Posts made by cousin_joe

@Subotai:

By all means, I’m happy about the reduced cost of bmrs, but what’s missing in AA50 is the possibillity to buy more AA guns, and each AA guns fires one shot each. Most players would not buy AA guns if not needed, tanks+inf+art+ftrs is much more useful. So what seems broken in AA50 is not SBR rules regarding bmrs+damage, but that the rules constrict players from using approriate countermeasures if faced by massive SBR attacks.

Exactly!  And that is my point with Rockets.  Sure, they may not be to the same degree as SBRs, but in both scenarios, you are faced with a significant amount of damage which you can do very little about.  Furthermore, any thoughts of strategic maneuvering and gameplay are thrown out the window as you are basically reduced to just trying to survive!   :-D

This scenario applies to Rockets, Heavy BMBRs, and even just plain SBR.  And true enough, one can always suggest nerfing SBRs and getting rid of Tech entirely, but by doing this, we decrease the game’s depth, rather than increase it.  Providing appropriate countermeasures would be the approach I would like to see.

Cool.
Thanks for the answers Kreighund.  :-)
I guess you’re right… no major surprises
But I am excited to see how the game will play
Most of all, is how the new cheap SUBs will play in both the Atlantic and Pacific, as well as the transports essentially being noncombatants.

@Krieghund:

@Sherman:

Kreig, will there be any major suprises that we haven’t heard about and/or discussed on the Message Boards?

Major surprises?  Probably not.  The biggest surprise left is the actual gameplay.  :-D

Hi Kreighund  :-)… I know I shouldn’t assume, but it would appear that you have a copy of the game rules, and it also appears that you’re being nice enough to give us some info, but only in the form of yes/no type answers.

So, with those assumptions in mind, I’m just going to throw out the fishing net and see what we come up with  :-)

Are there any rules whereby SUBs can damage economies?
Are there any National Objectives that are affected by SUB locations?
Will all countries have the same unit stats and abilities, or will there be some nation-specific differences?
Are there any rules for Interceptors of any kind?
Will there be non-combat Air transport?
Will Artillery get any new capabilities (eg. Opening Fire)?
Will Armor get any new capabilities (eg. PanzerBlitz like movement for all)?
Will Carriers be 2-Hit?
Do Battleships repair the same?
In the 41 Setup, does UK have more than 1 starting IC?
In the 41 Setup, does Germany have more than 1 starting IC?
In the 41 Setup, does US have more than 2 starting ICs?
Will Japan and Russia have some sort of Non-Agression Treaty?
Are the nation markers thick or thin?
Do the three separate board fragments actually interconnect or are they just meant to be side by side?

Tried to think of 20, but could only come up with 15.  Sorry to be a pest but I’m just excited about the new game and we’re definitely not getting much info from Avalon Hill.  At least not so far  :-(

Too bad about no D-day
I understand there will be no National Advantages either  :-(

@Rakeman:

I disagree about rockets being as broken as you say, the odds of Germany spending one roll and getting rockets is 1/36.  That is not a significant number to worry about.

The odds are actually much more than that Rakeman…
-Recall, if Germany spends 5IPC, it gets to keep rolling every round until they hit something
-Furthermore, I’d probably look at spending 10IPC 1st round, maybe another 5IPC 2nd round (Hitting Rockets for 15IPC is still a Gamebreaker)
-You’re getting 2-3 rolls/round now to hit your rockets
-In 3 rounds, that could be 9 rolls to hit Rockets… it’s not quite 9/36 to hit, but definitely a lot higher than 1/36.  Personally, I wouldn’t want to be Allies when it happens.

And as far as countering with HB, good luck.  Because Tech is random, and money is lost if you succeed but don’t get the tech you want, it can cost you a lot of time and money before you eventually hit.

Furthermore, the fact that you’re thinking of going for HB if the opponent gets Rockets only serves to reinforce my point about the game coming down to tech rolls rather than strategy  :-)

@Krieghund:

Welcome, Cousin_Joe.  It’s good to “see” you again, though I’m a bit disappointed to see you joining the ranks of those declaring the game to be broken before they’ve even had a chance to play it.

Hi Kreighund.
I love a lot of the new features.  The map looks great and I like what’s happened with territories, victory cities, and unit costs.  A lot of improvements all the way around and a great job by Mr. Harris.

For the casual player (eg. teenagers, beer & pretzel guys), I think the game with Tech as is, is fine.  However, for the competitive player (eg. online rankings, tournaments, players playing to outstrategize their opponents) the Tech system is a huge disappointment and clearly broken.

Let’s say Player A and Player B are playing against each other, and Player A, based on skill and experience is a 70-30 favourite to win the match.  Player B, playing Axis, gets Rockets for 5-10 IPC, and then suddenly he is the favourite to win the match.  Sure, some will say bad dice can affect the odds too, but not that much and rolling so few dice.

This is the nature of Weapons Development.  It’s an optional rule, so you don’t have to play with it if you don’t want to.  Many prefer not to, for this very reason.

At least we agree  :-)  However, it’s a shame that this element has to be removed for competitive play.  There are some well thought out Techs, and if balanced properly, would add a lot of depth to the game.

In fact, it’s less “broken” than it is in Revised.  In Revised, each bomber or rocket’s damage was limited to the IPC value of the territory, so in effect damage is limited only to the victim’s IPCs on hand, given enough attacks.

I don’t quite understand your response here Kreighund  :?
I thought you replied that Rocket damage works like SBR damage in terms of damaging IC production
ICs could be damaged to up to double their IPC value, although the owner of the IC has the option of how much he wants to repair if at all
Is this correct?

@Cmdr:

It’s no more broken then rockets are in Axis and Allies Revised.

There too, you can build up enough AA Guns to fire at every complex in range doing dozen’s of D6 worth of IPC damage for 5 IPC invested.

Hi Cmdr Jennifer,

I agree, Revised OOTB was broken as well with no damage caps on a territory, and techs immediately coming into effect

LHTR fixed it to some degree by capping damage at IPC value of a territory.

With that said, it’s more of a gamebreaker in AA50 because:

1. Damage is capped at double the IPC of the territory
2. There are FOUR ICs within range, rather than three
3. The risk is much lower as money spent on Tech is not lost on a failed attempt.  You basically keep getting free shots until you succeed.

Hi guys  :-)

There’s been a lot of talk about Heavy Bombers being a gamebreaker, but the other Tech that everyone seems to be forgetting about is Rockets:

2. Rockets- Your antiaircraft guns are now rocket launchers. In addition to its normal combat function, during the strategic bombing raid step of your Conduct Combat phase each turn, each of your antiaircraft guns can make a single rocket attack against an enemy industrial complex within 3 spaces of it. This attack does 1d6 damage to that complex.

Picture this…

G1, Germany spends a mere 5 IPC on Tech (1 dice roll)
-Germany succeeds on it’s first attempt, chooses from the Land/Production tree, and gets
Rockets
-Because Rockets comes into effect immediately, their 1 AAGun is already rolling rocket attacks against Karelia on G1!!! (I think they only start with 1 AA, 2 would be even more effective)

-On G2, I’d already be buying more AAGuns and positioning them to eventually hit all 3 Russian ICs + London… that’s 4d6 IPC damage/round to the Allies!!!
-Does anyone know if Rockets work like SBR in terms of damaging IC production?  Because that would only make it more devastating to small ICs like Karelia and Caucasus
-If doing this strategy, I would probably look at buying one extra dice on G1

Overall, this strategy would be very attractive for Germany
-the 5-10IPCs invested never gets wasted.  It will eventually hit something.  And if you look at the other Techs in this tree, all of them could have some use…

Paratroopers - Dead zone exchange (1INF, 1PINF, 1BMBR vs. 1INF)
Improved Artillery - weak but definitely still helpful
Increased Factory Production - defensive in case Allies go SBR, offensive as well for new ICs
War Bonds - weak but definitely still helpful
Mechanized Infantry - Very Good for Germany.  INF get pushed up to the front much faster.

At 5-10 IPC, you’re pretty much guaranteed to get your investment back, with the potential for a HUGE return with Rockets (but also Mech infantry).  And if you do hit Rockets, there is nothing the Allies can really do about it.  Your AAGuns would be in core territories making them hard to get at, and the countries that are closest to getting at them, will already be hurting for material.  Furthermore, there is no counter to Rockets… Allies basically just have to suck up the damage or try for some economic atacks of their own.

Bottom Line: With SBR as broken as it is, I think Germany has no choice but to put a little bit into Rockets.  A large portion of games will come down to whether and when Germany gets Rockets or US gets Heavy Bombers.  Single dice rolls will basically be having HUGE effects on game outcome, and will simply overshadow any strategic maneuvering in the game.  Instead of setting up the board, you may as well take turns rolling a die, and see who gets the first 6.

To me, that is broken  :-(

Hey Black_Elk,

Good to see you too  :-)

I do agree.  I think the Ottawa VC in would have been nice to see in South Africa.  It would have given Italy a more defined target to shoot for (ie. a specific VC, rather than just Africa income).  It would also give a bit more variety in terms of what VCs the Axis shoot for.  As of right now they basically have to go for the M13 I’ll call them (in honor of the old M84 from Classic).

The Magic 13 (M13):
Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai
Calcutta, Hong Kong, Sydney, Manila, Honolulu
Stalingrad, Leningrad

As the game stands, if Allies ignore Japan, I can see Axis capable of pretty much grabbing up all of the M13 with the exception of Leningrad and Stalingrad.  At that point, Japan can start applying pressure to Stalingrad via India or to Moscow itself via Siberia/China (I wouldn’t call this JTDTM though as this would be more midgame rather than early game).  If Allies are conducting typical KGF, then Karelia is probably loaded with Allies.  At some point, Japan pressure will force them to move to Moscow, and if Germany is pushing INF like they should be vs a KGF, then Leningrad should fall.

Overall then, ignoring Japan looks like a very grim situation for the Allies.  They are essentially forced to defend one of the Pacific VCs, either India, Sydney, or Honolulu.  This is why I think they chose Ottawa as a VC.  If the Allies are well behaved and defend one of these Pacific VCs as they should, then the last VC Axis has to get, should be difficult.  South Africa would be too easy in my opinion.  Too far from Allied reinforcements, and too close to a nearly maxed out Japan.

Axis still has options though.  Either go for all 3 Russian VCs, or just go for Leningrad/Stalingrad and run a fork maneuver into Western Canada with Japan (ie. pressure San Fran and Ottawa simultaneously, as it would be hard for the US ignoring a nearly maxed out Japan to defend both).

As I said above though, the key to whether Allies will stay in the Pacific depends on their ability to defend one of those VCs.  If they decide none of these are defendable (because of a bad opening set-up and poor game rules), then expect to see all or nothing KGF +/- HB/Rocket strategies to try and take down German/Italian VCs before the Axis get their M13.

At that point, yes, perhaps we’ll see AA50 Enhanced  :-D

@Imperious:

Its not just for france its for any 2 allies combining up the turns (combat movement) it can be anywhere one event per game.

Now that would be a HUGE surprise!!
I recall hearing about some Cammander-in-Chief rules from the Original Nova version of Axis & Allies.  Maybe Larry might be bringing them back  :-)
If such a Combined Attack were to be incorporated, I would think you would need several limitations to keep it balanced:

-one-time use only
-only one territory can be targeted
-no unit will be able to move twice in that round
-defender must be given some sort of warning the attack will be happening (consider it as intelligence).  I would think something along the lines that if the Combined attack is going to occur on say US turn 5, the Allies would have to declare a Combined attack will be happening next round at the end of US turn 4 (but without any declaration of where and with what units).  This would give the opponent sometime to prepare.

I could see the rule being used in a lot of theatres and potentially blowing the game wide open (ie. totally changing the momentum in a theater) with a well-orchestrated attack…

UK/US vs. France
Ger/Ita vs. Atlantic Fleet, Russia, or Africa
Allies vs. Japan in SE Asia, or Pacific

The biggest worry though, would be balance… I’d be most concerned about Axis navies.  Again though, the rule would just require some restrictions to keep it balanced.

P.S. I doubt we’ll see this as a surprise for the new game… but it would be cool  :-D

@Rakeman:

What makes D-Day deserving for a special rule but no other battle?  Just wondering…

Hi Rakeman… there are lots of reasons to include D-Day in the game…

Historical Reasons
-it was the single largest amphibious invasion of all time, requiring the cooperation and long-term planning of 3 separate nations against an enemy having years to prepare
-it was the much desired 2nd front Stalin was hoping for to take pressure off Russia
-it signalled the beginning of the end of German dominance in Europe

Strategic Reasons
-you may recall from Classic and Revised, the most efficient strategy was just dumping US + UK forces into Karelia basically giving you a big stack of Allies in Karelia, and a big stack of Germans in Eastern Europe, with very little movement or strategic planning required (you can file this reason under historic as well, as Allies in Russia was just a big no-no  :-P ).  I’d rather have the strategy of US + UK planning a D-Day attack and Germany having to deal with a 2-front war.

Fun Factor Reasons
-the Karelia dump is not fun.  You basically get 2 stacks staring each other down until either the Allied stack is forced to retreat, or the Germans realize they’ll never have enough strength to overcome the Allied stack and just give up.  Either way, it’s a long, boring game.  Multiple fronts –> more movement and more strategic decisions --> more fun.
-The closer the game feels to World War II, the more fun it is.  D-Day was a big part of WWII.

I’m still hoping for a surprise that somehow incorporates Convoy Raids into the game.

Convoy Raiding was such a huge factor in the war, in both the Pacific and the Atlantic and it would be a shame to leave it out, not just for historical accuracy reasons, but also strategic game-playing reasons.  I’m still hoping there may be some Convoy Raid rules or at least some National Objectives relating to keeping SUBs out of your seazones.  I have a feeling though, I’m going to be disappointed  :-(

The other surpise I would like to see, is some sort of rules for a one-time D-day attack.  Again, another big part of WWII not included in the game  :|

Hi guys!   :-D

I’m excited about the new game.  I actually think that they got the Victory City distribution right this time.  The whole point of Victory Cities, is to allow the game to be won, without needing the fall of a capital.

We’re all familiar with the typical KGF/Ignore Japan/JTDTM playout from Classic and Revised.  Basically, produce your units, and push them towards Berlin or Moscow (the two easiest capitals to take down) as efficiently as possible, or what I like to call, “Moving the Meat” style Axis and Allies  :roll:  This takes very little strategic thought and is boring as H-E-double hockey sticks to play.  Those of you that are familiar with AAR: Enhanced, know how much more fun the game is when the Allies are fighting in the Pacific and you have multiple theaters to think about and spread your tight resources among.  To get this “Global War playout”,  victory shouldn’t depend on capital capture.  If victory depends on capital capture, then the most efficient way to victory is to simply just push all your units towards the easiest enemy capital (ie. Berlin and Moscow).

Now in Revised, they did introduce Victory Cities to try and correct this.  The problem is, is that their distribution (at 9VC win condition) still necessitated the fall of a capital to win, ie. Moscow.  So what’s Axis going to do?… Go straight for Moscow.  In turn, the Allies, with no reason for being in the Pacific, would go straight for Berlin.  Well, so much for that version  :roll:

In Anniversary Edition though, I think they got it right.

Axis starts with 6 VC
Japan has 5 non-capital VCs in close proximity
Ger/Ita have 2 non-capital VCs in range

With a 13 VC win condition, Axis can win the game without taking a capital.  This is critical, because in previous games, they had to take a capital.  Thus, the groundwork is laid to keep Japan in the Pacific and out of Moscow.  What remains to be determined though, is if it’s viable for the Allies to fight Japan in the Pacific.  If it is, then we will get the Global War we desire.  If it is not, then we will still get KGF.

On that note, the one disappointment I have is that the Industrial Complex price remains at 15IPC (unlike 12 IPC in Enhanced).  If you’re really wanting to encourage more of an Allied Pacific campaign, you have to allow the Allies to do one of 2 things, either:

1. Let the US go full tilt 1 on 1 with Japan while UK+Rus work against Ger/Ita
or
2. Get a UK IC in India or Australia with some partial US assistance (ie. US+UK split their resources in both theatres)

If the ICs are overly expensive, especially for a cash-strapped UK, you’re going to see less of situation 2 and more of a Classic KGF/Ignore Japan/JTDTM style of game  :roll:

Now, the only other thing to keep in mind though is bonus income for UK.  It might be enough to encourage UK to build an IC, even at the inflated price of 15 IPC.  We’ll have to see when the game comes out.

Bottom Line: The Victory City distribution with a 13 VC win condition lays the groundwork for the Axis to fight a Global War (ie. will keep Japan from going to Moscow).  What will ultimately determine if the Global War playout happens, is whether a UK IC in the Pacific, or a full tilt US naval campaign against Japan, are strategically viable for the Allies.  Again, we’ll need to see the opening set-up to know.

Hi folks, new poster here  :-)
I’m normally on the Avalon Hill site, but axis_roll asked for my opinion on this luck vs. skill debate…

Just a couple clarifications first…

1. I assume we are talking just one single game here.  Certainly over an infinite number of games, you would expect 2 players of equal skill to win a similar number of games.  Luck wll eventually equal out.  In a single game though, how much of a role does luck play in a game between players of equal skill?

2. By saying players of equal skill, that’s not necessarily saying two players who play exactly the same way, or are mirror clones of each other.  Rather, I would use the statistical interpretation, meaning if you took an infinite number of A&A players, and had them play an infinte number of games against each other, Players A and B would be ranked in the Xth %ile for number of victories.  X could be 50th%ile, 90th %ile, whatever.  So both players don’t necessarily need to play the same way, or know the prefect way to respond to each other’s moves, but rather, they would win a similar number of games vs. a multitude of opponents.

3. Now with that said, the other important consideration, is how much lattitude there is in the game to allow players to overcome bad luck.  Worst case scenario would be game that involved a single coin flip.  Heads… Allies win, Tails… Axis wins.  Then yes, this game would be 100% luck.  On the flip side, say a game involves many small battles that help determine the outcome, with lots of choices and opportunities for a player to get back in the game despite some bad luck early.  In this game, luck gets minimized because it’s dispersed among all these smaller battles, or less crucial dice rolls.

So, to answer your question, the percentage luck is invloved in a games outcome, ultimately depends on the game…

If the game is the original Axis & Allies, I would put the % very high, at least 80%.  Two skilled players would know the best strategy is KGF for Allies, and Infantry Push to Russia for Axis.  The game is partiall decided by who gets the early economic edge, but ultimately by how Japan and Germany do in the final assault against Russia.

If the game is Axis & Allies Revised, I would put the % at about 50%.  The way they designed this game, the optimal playout is still the same, KGF Allies, March to Russia for Axis.  Very unfortunate they goofed on this again.  The 3 key battles here are what happens Round 1 in Eastern Europe, AES, and SE Asia.  If the Axis fare poorly in 2 of these battles, Allies should win.  Beyond that, the deciding factor then becomes what happens with the final battle in Russia.

Now, if anyone has played Axis & Allies Enhanced, I would have to put the % more around 20%.  This game is all about choices, which as stated above, minimizes the impact of luck.  Every unit is strategically viable.  The game expands to 15VCs, making the Russia battle far less crucial.  By including Pacific VCs in Haw and Aus, battles get spread out further.  Tech is also more strategicically implemented, and if used correctly, can help overcome some bad dice early.  Because there are so many individual choices in the game, and ways to play it out, this particular game makes luck much less of a factor.

Anyways, my AAR: Enhanced shout-out aside  :-D, the answer to the question is, it depends on the game.  For AAR particularly, the choices are so limited in how to win the game, that luck plays a significant factor… I would have to approximate that at least 50% of the time, the dice are too bad for either side to overcome no matter what they do.