriers to launch them from to match the bombers range. I don’t know about the rest of you, but in my limited experience, :oops: that would be one HUGE force in this game and that size of air force MIGHT be a real threat (on its own merit). But as far as I can tell it’s a force size that is near to impossible to build before the US would roll over the Japanese. (I’ve only played the Japanese so I can’t say if the US could make that kind of air force in and hold off a Japanese force that is island hopping).
The reinforcement points alone that would have to be spent just to build such a force are enough to make any player question the threat and usefulness of airpower in this game.
3 airstrips = 18 points
9 aircraft carriers = 63 points
18 fighters = 54 points
135 points divided by 22 (the “average” points that can be collected per turn 10 + 4 per island) 135/22=6.14 turns.
WOW, 6 turns just to build up a force that size? The Japanese are way dead by than!
Those “rule of thumb” and “point costs” lead me to believe that aircraft (as the game is designed) are only useful on “defense” and since fighters get 2 dice on air attack (probably the only phase aircraft will survive/be used in anyway) bombers are pretty much unless since they only get 1 die on the air attack phase and cost 2 points more than fighters. And if fighters are only good for defense that makes AA guns and loads of ships the better buy for air defense because they can attack air units on the attack air phase and suffer no losses in that phase, assuring their survival for use in attack sea or land units.
Like I said, I’ve only played this game two times so far but something seems…flawed?…with the mechanics of the air units?
I know I will play it a lot more before deciding about “tweaking” any of the rules or making my “final decision” about this subject, but so far, I think something does need to be…tweaked?
Granted I’ve only played this game two times so far :oops: , but the ABILITY to build airstrips on any of the islands feels like it’s a KEY component to the game, regardless of the “actualities” of the real islands.
If it is any consolation, building airstrips on any islands other than Bougainville or Choiseul for the Japanese is proving to be wasted effort anyway, at least my two attempts early in the game proved worthless. :|
Granted, I’ve only played the game twice so far, and both times I was the Japanese, but I thought having “forward” airfields on the islands of Santa Isabel and New Georgia would help to “assert air superiority” closer to the islands of Guadalcanal and Malaita. If it is a good idea to build airstrips on those islands, it must only be a good idea late in the game, because both times on turn one I built a forward airbase, once on Santa Isabel and once on New Georgia and loaded them down with infantry and artillery and some AA Guns ASAP and both times they proved to benefit the US more than the Japanese.
I could not hold them and managed to do nothing more than give away perfectly good airfields that I couldn’t take back or damage. And the one turn that I did manage to land any of my own aircraft on either of them, they proved to be no kind of threat to the US forward positions.
So I’m guessing after only two :roll: games and not having read a lot about the other strategies of the game yet, that its better to build your first airstrip on Bougainville and your next airstrip on Choiseul and than fight for the other islands and concentrate on taking or damaging the US airstrips somehow while looking for opportunities to take out their capital ships.
cool fun game though!
I agree, an 8VC game is almost always an Axis win, and usually an easy win.
I believe its key for the Allies to put pressure on both theaters in a “short game”. The US can put a lot more pressure on the Axis in the Pacific in an 8VC game than they can in any other type of victory condition. If the UK can slow the Japanese with a factory in India, buying time for the US to take the Philippines, and if Russia and UK can put enough pressure on Germany to keep Leningrad the Allies can win, but it’s usually an easy win for the Axis.
The Allies can do it, it’s just a lot harder for the Allies to win an 8 VC game because they don’t have the time they need to get their “war machine” fully flowing.
“Short games” favor the Axis; “Long games” favor the Allies. I think the Germans believed this also, that’s why they developed the blitzkrieg, they new they had to take over their objectives quick because they believed they could not survive a “long war”.
I’m pretty sure that is why most tournament games are played with and “open bid”. With an open bid, the bid can be “awarded’ to either the Axis or the Allies. In a short game, the Allies should want the bid to help level the field, in a long game, the Axis should want the bid to help level the field. That’s how I understand an “open bid”, its tool for “leveling the odds” depending on the length/type of the game/victory conditions.
That’s why to large degree I still favor the “IPC victory condition” of the classic game Most tournaments still use this to determine winners if the 9 VC is not achieved in so many hours/rounds because it is an easy way to see who is “winning’. I think everyone would agree, regardless of who controls some of the victory cities that the Side that is making the most IPC every round is going to win. If you make more IPC, you make more units, more units is always better than less units.
I agree with Rhineland, if the UK did not build an IC in India on round one, the only way to counter the Japanese buying 2 ICs in round one is for the US to put steady pressure on the Pacific side of the Japanese. By making Japan spend IPC on fleets the Allies can reduce the effectiveness of those 2 ICs. And if the Japanese decide to ignore the US fleets, the Japanese will quickly find they do not have the IPC available to build 6 tanks each round and protect their own capital from a potential US invasion.
I think everyone knows that if Japan builds 2 ICs on round 1 that they plan on building 6 tanks per round and shoving them down Russia’s back side as fast as possible. 6 tanks cost 30 IPC, so making Japan spend their limited IPC to build fleets to counter the US Pacific fleets will effectively reduce the Japanese attack on Russia. They wont have the IPC to use 2 ICs.
The down side to this strategy is that it takes IPC from the US front against the Germans on the Atlantic side, but if the Uk did not build an IC in India round one, the Uk will have the funds available to pick up the USA slack in the Atlantic against the Germans, giving the USA the IPC they need to put up a pacific resistance against the Japanese. I would only hope that if the UK did not build an IC in India round one, that they would have at least taken Borneo and New Guinea, effectively harassing the Japanese instead of fleeing from the Pacific.
I guess the key thing I always strive for is for the Allies to always have pressure on Japan some how while they make their main push against the Germans. The UK and the US are the only Allied powers that can do this. Russia does not make enough IPC to effectively defend/attack two fronts. If the Japanese are left free run of the Pacific and of the Asian main land behind Russia, Russia is doomed.
I personally always build a UK IC in India round one, because I think it is more effective for countering ANY type of Japanese strategy. The UK can spend less IPC than the USA would need to for doing the same thing. (Harass and or contain Japan) The Allies only need to slow down and occupy Japanese troops in the back lines long enough for the Russians to resist/wear down the German attacks till the UK and US can put heavy pressure on Germany. But if the Allies do nothing against a Japanese round 1 purchase of 2 ICs, letting them blitz to the front lines of Russia’s weak back side, Russia won’t hold up against that kind of assaults. They don’t have the IPC to do it.
Perry,
I’ve been thinking that’s what the NO’s were designed for and I am really looking forward to playing them, I think they are a cool idea. I get the impression from this thread that I won’t be disappointed in them.
I figure if they are HALF as good as the “improvements” that got introduced with AAR (compared to classic) I’m sure they will be an awesome addition to the game.
I can’t wait to see!
I dont know how using the AA50 rules on the AAr board would affect the game, but before I decided if I was going to shell out the money for a game you have never played I would first ask myself how often I was going to play it and if I had that kind of disposible cash and what kind of players I would be playing it with.
Trust me, take it from a dude that likes risk, most of the players that play risk think they want something more complicated and real, but with the group that I started out with over 3 years ago playing risk, only me and one other dude had what it took to play A&A. the ohters fell to the wayside like cannon fodder. :-o
I’ve got a monthly gaming group now that all we play is AAR and even than I am seriously debating about getting AA50 because out of the group of 25+ of us, maybe…MAYBE 2 other players besides me that might want to play the perceived “harder game”.
I don’t know if it is harder (yet) or if it is worth the cash that is being asked for it, but if is half of the improvement over AAR that AAR was over classic AA I believe it will be worth the extra cash. I used to love the classic AA but have not played it once since getting AAR several years ago. AAR (IMO) is just such a better game, and with limited game time available to me, I figure why play the game that is less when I can play the game that is “more”.
I’m sure the same thing will happen when I buy AA50, and my wife asks me why I would want to buy AA50 when it is JUST another version of the same game. She thinks I will be “wasting” the $ I’ve spent on AAR because I will more than likely stop playing AAR after I have AA50. She’s probably right, I will stop playing AAR, but I’ll tell you the same thing I tell her, it was not a waste of cash to me, I got several YEARS of great fun and good times playing AAR, so it has more than paid for itself.
So before you buy the game, I wouldn’t ask yourself if you want to spend that kind of cash on a game you have never played, but ask yourself if you think youll play it enough to make it worth buying.
Why don’t you try playing the game of AAR first?
You can play it online at tripleA or game table.
http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki
http://gametableonline.com/?gclid=CMvTrJfYrpYCFRsRagod1WzsLQ
The game table version is way “pretty” compared to the tripleA version of AAR, but I personally think the tripleA game is a better user interface and a lot more fun to play with.
check um out.
I kind of like the idea a non aggression pact between Russia and Japan being done as a National Objective, but I’m still really undecided about NOs in general. :|
From what I’ve read about them so far, I think the basic idea behind them was to try and get more of a “political motivation” for each Power. The game to date has primarily focused on “military motivation” so I think NOs might be a fresh idea that will hopefully add some more dimension to the game. They sound like they might do that. Some of them sound very intriguing and worth pursing and the rules concerning some of them don’t seem like they will overcomplicate or bog down game play, which is a plus. :-D
But when an idea (or rule) concerning national objectives (or national advantages for that matter) “restricts” a players options, or “controls” or “directs” a players actions I like the idea of it less and less. :-( I obviously have not played a game yet with any of the “official” national objectives, but I’ll give you an idea of what I mean about a rule/idea “controlling” player’s options using national advantages as an example. (Something I have played with) :-P
The United States Superfortesses National Advantage basically makes the US bombers immune to AA guns because they fly so high, right? Why is that an NA for the US and not a technology that any nation (power) could develop? :?
What made superfortesses (and most NAs for that matter) a national advantage was not the fact that the US was the only power that COULD develop them, it’s just that they were the only nation that DID develop them. To limit that tech to one nation as an NA may be more “historically accurate” (which I am all for since this IS a “history game”), but it’s not “realistically accurate” (which I am more for since this IS a “realistic game” BASED on a historical time period). ANY nation COULD have created superfortesses, so when a tech is “limited” to any one Power, it “restricts”, “controls” and or “directs” a player on how to play their Power. After all, what player WOULD NOTsend every bomber they had on bombing raids if they had the superfortesses as an NA? :lol: Take cash from your enemy with no threat to yourself? :evil: Come on! If that wouldn’t direct a player to conduct bombing raids, nothing will.
So I’m all for the IDEA of National Objectives as long as they don’t “restrict” or “control” a players options.
Take the IDEA for the nonaggression pact between Russia and Japan for example. (I know this is not an “offical” NO, but it’s a good example to use)
Russia probably only had a non aggression pact with Japan as a national objective because it made good sense for them to. Russia more than likely did not want or need to have two fronts. Every strategist hates (or should hate) two fronts, so they made the pact. :roll: duh. Only becouse it was imprtant for them to not have two fronts did it become a “National Objective”. And since the Germans and Japanese didn’t really “work together” like the Allies did, it made sense to the Japanese too. So becouse it was important to them , it also became anational objective to them. Had the Japanese and the Germans been coordinating their efforts more, it might not have made such good sense to the Axis powers and than might not have been thought important enough to be a national objective for Japan. After all, wasnt it a “national objective” for the US and Britan to get the Russians to open up another front againts Japan, and wasnt it “strongly suggested” to Russia to do so ONCE germany was taken out of the war?
Any objective (national or military) is only as important as the “leaders” THINK it is. The objectives that leave players with options attract me the most, but the ones that have controlling factors like, Japan CANT attack Russia I don’t like.
Japan COULD have broke that pact at any time, simply because history says they DIDN’T break it shouldn’t dictate the rules in the game to say the Japanese player CANT break it.
The idea of NOs having an IPC “reward” as an incentive for not breaking a national objective (or for achieving an NO) such as the pact between Russia and Japan (if it was an NO) make “historical” sense and gaming sense to me. After wall, what player would break such a pact IF keeping it not only produced extra IPC for them but also kept them from fighting on two fronts? Even if his allies “insisted” he did. Come on! :-P
Just think how cool and multifaceted NOs could be in the game. Imagine if the game started in the summer of 1939. Hitler could have kept the “secret treaty” (an NO at the time it was signed) with Russia until AFTER he concurred England in the Battle for Brittan instead of attacking Russia and opening a second front, and if he would have NOT declaring war on America (could have been a nice NO for Germany) after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and opening a third front. Those types of “national objectives” could have kept Germany winning in Europe and possibly ultimately the entire war.
With the game starting in the spring of 1942, some of these possible NOs have already been determined for us in the game. Which is cool because that is what the game is based on, WW2. It’s not based on preventing WW2, which is what some of those and other unmentioned NOs might have done.
So NOs that create options for players to choose from and that offer incentives to achieve them, sounds way cool to me, but any NO that restricts or directs a players options or leaves the player with no real choice but to achieve the NO because its so obviously the ONLY way for them to win the war just turns me off to the idea of NOs all together.
But, ultimately, until I actually play with the NOs I’m going to have to wait before giving any final opinion on them. But so far, that’s what I think about NOs. This is just My 2IPCs worth for now.
I’m ashamed to admit it :oops: but, I have not played anything but revised since it came out and as far as classic I don’t think I’ve played it since my days in the military…15yrs ago. :mrgreen:
Back than I only played the few dudes that I could find that were even remotely interested in the game, and I sure as heck did not know of anyone that actually competed in tournaments or discussed strategy outside of the time it took to play, so I’ve never even played it with a bid, I never heard of it back than…it was not in the rule book so I had no idea it even existed.
And now, since I unfortunately I don’t have the time to game like I did so many years ago :cry:, when I do get to game I only play the revised because I believe revised is such a better game than classic. So with limited game times, I only want to only play the “better game”. :|
I think the majority of players that you are going to compete with online now that are willing to try classic are probably “worse” not because they are rusty but because they know less about classic :? in general than revised. Most Online players (generally speaking) are probably of the “post classic age” (young pups) and simply haven’t played it.
Taking revised as an example, I thought I was a decent player. Than a friend of a friend told me about tripleA, and when I played it online I ran across “the bid”, “low Luck” and “Territory Turn Limit”, things that to a dude that just bought and played the boxed game with a few friends I had not even heard of. I must have played 30+games before I even came close to winning. (I figured I must have really sucked :-o or I was a slow learner :?). I can only imagine that classic players are even more out of sorts on how to best play it.
Just a guess.
I’m sure none of us have even play AA50 yet (obviously since its not out yet) but as far as any “variants” that you are talking about, yes I have played similar things but most times I don’t think it is as fun as the “historical” set up.
Most people that play “everyman for himself” types of games like you are talking about make the mistake of not changing the geopolitics of the world and play it with the historical geopolitics which just screws up the game…in my opinion…instead of making it more fun or different.
If you are going to try something like those two ideas, make sure to rework more of the game than just “alliances” it makes for a much better game of what I like to call…“Ultimate Risk”…risk with A&A pieces.
The geopolitics are imperative to those types of games, because everyone should know that “he who makes the most IPC controls the world”, so if everyone starts the game with the same amount of IPC those types of changes make the game a lot more “balanced”.
Just my opinion, personally I still prefer the “historical” setup 99.99% of the time.
Google tripleA and download the latest game, they have a “4 if by sea” and a “6 player free for all” that are kind of fun but the geopolitics are kind of screwed up in them…just my opinion.
If you want to talk more about those ideas, personal message me I will gladly talk to you more about them since they are kind of “off topic” for this thread.
You know, after all this talk I’ve come to the self realization that ultimately I must agree with IL and Bluestroke when both of them say…
IL…In fact Jets don’t need to be in the game
Bluestroke…jets don’t #$%*belong. Were not a factor for WWII.
Because after about my fifth game or so of getting the jet fig development, I don’t develop jets any more. They never proved to make that much of a difference in the game and they never seemed to be worth the IPC and time it took to get the tech.
Oh, and IL…don’t fret over the earlier sarcasm …the Seabees and civ construction workers (and my wife come to think of it) are full of it :-o (sarcasm that is) :lol:. I guess that’s why it’s no big deal to me. It’s all 8-), besides that’s what makes debates fun… “It’s not personal…its buisness”.