Posts made by ehenry

@mantlefan:

Is balance, in your mind, EVER attainable for AA global?

Ah. An adult question.

Yes. Balance is attainable. After lots of testing. Ideally players will test alpha2 and report their experiences. If players find a specific strategy for one side yields a consistant successful result regardless of opponent strategies then the game remains unbalanced. It is up to playtesters to  continue offering alpha2 modifications, and playtesting those modifications, until a previously consistantly successful strategy becomes uncertain.

Any modifications to alpha2 may in turn create new consistantly successful strategies. This is expected and should result in new mods or rejections of old mods. If however no new consistantly successful strategies emerge from a set of alpha 2 mods then we could reasonably claim the game is balanced. At this point a final round of testing from all testers, without further mods, should yield 50% results for each side. If it doesn’t, the game remains unbalanced and new modifications are required and the process repeats.

To conclude, the game remains unbalanced until demonstrably proven otherwise.

@mantlefan:

@ehenry:

@mantlefan:

A true logician would be gracious to his audience and note the fallacy employed. A poser merely steals the words of a logician with no explanation and no understanding.

Does logical discourse require that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Why? The 211 logic class i took discussed true vs not true and valid vs invalid. There was no discussion of burden of proof.

You are likely confusing logic with debate, specifically NFL debate. In this case the affirmative has the burden of proof to explain that the status quo is insufficient to resolve a given problem.

In this case mantlefan claims the game is balanced and that those who say otherwise bear the burden of proof. This is an error. The game is indeed unbalanced. The very existence of an Alpha2 bears this out. If balance existed then this forum would not. Logic would diagram the argument as If A then B. If B then C. Therefore If A then C.

All of which means that the game is indeed unbalanced until proven otherwise.

Your “analysis” ignores the fact that a claim was made. Your statement that because Alpha 2 exists the game is unbalanced means that because changes were made to make the game balanced, the game is automatically unbalanced. What you ignore is whether or not the game is balanced.

You state that according to what you call logic, there would be no discussion of imbalance if balance existed. Why does the act of discussing whether or not something exists have direct impact on the existence of that which is being discussed?

Does the sky change color based on whether or not we are discussing what color it is? Isn’t the color independent of whether or not it is discussed?

Essentially, you are saying that saying that imbalance exists means imbalance exists, because if balance was the case, then no one would think there is imbalance. Why then does saying there is balance (which I have never done), not mean that it is balanced?

mantlefan, you fail to grasp the very meaning of words. Therefore you flail against the very trees which define the forest you fail to accept.

Alpha 2 exists because oob is unbalanced. This is a given, a tautology. Heap on all the invalid infantile analogies you wish, the game remains unbalanced. An adult response would be to find a solution. What’s yours?

@mantlefan:

@questioneer:

@mantlefan:

That is much more detailed, thank you.

WOW…LET’S MAKE THIS A HOLIDAY

What we really needed was some detail.

What You needed was some detail. Leave the imperial we out of it.

@mantlefan:

Still avoid centuries of logical discourse? The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Cool, you want the game balanced. So do I. So why haven’t you proven the game is unbalanced? You made the claim. This alleged imbalance is news to me (Note I did not say it didn’t exist, I just haven’t discovered yet, if ever, if it exists at all) But you, you are a genius who has discovered how lacking in balance the game is. You hold the key to showing it is unbalanced in your hands, otherwise there is NO WAY you would EVER suggest that a change be made for reasons of balance, unless you were absolutely sure that it was right?  So you’ve already discovered that this problem exists. You already know. You are the enlightened one. But, you won’t share it.

Why?

A true logician would be gracious to his audience and note the fallacy employed. A poser merely steals the words of a logician with no explanation and no understanding.

Does logical discourse require that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Why? The 211 logic class i took discussed true vs not true and valid vs invalid. There was no discussion of burden of proof.

You are likely confusing logic with debate, specifically NFL debate. In this case the affirmative has the burden of proof to explain that the status quo is insufficient to resolve a given problem.

In this case mantlefan claims the game is balanced and that those who say otherwise bear the burden of proof. This is an error. The game is indeed unbalanced. The very existence of an Alpha2 bears this out. If balance existed then this forum would not. Logic would diagram the argument as If A then B. If B then C. Therefore If A then C.

All of which means that the game is indeed unbalanced until proven otherwise.

Once should be sufficient.

Mantlefan reminds me of the tobacco companies. “Well sure our customers have died of cancer. But’s it’s not like smoking caused the cancer.”

MStephens that was brilliantly elucidated. Thank you very much.

The strategy is USA all in for the Pacific. I expect all other allies turtle or otherwise hold out until Japan is finished.

The details are obviously in the tactics. A good strategy still fails if you deliberately buy only factories and troops but no protection or transportation.

Anybody who wants to succeed as the Allies should be testing this to determine if they found a guaranteed Tournament winner every time they play.

@Cmdr:

The ships at Pearl Harbor were, for all intents and purposes, abandoned by the United States Navy.  They were running on generators supplied from the docks, their engines were on cold steel (off, and cold, would take HOURS if not DAYS to get the fleet moving under their own power again, as a totality for the fleet) the ships didn’t even have enough people to be called a skeleton crew (regulations required more people on board than were actually on board at the time of the attack).  Boiled down, if the ships were any more abanadoned than they were at the time of the attack, they would have sunk from leaks in their own hulls.  I call that abandoned.

Did I say “undefended?”  No.  Of course not!  America put on a spectacular show, and many lives were lost so that FDR could justify entering WWII, but they were hardly as well defended as America’s Carriers were, by any stretch of the imagination.

---

The Super BBs are just as complicated as National Objectives.  IMHO.  However, the option was given to pander to those who wanted more units on the board.

A London NO makes the most sense of any NO proposal on the Atlantic Board.  Primarily because London can fall and probably will fall if Germany wants it.  Thus, America has to dedicate itself to the liberation or forever give up the NO.  IMHO.

The Super BB is more complex than a NO because it requires a counter. It is too complex.

A London NO is redundant and needlessly complex. America’s incentive in the Atlantic is to prevent the loss of an ally. Another NO is not needed.

America should receive fewer IPC. This would require more American teamwork with allies and is historically accurate.

@mantlefan:

[

People supporting your argument tell others just to “read it” Why are those supporters not reading about your claims of the Soviets in Norway and Denmark? Why are they not reading about your claims of Germany needing at least 13 rounds to take Stalingrad?

[/quote]

Why aren’t you asking these supporters directly? Jen has no more control over her supporters than i have control over your mother.

@Cmdr:

I disagree.  The people of the United States would have seen the cause as lost once London fell. (We Ukranians of Russian ancestry were already preparing for war anyway, so we wouldn’t have cared so much what happened to you angloids.)  It would have, most likely, been a much stronger impact than the bombing of some abandoned ships in some puny harbor in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (it was not yet a state!)

Further, strategically speaking (both in game and in history) London is and was of much more importance than Mexico City was and is.

Agreed on Mexico.

Riots or otherwise i don’t see a reasonable American NO for London. America’s reward for keeping London in the game is that America keeps an ally. That ought be more than sufficient reason to keep america engaged in the Atlantic.

If the allies can survive the atlantic without America then it would seem to indicate the atlantic allies are too strong. In which case less is more.

@Cmdr:

Another idea:

Give Japan 2x 3 Hit Battleships to represent the two they had in WWII.  They can be denoted (on the board) with a control marker under them and in battlemap with one of the tiles next to them.  3 Hit BBs should, further, be auto repaired to only 1 hit applied at the start of Japan’s purchase units phase regardless of proximity to a friendly naval base and fully repaired if in proximity to a friendly naval base.

Example:  Japan takes 2 hits to the Yamamoto (it floats because it is a 3 hit battleship.)  The battleship is located next to Guam at the time it is damaged.  On Japan’s next turn (provided no one hits the battleship a 3rd time before then) the ship can now absorb two hits before sinking.  Should the ship have been located in SZ 6, instead, it would then be able to absorb another 3 hits before sinking.

Japan may have up to 2 Super Battleships (3 hit battleships) originally, +1 if Japan controls Calcutta and +1 if Japan controls Sydney for a maximum of 4 at any time on the board.

Super Battleships cost 24 IPC.

Seems too complex

@Cmdr:

I disagree.  The people of the United States would have seen the cause as lost once London fell. (We Ukranians of Russian ancestry were already preparing for war anyway, so we wouldn’t have cared so much what happened to you angloids.)  It would have, most likely, been a much stronger impact than the bombing of some abandoned ships in some puny harbor in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (it was not yet a state!)

I would retract the comment about abandoned ships. It’s not funny nor true. Especially for people who still have family members aboard one of those “abandoned” ships.

@mantlefan:

@Razor:

@TheDefinitiveS:

Have one US NO that is worth 10 IPCs for controlling all original territories

Nobody should get a NO just for control of their own home territory, that is redundant

And… Why is it redundant? If it is redundant, why is that bad?

What does an NO represent, exactly? What do IPCs represent, exactly?

Anyways, lets assume although it’s far from proven) that the game is unbalanced.
What is wrong with this change?
Add the following clause onto the 10 IPC US NO:
If USA declares war on an Axis power before an axis power has captured London or a North American territory, or before Germany has declared war on the USA, or before Japan has declared war on UK, ANZAC, or USA, USA does not collect this NO.

It’s redundant because players initially own their own territories.

It’s bad because it is more complicated than simply increasing the value of the initial territories.

NOs are a McGuffin to increase income. Because NO are a line item in the rulebook instead of a map item they are more complicated. For that reason there should be as few NO as possible.

I think USA should get a 5 IPC NO when Gibraltar strait and Suez canal is controlled by the Allied. This represent the benefit from open shipping lanes and international trade.

Also UK should get 5 IPC NO for controlling Gibraltar strait and Suez canal, because if they dont, the convoys need to go around the tip of South AFrica, and that is twice the distance. Just imagine all the fuel.

I disagree with the USA NO. USA already has incentive to not let UK fall. USA does not need another NO here.

The UK NO works

@Cmdr:

@ehenry:

@Cmdr:

@ehenry:

Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.

Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.

The only problem with this is that America would actually need the money, if they played “honestly” that is, if they invested on both sides of the board.  If they invest on one board only, then yes, they should have the 10 IPC NO removed and the Mexican NO made solely Alaska + Aleutians (so Japan can snipe it.)

I expect USA to invest in only one board. Doing otherwise is inefficient use of material. USA fights to win on one board and fights delaying actions on the other board.

Yes, the Mexico NO must die. I mean seriously, Mexico? Really?

I like the Alaska / Aleutians NO. It provides a historical reason to fight there.

@Cmdr:

@ehenry:

Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.

Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.

Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

Jen makes a compelling and convincing case. The imbalance is clear. This thread should shift to solutions.

Germany was researching nukes and relatively close to resolution. Perhaps a given turn allows Germany a one time spectacular effect on one territory.

Agreed on all counts. Our games have been fast because we build airbases immediately and haven’t bombed airbases. Victory points rack up quickly. I’m sure as we get more knowledgeable the games will take longer :)

Guadalcanal is The game to get for Axis and Allies. At least until Global 40 is hashed out.

My 12 year old son and i can finish a game in 2 hours. Mostly because we’re not bombing airfields enough. Your first game will be difficult as you look at the board and wonder “now what.” Strategies aren’t as obvious as spring 1942.

I like the game because it brings more of a true combined arms feel than other games. The ships really are here to protect the transports which bring the infantry which allow you to win.

Purchased a ding and dent box from Thought Hammer. Played three games with my 12 yr old. Each time i was Japan. The boy likes being good guys.

Threw out the incorrectly colored cruisers. Added them back from AA revised, 1942, and Pacific 40.

Also swapped out the fighters for P-38s. The fighters went to Pacific 40 to be tiny tac bombers.

I like the VP conditions to win. Mostly. The issue i have is each of us can control three islands but one person is declared the winner. Seems like the game is over too quickly.

Playing to the death removes the historical concern about losing capital ships near the islands.

I’m thinking of a modified VP tally. One VP for every two airfields, round up.

We could just increase the VP total but i like using the pretty VP display on the map.

God that’s a good looking map. Great durable componenets. Very high quality game.

This is definitely the best AA game. It plays in a night. It’s fun. It’s tense. It’s full of decision making. And opposing players aren’t waiting around.

Great game.