@Imperious:
How can Italy (1941) land fighters on newly captured territories when Russia moves first?
Germany plays after the Soviets. Germany takes a Soviet territory and Italy shadows with fighters and other stuff landed by transports in Black sea. The Soviets have to fight 2 nations.
No, in 1941 they are not. And the first part of your review seem to address the 1941 scenario.
Was the IC in France vulnerable to invasion? It seems exposed to combined UK/US invasions. It would help with both defending the coast, and naval purchases, but is it worth it?
In our first game when I played Germany and Italy, the IC in France was never taken by the allies.
On UK 1 they invaded France, but it was retaken by Italy so that Germany could buy the IC on G2. After that it was really well defended and there was never a real problem.
However if the allies place their fleet in the correct position they both threathen France and Germany. Since France nor Germany may never be taken, the defense of it costs a lot of Infantry which of course give the Russians some breathing space in the east.
But since Germany cashes out very high mid game, without it it will only be able to place 10 units. And now with the IC they bought 14-16 units a turn.
@Imperious:
Another problem is UK fighters don’t reach Moscow in one turn. It takes 2 turns and the Germans killed the RAF as it landed and the Soviets had to protect, but with 15+ tanks forget it. its gone.
What game are you playing? It is 4 spaces from UK to Moscow.
How can Italy (1941) land fighters on newly captured territories when Russia moves first?
@Rakeman:
Japan only had 6 armor in revised… 8 is better than 6 at least… !
Sure 8 is better than 6. But don’t forget you now got more money to spend and more ground to cover. So it is probably not enough.
To tell the truth it is much better than I expected. I have seen worse. Overall the components are sufficient I think. I like the numbers of bombers too. The only problems I anticipate are with the:
-Italian Cruisers
-Japanese Armour
-Chips
Of course the number of Russian Naval units is ridiculous (although you need some for the rookies), but better too much than too little.
I think TripleA is very good overall. And since there is nothing else I also accept its flaws. It just takes a lot of work to build something like this I know this. Spare time was the reason we abondened our own project.
But think of it. After Classic there has been a lot of new versions of Axis and Allies. With each modification you spent less time on it than rewriting the entire engine (so this looks like a good choice). But it is never the last modification. And if you add up all that time, couldn’t you just have rewritten and whole new engine in the same or even less time?
TripleA uses a 3 color Gif image (called a baseline map) which it then processes and breaks apart using its own quirky code to produce what you end up playing with. Its not like you can just use any image you want. Jpegs don’t work, nor do PDF files or PNGs. The game has to be able to first parse the information contained in the baseline map, before you can make it functional in the game. Its actually a huge pain to make a map that works with tripleA (on account of the shoddy raster graphics programming),
Not that we don’t value your work. And I don’t know how the TripleA code originated. But from your remarks it looks like the map is not the problem but the map engine (code) is. It should be fairly simple to use any picture as background. You just have to define where the zones (countries and seazones) are on the map and after that it doesn’t really matter what background you use.
When AAR came out, I started together with a friend to work on our own Windows version of AAR. Although never completed and abondened, the map engine part was finished and it worked very good the way I described it.
Just a thought, althoug it is probably a lot of work to start from scratch again.
@Imperious:
Why cant they just use my map file?
jeez
Because your map is in pdf format and can’t be converted to .jpg :D
Btw, love your map IL
@Craig:
As I said in this post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12753.msg353302#msg353302
I told you that the set up wasn’t correct, but I didn’t say that it was seriously wrong either.
And this:
Isn’t wasn’t that far off. But it did have a few units missing that will certainly matter.
The extra transport that was missing in SZ 61 is a big deal for the Japanese in trying to expand on the first turn. They are stretched thin as it is with the transports that they do get in the proper set up.
Take that one transport away and it would be that much tougher for them to get to places that they need to for their NOs.
Take it anyway you want, but I just warned you that the set up was wrong. I didn’t want you to get in all that early work and then start bitching about how you were misled. :|
I don’t mean to flame you. Of course I read and understand what you said. In fact that’s exactly what I said as well. What I meant is that as soon as the news of the wrong setup came out everyone with knowledge started to say that playtesting with the old setup was futile and everyone should wait till the game came out. I disagree with that. The things we tried out with Germany/Italy still stand and for Japan it only becomes more easy.
Since I don’t see the early playtesting as work, rather as fun, I would never start bitching about it :-)
that seems correct to me as well ya.
Thanks for confirming that! I guess we can start playing now. :-)
Can you tell if they are any different rules that only apply for the 1942 scenario? Maybe different NO’s? Something else?
Or maybe there are other rules that we missed so far…
Your China rule summary is useful but I think we already knew that.
I cannot detect any changes in the UK and Italy setups.
This would mean that the only differences are in the Japanese setup, meaning:
I would not call this minor changes (even though the other 5 countries are unchanged). Especially the extra trn can prove very important.
But on the other hand. If you have all the knowledge, wouldn’t you want to let people guessing the most? Maybe Graig let us believe the changes are more important then they are. I am happy that I playtested the GenCon setup since it is very close to the real thing.
my retailer here in vienna, austria, got AA50 today and im holding it in my hands already OMG!
gotta say it looks even bigger than i would have thought hehe
Sondrax,
Since the terrific marketing machine of Wizard of the Coast has come to a grinding halt, do you mind posting the UK and Axis setups?
Graig,
Since Wednesday is over anyway and thus the UK sheet is overdue care to do the honours and post the UK sheet?
:-D
I don’t know in which timezone Mike is, but the Wednesday UK Chart (which is expected to hold some changes) is long overdue. It is Thursday already. :-(
It’s just anything with a Chinese marker on it, plus Kwangtung.
Are you sure about Kwangtung? That’s new for me. I thought they were not allowed to do that (no chinese marker on it).
By the way… I think “Playtest report and conclusions” is not representative.
Of course it is not representative. The games we played are first time games with new setup, new pieces and new rules. Strategies were not optimal either. This whole game has to evolve first.
Having said that. The players involved in our test games have a lot of expecience with the games so I still think you can draw (some) conclusions from such an early game.
For example the conclusion that an Indian Factory by UK can never be sustained. Japan is in a postition to take it at J2 if it really wants. When you think otherwise our conclusions are probably more reliable than yours.
But before we know anything for sure we need the real setup and lot of testgames by lots of people with that setup.
I thought I read somewhere (this is different from Revised) that airplanes can only spot subs if there is a friendly (not allied) destroyer present. So for example American bombers cannot spot German Subs, when there is only a UK destroyer present in the sz.
Is this true or not?
@Subotai:
IC in France is probably a bad idea, also because you have to buy an AA gun too, to give a minimum of SBR protection to newlybuilt ICs.
IC in Poland could be ok, but Poland can be reached from the Baltic seazone, so yeah, thats a bad idea.
Time will have to tell if this is really a good way or not. More testgames are needed and we need the real setup as well. But I really think you need the extra production otherwise you can’t keep up with the Russians and the Allies at the same time.
Sure you will be buying more armour and planes due to these new rules, but if you only buy armours, fighters and bombers. Russia will be knocking on the doors of the Reichstag with their cheap infantry.
Also you need it as a defense against any SBR campaign. If the Allies bomb you for 6 you can still produce 10.
Sure you will need to defend it. But France need to be defended without an IC anyway. Because if the allies take it and hold it and buy an IC of their own… then you really are in trouble.
I think Germany need the extra production for these reasons and I don’t see any better spot than France (IPC wise).
Why should there be a bomber?
Japan got 8 figthers!
The allies have to build their tanks and artilleries, too. Look at the russians…
So japan is forced to build bombers and ships.
I am not saying the bomber should be there. I am just saying when setting up the board, it is easy to forget the bomber on Japan. And we are assuming here that Larry forgot to set up some units.
When our playgroup forgets something to place it has been units on Japan many times. They are more easily overlooked. Same goes voor IC’s and AA guns.
