Best posts made by DoManMacgee

@the_good_captain These attempts at sniping fringe territories really aren’t going my way…

Game History

Round: 2

    Puchase Units - French
        French buy 2 artilleries and 7 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 

    Combat Move - French
        1 artillery and 4 infantry moved from Portugal to SZ 14
        1 infantry moved from Spanish Morocco to SZ 14
        1 infantry moved from Gold Coast to Togoland
              French take Togoland from Germans
        1 infantry moved from Tunisia to Libya
        1 artillery, 5 infantry and 3 transports moved from SZ 14 to SZ 17
        1 artillery and 5 infantry moved from SZ 17 to Piedmont
        4 artilleries, 1 fighter and 13 infantry moved from Burgundy to Piedmont
        1 infantry moved from Picardy to Burgundy
        1 fighter and 6 infantry moved from Paris to Burgundy
        1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Belgium to Ruhr
        4 artilleries and 13 infantry moved from Belgium to Picardy

    Combat - French
        Battle in Piedmont
            French attack with 5 artilleries, 1 fighter and 18 infantry
            Germans defend with 1 infantry
                French roll dice for 5 artilleries, 1 fighter and 18 infantry in Piedmont, round 2 : 8/24 hits, 10.50 expected hits
                Germans roll dice for 1 infantry in Piedmont, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits
                1 infantry owned by the Germans and 1 infantry owned by the French lost in Piedmont
            French win, taking Piedmont from Germans with 5 artilleries, 1 fighter and 17 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 0
            Casualties for French: 1 infantry
            Casualties for Germans: 1 infantry
        Battle in Ruhr
            French attack with 1 artillery and 2 infantry
            Germans defend with 1 infantry
                French roll dice for 1 artillery and 2 infantry in Ruhr, round 2 : 0/3 hits, 1.33 expected hits
                Germans roll dice for 1 infantry in Ruhr, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits
                1 infantry owned by the French lost in Ruhr
            Germans and French reach a stalemate
            . Battle score for attacker is -3
            Casualties for French: 1 infantry

    Combat Move - French

    Place Units - French
        2 artilleries and 7 infantry placed in Paris

    Turn Complete - French
        French collect 30 PUs; end with 30 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

French regular : -3.83
Germans regular : 1.00

B2 next.

@thrasher1 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

Regarding Event Cards: I personally would like to see an Events Cards expansion for the standard version of Axis and Allies. For now this is A&A 1942 Second Edition of course.
My friends and I thought about this in the early days (1990s) a lot. Why not simply add a deck of cards to the game. Would be rather cheap to produce by MB/Hasbro.

I have the opposite opinion of you, but that’s only because I have a bias against event cards in war games. I do understand that several successful war games (Memoir 44, etc.) use cards as an integral part of their design, so I get where you’re coming from.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog

Just wanted to poke my head in and say that the lag issue I was experiencing a few days ago is cleared up. Life’s been busy so I haven’t been able to post in a bit, sorry.

Only gripe I can think of at the moment is the issue with the FTRs not sinking alongside their Carriers, but that’s already been addressed/acknowledged so there’s no point beating a dead horse.

@Suppressmeajumma The Western Allies should certainly be landing in the same spot, and Northern Italy, since it has a factory, is certainly a good place to land (France is also good, since it’s two spaces away from any German Factories, so harder to reinforce). My point was more that defending the USSR should be the main objective of the US/UK, not making some kind of grand D-Day Style Landing. You might want to prioritize landing troops in Leningrad before making any landings in France/Italy, so that they can liberate the factory there for the USSR and defend Moscow from the German onslaught.

@domanmacgee Game History

Round: 3

    Puchase Units - Americans
        Americans buy 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, 1 infantry and 1 transport; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 

    Place Units - Americans
        1 cruiser and 1 transport placed in SZ 1
        1 artillery and 1 infantry placed in United States of America

    Turn Complete - Americans
        Americans collect 20 PUs; end with 20 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

As I’m sure you’re already aware, starting from round 4 the Russian Revolution is in effect and America is allowed to actually start playing.

1914-game1-usa3.tsvg

@655321 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

Good questions, I’m going to give them a shot.

@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

• Did WOTC know/care/acknowledge that releasing AAZ has caused a rift in the community?

I didn’t see any acknowledgement of this in the interview. I’m speculating that they knew and didn’t care.

Sadly, this is my take as well. All “we” got was a slight nod at the end of the interview. Something about a “focus test group” or whatever. I imagine that was the party that DJensen and others attended a while back.

The attitude for this makes sense, though. Casual buyers make up a far greater portion of the sales figures for these games than the dedicated crowd.

• Did the game actually sell well (I doubt we’ll ever get a true answer to this)?

The closest thing I can find is on Amazon dot com, where as of today 2/9/19, AAZ is rated #616 in the top selling board games category. By comparison, here are rankings for other AA games:

AA50 reissue is currently ranked #314 in the top selling board games category.
AA Europe 1940 2nd edition is #1,059.
AA 1942 2nd edition is #1,102.

So Zombies seems to be about the middle of the pack right now. It was probably selling faster when it was first released. I’m not surprised AA50 reissue is still selling more, that one’s the best.

Are Amazon’s metric’s based on a time frame or on “all time” sales figures?

I was intrigued by these stats, so I took some of my own (for today, 2/11/2019):
41: “#243 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
AA50: “#367 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
AAZ: “#663 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
42SE: “#743 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”

E402E: “#1,164 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
1914: "#1,178 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games "
421E: “#10,132 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
P401E: “#13,821 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”

I didn’t bother with the spin-offs or AAC/Revised (because all of them predate Amazon being a major player in shipping/eCommerce)

I also didn’t bother with P40 2E or E40 1E, as E40 2E and P40 1E outsold their counterparts and are thus the better representative of “G40/G402E” as a whole.

Depressingly, this shows that 41 is the king of the hill as far as pure sales numbers go. However, AA50 has amazing sales numbers (especially given that it’s a limited release item), so I’m hopeful that the next A&A edition will be a 42 3rd edition or something like that. On the scale of AA50.

• Is A&A dead?

I bet sales are up right now across the entire AA franchise thanks to AAZ.

Based on the sales figures from earlier, I don’t think you’re wrong.

• Is A&A condemned to exist only in the form gimmick-laden and/or “casual-friendly” editions forever?

Remember that AA50 reissue is the hottest selling AA game right now, and that’s hardly a gimmicky/casual version.

41 would like to have a word with you. AAZ may also surpass AA50 if it’s sales numbers continue to climb.

However, I think that comparing 41 and AAZ to the other A&A games is partially unfair. Those two benefit from:

• Lower price tag ($40 USD compared to 60+ for other editions)
• Presence in major retailers (Wal-Mart, Target, most bookstores, etc. have dozens of copies of 41 and AAZ lying around).

AFAIK, no other (recent) game in the franchise has has presence in major retailers, instead being condemned to hobby shops.

I doubt Avalon Hill will try to compete with the depth and complexity of Global War 1939, But after releasing AAZ they will probably revisit a more complex/traditional game in the lineup, maybe do an AA1942 3rd edition, or maybe an AAG 1940 3rd edition.

I feel that a 42TE is more likely. That or something ambitious like “A&A 39”. Who doesn’t want to relive the myth of German Tanks gunning down Polish Calvary (this obviously never happened but is perceived as fact by pop culture).

I don’t expect (or want) WOTC to attempt to compete with GW36/39. There’s just no point and no profit to be made from it.

I also read somewhere that Avalon Hill wants to publish a new AA console/computer video game. I’m guessing it would be simpler than AAG 1940. Would an AA game on the Xbox/PS be embraced or rejected by the hardcore wargamer crowd? Would it be popular with the casual console gamer crowd and maybe bring some of them deeper into the wargaming scene?

I read that it was a planned release for mobile/tablets. Not consoles.

• How did WOTC balance the game?

They claim to have done lots of playtesting but I think the Axis have an advantage thanks to the rule that only 1 capital needs to be captured to win.

The rules say that 1 captured capital ends the game, and Moscow is usually captured easily. I quickly implemented a house rule that says 2 capitals need to be captured to win. This gives more balance and the allies are more likely to win this way (it also gives the zombies a bigger chance to win), but it increases the game time by at least a few hours. I think Avalon Hill did the 1 capital wins rule to keep it light, short, and accessible. The AAZ rulebook invites bringing in rules from other games in the AA franchise so I think a 2 capitals wins house rule is a good way for more experienced players to go.

I disagree with your balance assessments based on games I’ve played, but I’ve only played about 15 games so far (and two of those were before I had a 100% grasp on the rules). That’s far from enough to make an assertion one way or the other.

I think the issue here is less the being able to place units you buy, and more the exploits that become possible by buying a unit you never intend to place.

For example, if I buy a CV on a UK turn, I can hypothetically fly a FTR from Moscow to attack a German Navy in the Baltic Sea, even if Karelia/Norway/Germany/Poland/Baltic States are all German-owned, because I can hypothetically land those FTRs in the SZ adjacent to the Baltic Sea and UK during NCM. However, as is, I can carry out this attack even if it’s a blatant suicide mission, because as soon as the FTRs are dead I am no longer obligated to place the CV I bought earlier, meaning I can save placing it for next turn, effectively giving UK 14 free IPCs towards their next naval purchase and denying Germany a chance to pounce on a vulnerable CV for free value.

EDIT: Thanks for the clarification @JuliusBorisovBeamdog. Glad to see you and the team are still working hard at making improvements. The game has come a long way since launch quality-wise and I’m sure everyone here appreciates the continued dedication.

EDIT #2: I guess what I’m saying is that the purchase system should be left as-written in the rules. Players should be punished for bad tactical decision making. Otherwise all games would just come down to a combination of luck, basic knowledge of the map being played, and which side the map being played is biased towards. It’d be more of an exercise in optimization than an actual game.

Hi all, just confirming that if/when this starts up again I’d be down to give it a try. I’m not the greatest/most studied at Classic (compared to highly-skilled/veteran players, anyway) but I’m down to participate to pad out the roster for sure.

@the_good_captain That might have been bad, but we’ll see how things go:

Game History

Round: 4

    Puchase Units - British
        Condition TankProductionBritish: British has their production frontier changed to: lateWarProduction
        British buy 3 artilleries, 1 fighter and 6 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 

    Combat Move - British
        2 artilleries, 1 fighter and 8 infantry moved from Sevastopol to Ukraine
        1 infantry moved from Persia to Sevastopol
        1 fighter moved from India to Sevastopol
        1 artillery and 8 infantry moved from Persia to Sevastopol
        1 artillery and 8 infantry moved from India to Persia
        1 artillery and 3 infantry moved from Kamerun to Nigeria
        1 transport moved from SZ 7 to SZ 2
        2 infantry moved from Canada to SZ 2
        2 infantry and 1 transport moved from SZ 2 to SZ 7
        2 infantry moved from SZ 7 to Ireland

    Combat - British
        Battle in Nigeria
            British attack with 1 artillery and 3 infantry
            Germans defend with 1 infantry
                British roll dice for 1 artillery and 3 infantry in Nigeria, round 2 : 2/4 hits, 1.67 expected hits
                Germans roll dice for 1 infantry in Nigeria, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits
                1 infantry owned by the Germans lost in Nigeria
            British win, taking Nigeria from Germans with 1 artillery and 3 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3
            Casualties for Germans: 1 infantry
        Air Battle in Ukraine
            British attacks with 1 units heading to Ukraine
            Germans launches 2 interceptors out of Ukraine
                Attackers Fire,  : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits
                Defenders Fire,  : 0/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits
                Attackers Fire,  : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits
                Defenders Fire,  : 0/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits
                Attackers Fire,  : 0/1 hits, 0.33 expected hits
                Defenders Fire,  : 1/2 hits, 0.67 expected hits
                1 fighter owned by the British lost in Ukraine
            Air Battle is over, the attackers have all died
        Battle in Ukraine
            British attack with 2 artilleries and 8 infantry
            Germans defend with 1 artillery, 2 fighters and 7 infantry
                British roll dice for 2 artilleries and 8 infantry in Ukraine, round 2 : 3/10 hits, 4.00 expected hits
                Germans roll dice for 1 artillery, 2 fighters and 7 infantry in Ukraine, round 2 : 7/10 hits, 4.83 expected hits
                3 infantry owned by the Germans and 7 infantry owned by the British lost in Ukraine
            Germans and British reach a stalemate
            . Battle score for attacker is -12
            Casualties for British: 7 infantry
            Casualties for Germans: 3 infantry

    Combat Move - British

    Place Units - British
        3 artilleries, 1 fighter and 6 infantry placed in India

    Turn Complete - British
        British collect 32 PUs; end with 32 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Defenders Fire,  : -1.00
Attackers Fire,  : -1.00
Germans regular : 1.67
British regular : -0.67

1914-game1-b4.tsvg

@taamvan You’re assuming that US goes full 100% KJF. While I prefer that route myself in most A&A games, most players don’t go that route.

I think the larger culprit behind the issue you’re getting at (Japan doesn’t have enough income to fund a steady stream of land units to the mainland) is that it’s crippling for Japan to not be allowed to build a mainland IC. In basically every other A&A game, Japan builds an IC in either Manchuria or the equivalent of Kwangtung. That side-steps the issue of Japan needing to waste money on Transports.

If I had to make up a Japan strategy for AAZ on the fly, I’d gamble on an all-in after India. If Japan can take India it can use the Recruitment Center there to produce INF. 2 INF/Turn isn’t much, but it’s units you don’t have to waste transports on.

However, as @Striker points out, we are in agreement that Japan’s weak start is a major factor in the massive advantage the Allies have in this edition. I also agree with your notion that the Zombie Attrition decimates Japan’s starting forces in a few turns. That’s why I suggested giving ART to the Manchuria and FIC stacks. That would be enough to lower the Zombie count on Japan’s front yard (if the Japan player is willing to take the ART as casualties before the INF during strafe attempts on R1/B1). The lower initial Zombie count would in turn preserve Japan’s starting strength, which would give them more expansion routes in the opening rounds (a faster takedown of China or a takedown of India would help push their income into relevancy).

1st forray into ranked went something like:

R1: 7 INF 2 ART 1 TANK Vs. 3 INF 1 ART 1 TANK

Defender wins with 1 ART and 1 TANK remaining.

Thanks game. Love you too.

@VictoryFirst It was already made. https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/41503/2025-classic-tournament/. Wins/Losses go there. This thread has the link to the bracket buried in it, which is here for reference:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bl9ZgBWBZMZhybNTT6CUEiTC_QA6k949IWDZeYY_Qrc/edit?gid=1557325169#gid=1557325169

@the_good_captain Sorry I was out for the last few hours but you more or less pieced together what I was thinking of doing (Forcing contested territories by any means necessary, up to and including sacrificing the air force).

I’m not sure if entering Moscow itself was a “noob mistake” as it’s a fairly logical trade. I lose the IPCs/production for about 2 turns but the German stack dies immediately with the AH stack following in relatively short order. You would have gotten the free money from taking Moscow and been able to use that to seriously push back on the France/Italy/USA line so the game would have probably turned into either you trying to stabilize the Russian front and making a second attempt at beating Russia Vs. a race of seeing if you can take down Italy before the Russians regroup and kill/cripple AH.

Let’s try flipping sides. It it just as simple as creating the thread then firing up a PBEM game?

I don’t have any delusions of grandeur to expect that I’ll be able to beat you with Central Powers with no bids/no LHTR, but I’ll show you how I usually approach playing them to see if it gives you any ideas/data to work with. Probably will post AH1 in the morning or in a couple of hours.

@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

And DMG; I didn’t allude to KJF only to the income disparity–I agree that KGF is also very effective in AAZ because Germany starts on the defensive. Heck, the US could spend $16 on each front, splitting the whole game and the Axis would still be in trouble.

I guess that’s a contributing factor I didn’t think to write down before. Both Axis Powers are effectively on the defensive (initiative-wise, anyway) from the onset, despite being at a serious economic disadvantage. They can’t really swing their TUV into key locations quickly enough, and ironically, it’s due to the Zombies, the mechanic that was meant to speed the game up.

A couple of artifacts from previous games show up here

1. the Game Designers love to hide the value of a risky Allied opener, whereas my first game I played vs. a team being coached by Charles M., an 8 time national champion and he attacked everywhere—Russia all in, Manchuria, FIC, all destroyed. That open is alot like 42.2/42.3. Unsurprisingly, on his first view of the game, Dave did the same thing even though he wasn’t at Gencon that year and didn’t see my game v. Charles+Family

If you read my other thread on this game’s balance issues, my playgroup figured out the value of being hyper-aggressive with the Allies almost immediately as well. No one is disagreeing with the basic premise that the Allies are stronger.

2. the designers are married to certain territory values and relative values (SVE admits this) from previous iterations that would have to be distorted in order for the game to be balanced

Certain territories need certain values to keep the game at least vaguely historical, though. If France/India/the Money Islands weren’t worth higher IPC Values no one would go for them.

Agree with your other two points, though (and I basically agree with Point #1 as well).

Copy/Pasting this from another thread where I complained about it but was ignored:

tldr: Column Rolling is the way combat was resolved in Classic. You roll your "1"s first, then opponent assigns casualties. After casualties are assigned, you roll your "2"s, and so on. Normally, you’re supposed to roll all of your dice before your opponent assigns their casualties.

Longer Explanation including the reason why this should not be a thing:

As long as we’re talking about the combat phase, I just remembered a gripe I’ve been meaning to bring up for a while now:

Why is Column “Lane” Rolling ( where, during combat, you roll the dice for each column and assign hits in-sequence, rather than rolling all dice before assigning hits . Ex. If attacking with 3 INF/1 TANK, I would roll my INF dice for “1s”, then my opponent would take hits as needed, then I would roll for my TANK) in-place in this game? I thought Column Rolling literally only existed in Classic 2nd Edition (maybe 3rd too, I don’t remember completely).

I bring it up because, although it really hasn’t impacted any of my games yet due to the whole “asynchronous play” thing. I can see it being an issue when you’re attacking another territory and are squaring off against a large number of enemy units that have a diverse range of combat stats. Something like:

I attack with 2 SUBs, 1 DD, 1 CV, 2 FTR

Opponent defends with 3 SUBs, 1 CV, 1 FTR

I do my roles, blah blah.

Opponent rolls for the subs, miraculously gets 3 hits.

Because of the way AAO works (column rolling), I need to pick who dies to the subs before the opponent rolls for the CV and FTRs.

This creates a tough situation for me. Do I lose the SUBs and DD, hoping that the CV and FTR won’t kill my carrier, do I lose 1 SUB/1 DD/1 CV to try to keep my Submarine alive, assuming at least one more hit (which would be assigned to a FTR), or do I lose 2 SUB/1 CV to allow my FTRs to get off one more round of hits, ensuring that the enemy navy is sunk even if it means sacrificing the FTRs (assuming they can’t NCM to safety).

In a normal game, a conundrum like this would not occur, as the defender would roll all of their dice before I assign casualties. Column Rolling adds a level of strategic depth/risk-taking to the game for sure, but it’s not a 1:1 recreation of the rules of 42SE.

@Martin Yes the “miss” on my part was using Japan’s bomber offensively when it could have at least NCM’d from Manchuria -> Germany to give one more HP to the units there. That might have made some level of difference in the final fight but in hindsight, once the UK air got as many kills as it did it was unlikely that Germany was going to survive.

Good luck to you as well!

@the_good_captain Game History

Round: 2

    Puchase Units - AustroHungarians
        AustroHungarians buy 4 artilleries and 4 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 

    Combat Move - AustroHungarians
        15 infantry moved from Tyrolia to Venice
        4 artilleries and 11 infantry moved from Galicia to Romania
        2 artilleries and 5 infantry moved from Serbia to Romania
        2 artilleries and 4 infantry moved from Vienna to Galicia
        2 artilleries and 2 infantry moved from Trieste to Venice

    Combat - AustroHungarians
        Battle in Romania
            AustroHungarians attack with 6 artilleries and 16 infantry
            Russians defend with 5 artilleries and 14 infantry
                AustroHungarians roll dice for 6 artilleries and 16 infantry in Romania, round 2 : 5/22 hits, 9.33 expected hits
                Russians roll dice for 5 artilleries and 14 infantry in Romania, round 2 : 12/19 hits, 9.50 expected hits
                5 infantry owned by the Russians and 12 infantry owned by the AustroHungarians lost in Romania
            Russians and AustroHungarians reach a stalemate
            . Battle score for attacker is -21
            Casualties for AustroHungarians: 12 infantry
            Casualties for Russians: 5 infantry
        Battle in Venice
            AustroHungarians attack with 6 artilleries and 23 infantry
            Italians defend with 1 infantry
                AustroHungarians roll dice for 6 artilleries and 23 infantry in Venice, round 2 : 9/29 hits, 11.67 expected hits
                Italians roll dice for 1 infantry in Venice, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.50 expected hits
                1 infantry owned by the Italians lost in Venice
            AustroHungarians win, taking Venice from Italians with 6 artilleries and 23 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3
            Casualties for Italians: 1 infantry

    Combat Move - AustroHungarians

    Place Units - AustroHungarians
        4 artilleries and 4 infantry placed in Vienna

    Turn Complete - AustroHungarians
        AustroHungarians collect 30 PUs; end with 30 PUs

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Italians regular : -0.50
Russians regular : 2.50
AustroHungarians regular : -7.00

The lol dice are back again.
1914-game2-ah2.tsvg

The more I think about it actually, the more I realize that the Zombies slow the game down more than they speed it up. Turning territories into meat grinders dissuades players from committing forces to said territories before they have stacks that are large enough to:

• Survive initial Zombie Attrition and possibly take the territory.
• Survive the counter-punch/strafe attempt from the neighboring stack.
• Survive another round of Zombie Attrition brought on by the casualties from the counter-punch.

I think someone in another thread made a note about refraining from building INF to keep the Zombie Count under control. That might actually be a viable option for Germany (not so much for Japan, due to their lackluster income).

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog Please see the edit to my previous post for a potential compromise here. I understand the frustrations of adapting the rules 1:1 from a board game, however if ranked play is expected to be taken seriously the basic rules should still be enforced when possible. I can see things like pre-determined order-of-losses and not being able to land planes on Allied Carriers being necessary due to the programming constraints involved with asynchronous play, but loss calculation is something that only impacts the turn player, and no one else.

Furthermore, you’ve already added a beginner-friendly option to combat resolution. There’s a button in the bottom-left of the combat screen that lets me just use my defense profile to assign casualties if I want. Inexperienced players are already accomodated to with that, I’d imagine.

I understand that retooling the combat screen would be time-consuming work, so I’m not requesting that this be done immediately. Just something to consider for the next “major release”.

@leemorrison I am ready to start our game when you are. PM me your opening bid if you are ready.