Posts made by cousin_joe

@Subotai:

Even if the chance of getting either rockets or HB is only 1/12(?) after hitting @6(?), you never know when this is going to occure, so for my part it means that tech is a gamebreaker because of 2 out of 12 techs is going to ruin the game I’m playing, assuming tech is on. But it’s really sad because the only 2 techs that have nothing to do with genuine strats is rockets and HB, all other techs could be fun and are not gamebreakers. It’s not only about one specific tech is going to shift the balance of the game, point is that
10 techs is about strats, 2 techs is just rolling some dice. To use most of the 12 techs you must also know how to use them, you’re not getting automatic advantage by just being lucky. There are actually several techs that seems ok (as of now). After taking a look at the fact sheet, I think all other techs are ok, just not rockets and HB.

I agree completely Subotai

If a game of strategy can depend so much on a single dice roll (ie. getting lucky and rolling HB), then said game of strategy is not worth playing (or at least the subset of rules that would allow such… ie. Tech)

This is most unfortunate as some of these Techs would indeed make the game more fun and strategic.  This leads to my second point, and that is Tech should not be random.

A game of strategy should involve decision making, not just closing your eyes, rolling for some random Tech, and seeing what fate gives you.   They had it right in Revised, I have no idea why they would go back.  :?

@Rakeman:

I dunno, I’m a bit disappointed that only two of these national objectives REALLY exposed their potential- Italy’s sea zone one, and russia’s “no allied units on russian territory” one.  These bonuses could have done so much with so little.  But fortunately, the bonuses look like they will do a lot for the game even as they are.  I just think less “Hold ____” objectives and more unique ones would have been cooler.

Totally agree with your comment 100% Rakeman
They could have done so much more with these NOs

As I mentioned before, they should have had some NOs that encouraged SUB warfare and more Pacific and Atlantic action:

**Germany: At least 2 SUBs in North Atlantic (SZs 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) = 5IPC
Germany: At least 4 SUBs in North Atlantic (SZs 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) = 10IPC

Japan: At least 2 SUBs off US W coast (SZs 44,53,54,55,56,57,65) = 5IPC
Japan: At least 4 SUBs off US W coast (SZs 44,53,54,55,56,57,65) = 10IPC

USA: At least 2 SUBS off Japan coast (SZs 58,59,60,61,62,63) = 5IPC
USA: At least 4 SUBs off Japan coast (SZs 58,59,60,61,62,63) = 10IPC**

This would at least encourage the possibility of a German naval campaign as well as Japanese and American Pacific campaigns

A really nice one would  have benn:

UK: Control at least 1IC in either India, Australia or South Africa = 5IPC

This would definitely encourage non-KGF strategies and more Pacific action
UK’s initial investment of 15IPC is offset by a 5IPC return/round
UK will fight like hell to hold onto the IC and have increased means to do so (The big problem with building an IC is knowing if you’ll have the income to hold it)

Thank you for the answer, Kreighund

While I think the SUBs are much improved over Revised OOTB, I feel they are still to vulnerable and not very cost effective.

Do you know if Sub Detection rules or Convoy Raid type rules were ever considered, either during the development or playtesting phase.  I suppose they may have been considered too complex by either WOTC or Mr. Harris, but I do feel this is the one thing that the game is really missing.

@Funcioneta:

I disagree with cousinjoe. With BGG setup, a KGF is not possible if Japan don’t want.

Funcioneta,

Have you ever played games by e-mail?  With all due respect, give me Allies and I will absolutely DESTROY you with a KGF!

With no Allied AC in Asia, and a very low return for US to stay in the Pacific, the Allies best bet in this game is to triple team Germany and ignore Japan.  The game essentially becomes a race of whether the Allies can take down Germany faster than Japan can take down Russia, and believe me, this is not even close.

True, we have not seen the actual setup, but it would need to be extremely favourable for the Allies to keep them in Asia and the Pacific, minimum 1 IC and a strong US Navy (all info so far would indicate this is not the case).  With that said, I am fine playing with the BGG setup.  I’d prefer no tech (which actually helps Axis) as the tech system as it stands right now is for kids, and not serious gamers.

So how about it Funcioneta…
Sure, you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?  :-D

@Imperious:

why?  Perhaps they will include something more? or a surprise?

I wish this was the case.
You know… If I was Avalon Hill, and had the wherewithall to release another version of A&A so soon after Revised (2004), I would want to make sure it was not just a simple upgrade, but rather something that just totally blew the socks off of anything before it!!!

So far, I’m not getting that.  Meh, you got Italy and China as playable in the game.  Meh, you got a new Cruiser unit.  Meh, you’ve thrown in some National Objectives.  You know, a lot of these are nice, but where is the Grand Strategy?!?  Where is the World at War?!? Where is the game of Global Warfare?!?

This is how I see the game playing out…

Subs are still too vulnerable and do no convoy damage, so Germany will forego navy and just attack Russia
Russia as always, will fight Germany
Japan will seek to expand and India is the most ideal target
UK will see India as undefendable (ICs are so expensive), and will build up in SZ 6 to hem any German sea units in and trade Norway and NW Europe
Now that KGF is on, Italy will try and do it’s best to expand in Africa while helping vs. Russia
US, to support KGF most quickly, will ignore Japan, and buy BMBRs and bomb Germany and Italy into the stone age (-20 and -12 IPC/ROUND).  Tranports and troops will eventually follow
on following rounds, Japan seeing they are ignored will seek to expand quickly while rushing to put some back pressure on Moscow

Basically, the game is KGF with JTDTM playout all over again and nothing is fixed.   We’re back to the playout we had in Revised and Classic.  This game as is still has some serious flaws, and I honestly hope that the delayed release is an effort to fix things.  The board and the molds are fine, but they should certainly be able to make some last minute changes to the manual to save this game and give us the proper global playout and increased strategy we deserve.

Last minute changes I would love to see…

1. Some Convoy Raid Rules - ideally, the more subs, the more damage, but even something as simple as this would be nice…

National Objectives:
Germany: At least 2 SUBs in North Atlantic (SZs 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) = 5IPC
Germany: At least 4 SUBs in North Atlantic (SZs 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) = 10IPC

Japan: At least 2 SUBs off US W coast (SZs 44,53,54,55,56,57,65) = 5IPC
Japan: At least 4 SUBs off US W coast (SZs 44,53,54,55,56,57,65) = 10IPC

USA: At least 2 SUBS off Japan coast (SZs 58,59,60,61,62,63) = 5IPC
USA: At least 4 SUBs off Japan coast (SZs 58,59,60,61,62,63) = 10IPC

This would at least encourage the possibility of a German naval campaign as well as Japanese and American Pacific campaigns

2. Cheaper ICs (15–>12IPC)
-would encourage UK ICs in Aus/India again more likely to give global playout (and less likely for UK KGF)

3. Interceptors as either standard or Tech
-Let defending FTRs in SBR territories get a single 1@1 shot each to shoot down Rockets or SBR BMBRs
-if Germany gets multiple ICs at game start (which they should), I’d say make it standard, otherwise make it at least a Tech to give Germany some chance of countering a cheap SBR+/-HB strategy

4. Make Techs Directed
-Random Techs are for kids.  There should  be no place for Random Techs in a game of Grand Strategy.  Make players outsmart their opponents, not outluck them.

5. Give SUBs some added survivability
-they are still too weak.  Presence of a single DD basically makes them autokilled.  Either let them at least dive after 1 round of combat regardless of DD presence, or make DD’s have to roll a profiency roll to detect them in the first place
-added SUB survivability will go a long way to encourageing a naval campaign.  Right now, they’re still pretty useless… even at 6IPC.

I think just these 5 simple changes will make this game more like the Global Playout Grand Strategy game it should be, rather than the old KGF and JTDTM we have seen too many times before  :-(

@Perry:

I only meant that the game is available right now …
As an Abattlemap module…
No need to wait to whatever date that WOTC care to ship the physical game.

I’ve seen the ABattlemapmodule
Is that the actual setup for 1941 or is that just a best guess based on some of the pics and info already out?

@Krieghund:

Subs get to fire first only in the first combat round if no enemy destroyers are present.  They may submerge instead of firing in any combat round before any dice are rolled if no enemy destroyers are present.  They don’t block combat or noncombat movement of any enemy ships.  When a warship ends a combat movement in a sea zone with an enemy sub, it may choose to attack it or ignore it.  Air units can’t hit subs unless there is a destroyer friendly to the air units on the battle board.  Subs attack on a 2 and defend on a 1.  They cost 6 IPCs.

Krieghund…

Let’s say a group of 3 Subs is attacked by 1 Destroyer, 5 Fighters, and 2 Cruisers
If 1 Sub survives the first round of combat, does it have any opportunity to submerge prior to facing second round attacks?

I know the answer is yes if the opposing Destroyer is taken as a casualty, but what I’m wondering is if it can submerge if the Destroyer is not taken as a casualty?

What’s up with the new release date?
Is it simply a matter of some of the components not being ready in time?
Or is there any chance we might see some changes to the manual (ie. rules) ?  :-)

@Imperious:

What if said man has a million dollars in his pocket, and every time he gets robbed, he takes another $100 out.  Then in theory, said man could be robbed 6 times a day, by 6 different crooks, and never appear to go broke

The problem is the mans net worth/value is fixed per measure of unit or turn and  if it was set up where anybody can rob the fixed income generated up to 6 times in the span of a single turn…it leads to longer games because more income is artificially generated then is possible and this allows more units to be built, which in turns takes more time to destroy.

An addition, the allies didn’t get income for ‘liberation’, while the axis plundered conquered nations. At a minimum the Allies should just reduce the axis nation by the income of what they liberate, rather than take the same money.

Lastly, the territory has gone thru the ringer and the field of battle leaves devastation so getting full value for a nation that was just invaded makes no sence either.

Hi Imperious,

I was actually just making a joke  :-)

On a serious note though, as with most things in A&A, the income system is a total abstraction, and because of that, one can almost explain it off any way they wish.

Now, I can’t speak for Larry, but that is why I believe they use the term Industrial Production Certificates (IPCs) rather than just Dollars.  The increased production from taking territories goes beyond just the infrastructure of the territory being taken over.  Taking territories is generally a sign of the war going well, which translates into increased support for the war at home (increased morale, increased productivity, increased purchase of war bonds, etc.)

Is this a perfect explanation?  No, but I certainly think it’s sufficient.  Besides, getting instant benefit from taking territories has been a core dynamic of pretty much every A&A game so far, I wouldn’t think there would be much support for such a drastic change.

@Admiral:

I have a question about one of the Air/Naval Techs:

"Jet fighters - fighters now attack at ‘4’ "

I was under the impression that the true fighter jet technology developed by the British and the Germans during WWII was applied to defensive interceptor craft. The Brits used their jet fighters to intercept V1’s, and the Germans used theirs to intercept Allied bomber squadrons. In addition, these jet fighters could only fly for a few minutes before running out of fuel. So, with all this in mind, why has the AA50 jet fighter technology raised the attack value of fighters to 4, essentially making them cheap bombers? The AAR version of this technology seems much more appropriate given the history of these early rocket propelled aircraft (raise the defense value of fighters to 5).

Perhaps a more appropriate name for this technology would be something along the lines of ‘advanced tactical fighter bombers’?

Hi Admiral T,

I completely agree with your assessment of “Jet Fighters”  :-)
Their limited fuel made them more defensive in nature, and more useful as “interceptor” aircraft

My interpretation of Jet Fighters would be…

Your Jet FTRs now defend at 4.  They also gain the ability to intercept SBR and Rockets.  For each Jet FTR in a territory under SBR or Rocket Attack, roll 1 die @1.  For each hit, 1 incoming BMBR or Rocket is destroyed prior to doing damage.

This is actually the interpretation we use in the Revised variant AAR: Enhanced.  Not only is this more historically appropriate, it is also strategically appropriate.  The big gripe in Revised out-of-the-box, and it would appear AA50 as well, is that there is nothing a defending player can do about massive SBR or Rocket attacks.  It would have been nice to see the interceptor ability added onto Jet FTRS in AA50 as it would have been a simple fix for this annoying problem.

@Imperious:

If you trade some nice TT’s, then you get 5 ipc extra income

And by the same token if a man selling flowers on the street corner makes $100 a day and his money gets stolen…then it can be also stolen a second time by a second crook  in the same day for another $100 dollars? The money he makes is doubled somehow even if only $100 is generated. Thats totally asinine.

Broken

What if said man has a million dollars in his pocket, and every time he gets robbed, he takes another $100 out.  Then in theory, said man could be robbed 6 times a day, by 6 different crooks, and never appear to go broke  :-D

Exactly Rakeman…

Less Stacking, More Attacking!!!   :-D

I remember classic where Germany built up in EEur, and the Allies built up in Karelia.  Those were true snoozefests.  Now that they added a whole bunch of territories to the Eastern Front, it makes things a lot more dynamic, and in turn, more fun.

@Krieghund:

@cousin_joe:

eg. 1 Cruiser attacks 1 Sub

1. Does the Sub still get 1st strike?

Yes.  Only a DD will cancel a sub’s special abilities.  However, submarine first strikes only occur in the first round of combat.  After that, they fire at the same time as all other units.

@cousin_joe:

2. Is there any mechanism for the Sub to avoid the combat since there is no enemy DD present (eg. diving before the battle in lieu of it’s 1st strike?)

Yes, if there is no enemy DD present, a sub may sumerge instead of firing.  This happens at the beginning of each combat round, before any dice are rolled.  The attacker submerges first, then the defender.

I really like these rule changes Kreighund
SUB viability is dramatically improved from Revised
It’s actually very close to what we had in A&A Enhanced, where SUBs were very viable and a big factor in most games.  There are 2 keys though that are still missing…

1. In AA50, SUB detection with Destroyers is automatic, whereas in Enhanced, destroyers needed to make a SUB detection roll (1@3/DD (higher with modifiers, 1 success detected all SUBs). 
2. SUBs did Convoy damage to “Island” nations (UK, Japan, US)

On the flip side, AA50 SUBs are cheaper than in Enhanced (6 vs 7).  So the question will be whether the cheaper SUBs in AA50 will be enough to overcome the lack of Convoy Raiding and the decreased viability.

A big factor that will determine this is whether Germany will be able to break out of the Baltic, which will be in turn largely be determined by the opening setup.  If UK is able to buildup their Navy just outside the Baltic, and essentially hem the Germans in, then SUBs will not be viable.

LOL!  :-D

I’m not sure what it is, but these last few posts have me cracking up!  :-D

@AA50:

3. Paratroopers
   Each of your bombers can act as a transport for up to one infantry, but it must stop in the first hostile territory it enters during a turn and drop off the infantry, ending its combat movement. The bomber may still attack during the Conduct Combat phase, but it cannot make a strategic bombing run in a turn that transports an infantry unit. The infantry unit may retreat normally to a friendly adjacent space during combat.

The red highlighted part keeps you from jumping ‘over’ the front lines.

It doesn’t stop you from going around though  :-D (ie. over a SZ or empty land territory)
I suppose the empty land territory could be considered hostile… I’m not sure…
But surely the SZ, even if occupied by enemy boats should be OK?  maybe? 
For sure empty SZs couldn’t be considered hostile  :-)

@Rakeman:

Personally, I like the 4:2 tech rule.  It retains chance (the tech will either cost 20 OR 30 IPC, be implemented this round OR next) but it requires both a serious investment (20 IPC as opposed to a crapshot a turn for 5 IPC) and has the guarantee that you WILL get the tech you want within 2 rounds.

I like the 4:2 Tech rule as well Rakeman.  You probably didn’t know this, but when it first came out, it was actually the 4:2:1 Tech Rule, meaning you didn’t get your guaranteed Tech until the 3rd round of trying  :-)

I actually liked the fact that you’re essentially guaranteed a Tech in this new system as well.  The big problem is that they took a big step backwards and made it random again.  Random Techs, much like Trix, are for kids :roll:

If I’m playing a game of strategy, I’d rather be thinking… “It looks like my opponent is doing this, what can I do to counter?” rather than… “Oh please Lord, let me roll a 6 so I can get Heavy Bombers… Oh, Crap! Super Subs!!!”  :roll:

If I was designing the system, I’d probably take it a little further than Mr. Harris did…

Each dice would still cost 5IPCs, but I would force a minimum investment of at least 10IPCs to start researching Tech (makes it just slightly less likely for players to put money into it willy-nilly.  Also makes player pay closer to fair market value of the tech when they hit)

Research Level 1 (Random Tech)
Cost = 1 Research Token (ie. 10 IPCs total)
Roll 2 dice/round
A 6 allows you to choose 1 board and roll for a Tech at random.  You will get the Tech corresponding to the number you roll.

Research Level 2 (Semi-Directed Tech)
Cost = 2 Research Tokens (ie. 20 IPCs total)
Roll 4 dice/round
A 6 allows you to choose 1 board and roll for a Tech.  You may select the Tech corresponding to the number you roll, OR the Techs one number higher or one number lower.  (6 is considered next to 1.  Basically your roll covers 50% of the board)

Research Level 3 (Directed Tech)
Cost = 3 Research Tokens (ie. 30 IPCs total)
Roll 6 dice/round
A 6 allows you to choose 1 board and select the Tech you want.

The only other important factor in such a system, would be to have available counters for some of the more powerful techs.  Increased Factory Production already counters Rockets.  I would add an Interceptor Ability to Jets with the Jet Fighters Tech (Any Jet FTR in the territory with the IC can roll against SBR BMBRs @1/Jet).

The cap obviously is 3 Research Tokens.  Players can still get lucky to some degree (hitting a desired Tech at research level 1).  However, even if they do hit a strong Tech, the existence of a counter and the ability to semi-direct or direct Techs makes sure getting the Tech is not a gamebreaker.   For curiosity’s sake, the chance of hitting a Tech at each level are 30.5%, 51.8%, and  66.5%respectively per round

Anyways, that’s how I’d do it.  You’d probably have to do some balancing of the other techs, but that can all be looked at once the game is actually out.  As of right now though, Tech as it stands generally wouldn’t be playable in a competitive game.

Well, wouldn’t a paratrooper capping a territory just allow the territory to be retaken easily next round?  Besides capitals, I don’t see a huge flaw here.

Even if you made a house rule saying no paratroopers in territories with AAGuns (essentially would cover the capitals), there’s still a lot of problems with this rule:

1. Needing extra defense for factories (eg. Asian factories for Japan)
2. The cheap old, I clear territory A with this country(typically UK/U attacking EEur/Balk in Revised), then I can blitz through A into the capital (ie. Germany) with my other country’s ARM (ie. Russia).
3. Just the fact that turns will take a whole lot longer to play as you calculate the multitude of attack  possibilities for your opponent and his paratroopers
4. The big one though, is forcing your opponents into defensive play = long and boring games!

(p.s. paratroopers, already a pretty crazy brunch to begin with, would have to be just NUTS to drop into an area stacked side to side in AAfire)

@Rakeman:

What effect do you think North Western Europe will have on the game?  Giving the Allies 2 landing spots may make things a bit tougher on Germany…

Hi Rakeman,

Great topic  :-)
I actually really like this map change.

In Classic or Revised, the Allies were basically forced to dump into Finland/Karelia because WEur was essentially inaccessable.  Germany would always put enough troops there to either withstand the 1-2 from the UK-US entirely, or at least make it very costly for the UK to even try.

With the new territory, Allies can now look at trying to make their European foothold there… OR, they can bring 1-2 troops over/turn and effectively make it a dead zone (territory which neither side can take and hold, but rather, just take over with minimum troops and exchange each turn).  By doing this, they wittle down Germany’s defensive numbers making an attack on WEur later on more viable (once the Allies have built up their transport fleet)

Now, while the map change is nice, I agree Germany is gonna be in a world of hurt  :cry: …

1. WEur will require more resources to defend
2. Germany is already facing a reduced income due to inclusion of Italy
3. No convoy raids and weak, nonviable Subs means little ability for Germany to slow down UK Naval builds
4. And to top it all off, Germany also has SBRs to worry about

Now I know we should wait until the game is out, but barring an extremely favourable initial set-up for the Axis, I think Germany is toast   :cry:

@Krieghund:

Only air units require a destroyer to hit subs.  Ships can hit them without destroyers.

eg. 1 Cruiser attacks 1 Sub

1. Does the Sub still get 1st strike?
2. Is there any mechanism for the Sub to avoid the combat since there is no enemy DD present (eg. diving before the battle in lieu of it’s 1st strike?)

@timerover51:

Given all of the flap over Rockets, I am surprised that no one has consider Paratroops a major problem in the game.

Hey timerover,

I was going to get this one eventually  :-) (Mechanized Infantry is the other  :-D), but yes, I completely agree with you.  And I’m not even thinking about the little islands, I’m thinking about the big territories and the capitals.

A consistent mechanic in A&A has always been maintaining big stacks at your fronts.  Since defense is stronger than offense, you typically want to build up your stack to eventually overcome the opponents stack.  The reason paratrooper rules in general have always failed, is it turns that whole mechanic upside down.  Instead of thinking offensively, players will now be forced to play defensively.  They will have to worry about territories behind the main front getting captured, and worst of all, their capital itself.

Paratrooper rules will force players to keep their INF back, essentially slowing the game to a halt.  Ability to apply any forward pressure will be minimized.  The opponent that faces paratroopers will be significantly handicapped, as they will be forced to hold forces back at the expense of their ability to maintain and extend their front lines.

I’m not a big fan of the paratrooper Tech for these reasons  :-(