Posts made by Navalland

I would like to use the sounds of this game for my wwii non-commercial game.

Is this game considered abandonware?

I mean roughly in which rounds it appear that one side is going to absolutely victory and other side will prefer surrendering at that point rather than to continue. Assuming both sides have similar skills and please specify whic A&A game are you talking about.

I think there should be a reason for loser side to continue rather than surrendering in the middle of game anti-climaticly. Without another war aim other than total victory I can’t see any way preventing anti-climatic ends since games are cumulative and not much room for tidind the turn of the wars I would want having a draw outcome as addition do total victory which would be pursued as loser side.

Would you have any idea what could be draw’s conditions? How could it be occur?

Also I have to point that achieving “draw” should be harder than chasing total victory from the beginning of games. Assuming both sides have roughly 50% total victory chance in the beginning of war and one side is significantly losing its momentum and it appears that he/she will never achieve total victory. At this point draw should have roughly %25 chance to be occur by the loser side.

It is porposely left ambigious to let players to answer it with their imaginations.

I’d prefer no air combat rule.

Yes, I suggest not retaining A&A capital rules.

Also I suggest you to thinking about different war goals other than total victory. It is something I have been thinking but hasn’t came up with a good idea.

For example. I’m playing with USA and lost all Europe to Warsaw pact. I’d probably just surrender at that point instead of to continue because all total victory war aims are now gone and almost impossible to turn the tide of war.

There should be an extra war aim about not losing. Kinda like draw option that might prevent this kind of anti climatic endings hence players will be more willing to continue no matter how desparate the situation.

For example A&A Anniversary edition has techs/national objectives and allows players to play with them, without them or just with one of them. It is for to appease more players since some players like them and some don’t like.

The capital rule of A&A is simly bad. Capitals are already the most valuable territories even temporarily capturing them gives massive advantage, stealing all of remaining enemy income is just too much punishment. Later they introduced victory city concept like national objectives (I dislike both because they bring unnecessary complexity) to give more option.

The simplest way is treating capitals like other territories and making them victory cities. Very smooth, rememberable victory condition.

Which part you didn’t understand?

If you think the air combat rules worth more than its downside of slowing down games, then you could keep it as it is. They are just my personal opinions that I would prefer over other turn based startegy games.;

1. Giving the maximum strategic options to players with the least amount of units, territories, nations and rules. All additional rules are welcome as long as their bring is more important than their possible downsides. Kinda like chess. In the world its no coinsidece that the most popular games and sports are actually the simplest ones yet deep enough to spend whole life to be master. More complex ones will have probably less but more passionate players.

2. Balance is more important than historical accuracy but it doesn’t mean that for example in a WWII game, having Italy stronger than Germany is acceptable just sake of Balance.

3. Upkeep: Always needed in any kind of turn based game. I would strongly suggest it over anything.

4. Playing options. I tend to like scenarios if they are playable for example with techs or no tech. Or with National objectives or not.

5. Nations should not loss all of their remained incomes, neither mobilizing unit abilities after losing their capital(s). I would also suggest it for any scenario.

@Eric-Poppleton @GEN-MANSTEIN

Benefits of making all units AA.

1. No need separate AA gun, more space.
2. Cheaper air and naval costs allow more different combination of purchases. It encourage German naval build up and two ocean going USA.
3. Losing air unit isn’t a big deal anymore.

Though I have been still working on balancing units with each other after giving AA ability. I think I’m getting closer.

Further stacks do not increase AA possibilities. Only matter is amount of attacker planes. 1/6 shot down chance per attacker air unit.

I had to give ground forces +1 defense otherwise especially infantry would become so ineffective considering fighter has 2 defense and just 3ipc cost.

This is of course unplayable on board because of fractionel numbers and upkeep ( Yes there is also upkeep and method to buy 1 destroyer despite 3.5 ipc cost but its out of topic otherwise calculating massive stacks would be huge trouble). Its totally for TripleA I just wanted to learn with these unit set up, would air units be underpowered/overpowered or balanced?

The current unit set up like this (still progressing);

What about this one:

Infantry 1/3/1 3ipc supportable
Artillery 2/3/1 4ipc supports
Armour 3/4/2 5ipc

Fighter 2/2/4 3ipc 2 air at, 2 air def
Bomber2/1/6 4ipc 1-2 damage

Destroyer 2/2/2 3.5ipc

It depends, do you want to appeal more of general players or Cold War buffs that prefer historical accuracy first? The first one is obviously majority and I think the second group would have no issue at all in expense of sacrificing game speed.

What would be purpose of this rule other than encouraging even more of Moscow tank blitz? Just because Western units didn’t fight on Russian territories doesn’t mean they couldn’t. Even there were serious discussions to send British units to Caucasus during Case Blue.

Even Finland as officially non-Axis country allowed German units to operate in its territories.

Stalin even allowed German submarines to use Soviet bases prior Barbarossa, I think he would have no issue with Western units operating in Easern Front at all.

Just trying to figure out the most balanced unit set up and wondering if +1 defense to artillery would be good idea. Probably better to leave it as it is right now.

Infantry 1/2/1 3 3ipc supportable
artillery 2/2/1 4ipc +1 support to infantry on offense
armour 3/3/2 5ipc

Just wondering would it be better and more balanced unit set up if artillery becomes 2/3/1 4ipc +1 support to infantry on offense or they are all just fine as well.

I really dislike 6 ipc armours, but 5ipc armours makes artillery more situational.

All units have AA abilities in my game which may occur with 1/6 chance per attacking enemy air unit before battles. The same as with ground AA gun. However I have a problem to find the correct costs and stats for new air units.

Assuming infantry (1/2/1 3ipc), artillery (2/2/1 4ipc) and armour 3/3/2 5ipc).

Any thoughts?

Re: What is artillery good for?
I like 5ipc tanks more but it makes artillery more situational. Would it be better if artillery defence raised to 3?

What if Russian attack on Ukraine fails? Could Allies still win at that point?