Posts made by purplebaron

@miamibeach:

If I could see the SZ’s better in the photos I could form a better reply, but the Germans have 5 subs out there.  Germany and Italy can take out all three French land areas on their first turns.  Germany can take France/Holland&Bel with no aircraft if they wanted to do that(not saying I would use 0 aircraft…but for sure use the air that can not attack UK naval units)…and use whatever Luftwaffe is within range in combo with SUBS where I can.  Its possible all the UK TRS are sunk on the first turn, and it could be difficult for UK to build any TRS on their first turn.  The Germans will move the Luftwaffe closer to the Med and Atlantic as they advance in the direction of Gibraltar.  I think it would be suicide for UK to try to get land units into Malta.

Do you really want to move the FTR out of Egypt?..and if UK abandons(or reduces) Egypt, then I would imagine that FTR going somewhere other than Malta(India, S. Africa?).  It would take two turns to get the FTR’s from UK to Malta.  I just dont see doing this.  If the global game started with something in Malta(1 INF, 1 FTR, and 1 SUB in the SZ, AB), then I could see a possible opportunity to do what you want, but even then I’d be very tempted to send the FTR in Malta to Egypt.  UK building an airbase in Malta is like building it for Italy.  I think a competant Axis player would force a competant Allied player to abandon any idea of sending units to Malta, and if the Allied player did this, force the Allied player to pay a high cost…ie, losing Egypt, losing Malta, and the units UK used in the adventure.

As you said, we could debate better if we knew knew the map better and the unit placements with more confidence.  And yes, the Germans certainly have the potential to attack every UK transport, which (if successful) would put a crimp in the Fortress Malta strategy.  I’m not advocating this as a “be all and end all” strategy, just one that I think has a lot of potential if the cards fall your way.  Germany may want to concentrate on taking out the UK Battleship.  They might want to get as many subs as possible into the South Atlantic to exploit those juicy convoy zones.  They may get horribly unlucky.  Whatever the case, if UK keeps a transport alive, they can threaten a UK2 Malta Fortress on turn 1, forcing Italy to either take Malta and disrupt their Africa plans or deal with the consequences.  If the strategy is powerful, the I see this as a way for the UK to “juke” Italy into a suboptimal play every game without having to really commit anything.

As for your other questions, if I can establish Fortress Malta, I would absolutely rather have the plane there than in Alexandria.  UK moves first, and has a bit of buffer in this game, so as long as you’re smart, it should be several turns before Egypt falls.  Then, if Italy has to spend money building a navy rather than ground units, I’ve succeeded.

@LHoffman:

@purplebaron:

Does anyone here live in Pasadena or the greater Los Angeles area?

Sorry, no dice here. I live in Ohio. But, if you are ever passing through Toledo, or the area, let me know… My brothers and I would love a game with you.

Thanks for the invite, I will definitely take you up on it.

@miamibeach:

As UK, how much consideration do you give to what Germany does or will do?  This game is not UK vs Italy.  I dont see how UK gets 2 INF into Malta, and if they do, at what cost?  Would it be better for UK to have two extra INF in Egypt?  As to the FTR’s/TAC bombers…do you mean 4 in total or 4 of each?  Either way is Malta really the best place for those aircraft?..are you assuming Egypt is Italian at that point?  And if you think Malta is the best place for those expensive and valuable units, how long do they sit there (assuming the Italian fleet is sunk)?..would they not be better off in India, USSR, Africa, or on CV’s somewhere?

Two other points, 1.  Once Italy has taken Egypt and Italy has a producing factory there, the Italian fleet is less useful since their primary objective of protecting the transport of units out of Italy has become less necessary.  2.  Beware Japanese getting a large number of aircraft into the European theatre…its very easy for them to do, and they can do it fairly early.  I think the global set up has to be changed dramatically because of their number of aircraft(28?).

You are right to think about Germany.  It’s not that I’ve forgotten about them, it’s just that I believe that for the first few turns, most of the interaction will be Naval.  On Germany’s first turn, they will be capturing France and some Eastern European Neutrals, and destroying targets of opportunity (Mainly as much of the UK navy as they can reach).  On turn two, they will be (possibly) finishing the capture of France and setting up for either Barbarossa or Sea Lion.  If it’s the latter, then for UK it’s “all hands on deck” for defense.  If it’s the former, then I don’t think UK will be nearly strong enough to think about attacking the continent yet, so their battlegrounds will be the Battle of the North Atlantic (please, oh please) and Africa, where (with the Middle East) the majority of their income is located.  In that case, I believe that Fortress Malta will be one of several viable options (and yes, obviously that would incur sacrifices on other fronts).  The cost of assembling the fortress is 4 fighters (one from Alexandria, one from the carrier, and two from UK) two infantry from UK, and a transport.  You make the setup moves on UK1.  If Germany threatens Sea Lion or Italy preemptively takes Malta, then you can call an audible and send your forces back to UK.  No new production is required other than the airbase, it’s all with on board units.

To answer your other questions, it’s four aircraft total, and the two infantry would have to be from UK (I don’t think there’s a transport near Egypt that could bring infantry from over there, and I agree that it would be defeating the purpose of reinforcing Malta anyway).  Once the Italian fleet is sunk, obviously they’ve accomplished their mission.  You make the choice then on whether to send them to other theaters or keep them there to prevent Italy rebuilding their navy.

EDIT: Forgot that you have to build the airbase

@LHoffman:

Other than that, great and encouraging statements by the Baron. Well said.

Thank LHoffman and others for all the kind words.  I just hope to provoke some thought and initial strategization during these last three weeks of anticipation.  Sadly, for me I get very little actual game play these days (married with two small kids and most of my opponents live in other states now).  Does anyone here live in Pasadena or the greater Los Angeles area?

@LHoffman:

Oh, no, I agree that Italy cannot ignore a fortified Malta, and having a fortified Malta could be a very good idea. My main point is that it might be hard to fortify… Hard as in the UK will have many competing places for their units to go; Malta probably being one of the territories deserving less attention. Malta would be good as an offensive outpost, but not a defensive point. (If the UK puts a bunch of planes in Malta, when the Italians attack somewhere else, the planes cannot lend their superior defensive rolls to the territory under attack… such as Egypt.) As long as Italy can take Egypt quickly, they might be able to ignore a fortified Malta for a little while.

I don’t know about all of this… it is just intuitive supposition. I appreciate the debate though, as it is making me think about it early. I am very to happy to have all of these options though, as you said Baron… it makes the game more interesting.

Fair point. I think we only disagree in our estimates of what the cost/benefit ratio will be.  My best guess is that it will be a potentially viable strategy, but only if Italy decides to not cut it off on the first turn or two.  If they do cut it off, then at least you’ve slowed down their assault on Egypt.

@LHoffman:

@miamibeach:

I as UK would leave Malta empty, try to defend Egypt as best as possible, build an IC in S. Africa, keep the UK fleet intact and build it up.

My thoughts exactly. If you reinforce Malta with fighters or infantry, the Axis can just bypass it and attack a smaller force, than would otherwise be, in Egypt, which is their main objective in the Med anyway. Egypt should be considered first.

I’m not sure of the viability of this all (that’s why we play the game), but I don’t think Italy can bypass a fortified Malta that easily.  Consider the scenario I broached before.  Around turn 3 with 2 infantry, 4 fighters/Tac Bombers, and an airbase on Malta.  Those fighters can reach almost the entire Med, and they allow UK based bombers to reach the Western and Central Med.  That means that Italy will have operations curtailed (you can no longer move just anywhere) even after reinforcing its navy.  Additionally, the fighter cover allows the Brits to potentially to base a navy out of Malta and threaten the whole Med, or UK and US transports can move to Gibraltar on one turn, then Malta on the next to land troops in Libya or threaten Southern Europe.

Italy may be able to counter these, and some of them may be overreaching, but all of them look interesting to me and you can be sure I’m going to be trying some of them out, and that’s what I love about this game.  I see opportunities like this all over the map.

@Proud:

I think it leaked somewhere that USSR is neutral till turn 4 or till attacked. (makes no sence if true cause USSR entered before USA). Anyway if thats true japan can crush India before USSR is even in the game.

Yes, but it entered before USA because it was attacked.

@Bruda_Iz:

Does anyone seriously try a kill Japan first strategy?  It seems like that would be tough to pull off.

Not people who are trying to win.  ;-)

I would guess that in most cases people who play KJF are either in a very casual game and want something different, or they’re much better than their opponent and are trying to balance the game without a bid.

While people will continue to have complaints about the game (notably: errata, part counts and quality, unit sculpts, J1 attack, etc), I feel comfortable in stating my belief that AAG40 will be hands down the best A&A game yet.

There are many reasons for this that one could point to, but I believe that the fundamental genius of this version of the game is that it will finally force a truly balanced offense on the part of all players.  In previous versions of the game there was usually (if not always) a dominant strategy that was ahistorical and imbalancing.  In earlier versions of the global game, it was the KGF strategy, often to the point of ignoring Japan altogether.  In AA50-1941, it was the German tank blitz, in AAE, it was the German infantry push, and in AAP and AAP40, it was the India Crush.  All wargames are simulation to one degree or another, and simulations tend to break down at the extremes.  To use the earlier global games as an example, that extreme was in all three allies devoting 90% or more of their forces towards attacking Germany, resulting in a German turtle, a Japanese juggernaut, a warped and vastly ahistorical progression of the war and (I would argue) a less satisfying game (my group tends to eschew KGF simply because it’s too repetitive and unfun).  People blame the Japanese Tank Drive to Moscow on Siberia being too small and too valuable, and while that’s partly true, the larger aspect that people miss is that it happens because the incentives are set up to drive all of the allies away from Japan and towards Germany, meaning that Japan is expanding almost without opposition in all directions.  Moscow is actually their closest active opponent.  When I play tournament games as Japan, it is not uncommon for me to have the entirety of the Pacific, Australia, Siberia, and Alaska under my control by the fourth or fifth turn, with transports and tanks threatening Africa and North America.

There are two ways that Larry and the other designers/playtesters managed this.

1. National objectives, particularly in the Pacific make it worthwhile for US, Japan, and UK/ANZAC to fight over the control of the Pacific.
2. Segmented production.  By spreading out the Allies production centers, you force them to fight in more areas of the board.  For example, when India has no IC, it’s easy to choose to abandon it.  You can also choose to build one there, but then holding it becomes even more important and losing it can be crippling.  By starting the game with an IC there, you simultaneously give the UK both the incentive and the means to defend it.  Similarly, consider the IC in South Africa.  The smart money says you need to be buying three tanks a turn there to have a chance of holding Africa, but that also means that you can’t be dumping all of your money into a monster navy or a massive air force of strategic bombers.  It forces balance.  All of the previous global A&A games had two Axis centers (Germany/Italy and Japan) against three Allied centers (the allied capitals), and the Allied centers were much closer to Germany than to Japan, so no wonder KGF was such a dominant strategy.  AAG40 raises the number of Allied production and defense centers from three to seven (US, UK, USSR, China, ANZAC, India, South Africa).  I think that this will force the war to become more global and more balanced.  There will be more room for strategic maneuver and application of limited forces.  The game will become less reliant on gambits and more reliant on cohesive strategies.  I think it will be a masterpiece.  I can’t wait.

@lnmajor:

Very well thoughtout, i might be jumping the gun by expressing my dissappiontment with the initial Malta setup. if Brits start moving fighters from England and off the carrier, is it taking too much need muscle to soon from these other areas? i am gonna have to wait to actually play a few games to see how this plays out. but thanks for some great analyisis on how this might play out

Thank you.  Way back with the original AAE, I remember that there was a plane on Malta, which was awesome  :-D, and it always died on G1, which was sad  :cry:.  If Malta started with say two planes, two infantry, and an airbase (which was what I was expecting given Larry’s comments about “Fortress Malta”), I think it would have made the Italian fleet too vulnerable to air strike and resulted in the Med getting swept clean before the game even really started.

In general, two of my biggest complaints about A&A games have been first turn scripted openings and first turn naval annihilation.  It looks like both of them may finally be addressed here.  Best guess, only about half of UK’s fleet will be destroyed on G1, and both UK and Germany are going to have to make some significant decisions about how they want to prosecute the war.  For example, I’ll bet that a common first turn UK choice will be “Do I use my fighters to sink the Bismark or to set up fortress Malta”

Here’s hoping I’m right about all that.

@maverick_76:

I think your train of thought is exactly what Larry had in mind.

Cool.

Thanks

Several people have expressed disappointment that the “Fortress Malta” we were promised is in fact an empty island.  I was initially disappointed as well, but on further consideration I think I see how it can work.  It becomes more of an interplay between UK and Italy (and Germany, to a lesser extent).  Because UK moves before Italy, they have the initiative.

On UK1, the UK can choose to fortify Malta with two fighters (one from Alexandria, and one from the Carrier at the mouth of the Med) and build an airbase, then reinforce the carrier with additional plains from Great Britain and a loaded transport (if any survived).

In this scenario, the Italians then have the option to ignore Malta (in which case it gets seriously buffed up on UK2 to potentially 4 fighters and 2 infantry).  Or they attack it, but to attack it will require the majority (if not the entirety) of its navy, as the fighters can choose to scramble or not. If they ignore it, then UK reinforces.  If they attack, they don’t get to reinforce Africa or attack the Middle East and their navy is exposed and could potentially be attacked by the UK fleet at Gibraltar on UK2.

Alternately, the UK could choose on turn 1 to land some number of fighters on turn 1 on Gibraltar and the carrier and bring down a transport.

In this case, if Italy ignores Malta, on UK2, UK can again have a powerful base established on UK2.  If Italy sacrifices a transport to take Malta, then UK can snipe the transport and optionally move the navy in to retake Malta.  Then, Italy can probably kill the navy (weakening its own navy in the process) but probably can’t retake Malta the same turn, in which case on UK3, they can build an airbase and fly down more aircraft.  If Italy takes Malta in force, it has the same problems described above where they’ve been diverted from attacking Africa and their navy is threatened by the Brits.  In this case, the Brits have bought themselves time in Africa with no unit sacrifice and just some maneuver, and also have the option to follow up and attack the navy.

The success of this will depend in part on whether Germany can (and chooses to) kill all UK transports in range on G1, but beyond that Germany will not have much ability to impact this strategy in the first two turns, as their aircraft can’t reach anywhere relevant until after the fall of France, and their subs aren’t strong enough and concentrated enough to attack the carrier (I think).

Choosing to execute this strategy will take a significant commitment of IPCs and onboard resources on the part of the UK player, but if they do, it gives Italy only bad options, and once a base is established, it will be quite valuable to the UK.

In the end (assuming that things play out the way I believe they will) I prefer this setup to having the base start pre-populated.  If I’m right, it represents a powerful strategic option that the UK can choose to (or choose not to) execute, and I’m all for multiple valid strategic choices, especially on turn 1.

Thoughts?

@cressman8064:

What about the USSR restricted rule? Will other allied units be allowed to enter USSR territory without penalty? The US player can take huge advantage of this change by shuttling troops into the far east or launching bombers directly from western US to sea zone 6 and landing in USSR.

That’s an excellent point.  First guess is that USSR would have to be completely off limits to allied troops (except maybe to liberate, but then it gets messy.

I sadly have only gotten a few games of AAP40 in.  I would love to test my mettle repeatedly against the Japanese and see if I can solve the puzzle of the J1 attack, but I am lacking in both willing and skilled opponents and time (I have a 2 year old and a 2 week old).  So these days my AA experience is limited to surfing these boards.  :-(

My concern with the US immediate 40 balance option is that while it seems to balance a J1 attack well (according to others here) I expect that it will imbalance the J2 and J3 attack options in favor of the allies, so there is still no reason for the Japanese to choose other than J1 attack.

I would like to find another organic balance option (I appreciate the necessity of bid-type balancing, but dislike the feel of it).  Here’s my suggestion for an alternate balance option.  I have no reason to believe that it will work other than a gut feeling and a bit of logic.  I offer it in the hope that some of you lucky souls with the opportunity to play regularly will give it a shot and let everyone know if it works.  Here it is:

Add USSR to the game, moving after ANZAC.  Populate USSR with its expected global forces, 2 infantry per territory.  Additionally, give USSR a fighter and a Major IC in Evenkiyskiy.  USSR starts with no money.  USSR cannot move or collect income until Japan declares war (effectively, USSR joins the war when the US does), at which point USSR begins collecting income (the assumption being that before DOW, all income goes to Europe).  Japan can choose to attack the USSR at any point by declaring war in the same way that it can attack US, UK, or ANZAC.

Here’s my thinking on this.

1. The J1 attack is very much a blitzkreig.  It is a race to grab a quick objective (India, and to a lesser extent, the bulk of China) almost entirely conducted with units already on the board.  J2 and J3 attacks are more about establishing and solidifying a strong position and then striking out from there.  New production and units in reserve are much more relevant to future attacks.  The Russian units will force Japan to defend Manchuria and Korea once a general declaration of war has been issued.  In a J1 attack, this forces Japan to hold back front line units in Asia (or divert transport power from taking DEI and PI.  In a J2 or J3 attack, Manchurian and Korean units can be used to attack China and defensive troops can be brought over from Japan or from a new IC on board.  The result of this is that Russia can pin a significant portion of Japan’s mainland troop strength (or punish them for moving them), causing Japan to either: a) deemphasize China to continue the India Crush, b) engage in a more balanced attack against India and China, c) abandon northeast Asia, or d) abandon DEI.  a) means that China will be a significant power for longer into the game, b) strikes me as the best option, and gives India time to muster a defense and other countries time to come to their rescue, c) and d) result in several turns of reduced income for Japan.

2. In addition to threatening Manchuria and Korea, after declaration of war, USSR can send troops to directly bolster China’s defence, again giving Japan incentive to deal with China more completely before taking on other powers (pushing towards a J2, J3 DOW).

3. Since USSR doesn’t collect income until DOW, this is another 9IPC per turn incentive towards waiting.

4. Given the USSR’s force composition (almost entirely infantry), low income (reducing the number of attack specialized units it can produce) and distance of the factory from the front, it will be a long time before USSR can begin significant offensive operations.  Thus, USSR’s primary functions will be defense (both of USSR territories and bolstering Chinese troops) and “keeping the Japanese honest” by forcing them to actually defend their northern border.

5. Overall, the additional forces would seem to be a disadvantage to Japan, and it is in the short term.  But, in the long term, the addition of USSR as an opponent is also an opportunity for Japan, as it represents 9IPCs per turn of additional income once conquered.  If Japan does decide to actively engage the Russians, they have a thick crust, but little to follow up, so this should be a viable option.

Overall, I believe that this change would result in a significant bonus to the Allies against a J1 attack, and a much smaller advantage against later attacks, pushing the Japanese into less of a race and more of an empire building situation.  I expect that a J2 or J3 attack would become the ideal then, and this would also result in a better balance of allied power (USA weaker, UK and ANZAC stronger) later in the game, making a more enjoyable experience for all.

Thoughts?

Trying to update sea zones, and incorporating other info, I have two suggestions for updates to the 7/3/10 Mickelson map.

1. We’ve been told that there are three sea zones in the Baltic, so I would suggest that you add a sea zone boundary from Denmark to Sweden (this would be the point at which the strait rule is applied up here, and will be what allows Germany to build naval units out of range of UK based fighters)

2. I believe that there are at least three, and possibly four sea zones around Great Britain.  We see one definite SZ number east of Edinburgh, and one south of Ireland.  Additionally, I see one possible one behind the Scotland Infantry (NW of Scotland) and another possible one underneath the ship between UK and Denmark.  Since AA50 has 5 SZs around the UK, it seems more likely that this game will have a similar number (like four) than only 2.  The higher number simultaneously gives the UK navy more elbow room to dodge German air strikes and gives the German Navy more opportunities to sneak out into the Atlantic.

To answer the original question of this thread, I think that the game was developed as AA40 global first, and then the board was “sawed in half” to create the two theater games.  From other comments I’ve seen on other threads here, it seems that Japan wants to start the war as early as possible and Germany wants to delay it as long as possible.  This would provide an exciting tension between the Axis powers in the global game, but could easily with insufficient playtesting create the issues we’re seeing here in AAP40.

Put on clean underwear.

@Dylan:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

Okay so I have some questions about the split income

First: what will Yukon Territory and BC be part of UK or India.
Second: what about West India, like it is on the Europe 40 bored, but like its part of India, though.

BC will be part of India, as will Yukon, but Yukon doesn’t matter unless you want to build an air base there.

West India will be part of UK

that seems silly

It’s worth a lot to have a rule that’s easy to specify, understand, and implement in an already complicated game.

@cminke:

how much did they pay u to say that??  jk.  and ur right, i woud be useing my works printer to print my own m,aps

I’m expecting my copy to arrive in the mail on Monday.  :-D

In all seriousness, from reading their Magic articles, I’ve gained some insight into the use of spoilers to promote a product in general, as well as their corporate strategy on the matter, plus I work at a small company.  Though I am an engineer, you can’t help but learn an awful lot about the realities of sales, marketing, management, and finance, and it has been very illuminating and changed my perspective on a lot of things that I used to take for granted or never even give a thought to.

@Imperious:

You’d figure they could at least find one intelligent person to do these things.

They don’t care. They do the minimal crap to just get by. The picture is like some idiot took it from his cell phone and posted it. They probably don’t have any decent cameras. Look at the script on the advertisement… its a total joke… looks like its written by someone who has no clue what AA is about.

And you know very well that the game will be shorting some pieces… i just can’t wait for the latest mistake… you know its around the corner… some huge gaff, typo, or only 6 German stukas?, or 6 Mech infantry?  Something is definatly going to be wrong… it has happened too many times before and it will happen again…

We already know of one thing… India does not match up with the other board… It will look like the bottom of a milking cow. ( two peaks)

It just never ends because these people are true minimalists who have every excuse for every occasion. Man i wish i was in charge of that office… id fire everyone and deny severance and pension to all past employees.

Seriously?

Look, Wizards certainly made some serious errors with AAP40, and I’m sure they will have new and improved errors with AAE40.

BUT!!!

Nothing about this image is an error.  There’s a reason (as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread) that every single box back image has a not-even-remotely correct setup.  It’s because they don’t want to let that information out yet.  If they posted a high-resolution picture of the map with the correct setup, there are enough super-excited anal-retentive people on this board (I know, I’m one of them) that we would already have broken down the unit setup to within an infantry or two, and drawn accurate maps of the board.  We would already have games in progress on AABattlemaps and tripleA, and people would be stealing their work resources to print out high-res maps on their large format plotters.  Some people, having gone to the effort of making bootleg copies would not be inclined to buy the real product.  Others who are super excited to see what’s been made will have seen it all, and be less willing to run out and get it right away.  They’ll plan to buy it eventually, but in some cases eventually will turn into never.  Both of these effects will directly affect their sales.  On the other hand, if they build up enthusiasm to a fever pitch with properly timed spoilers, then die hard fans will rush out to buy, and people who are on the fence will get swept up by their friends and the excitement and will make a purchase that they may not otherwise.

Remember, Wizards is selling four things inside the box that you buy:

1. The board
2. The other physical components (pieces, markers, charts, etc.)
3. The rules
4. The starting setup

Now, anyone who bought AAP40 will already have the rules, minus some political rules, national objectives, and technology.  Those additional rules have been spoiled or can be easily deduced in most cases.  Certainly close enough to get a 90% solution
Anybody who has several copies of earlier games (as I’m sure just about everybody on this board does) has enough of the pieces (minus a few Mech Infantry and Tac Bombers that I’m sure they can jury rig out of other parts or painted parts) to provision all powers.
That leaves the board and the starting setup, and a single high-resolution picture of the starting setup would leak that information completely in a matter of hours.

Nothing about this picture is an accident.  They showed us exactly what they wanted us to see.

I’m sure they had a professional photographer take ultra-high resolution photographs, and then spent time figuring exactly how much they needed to down-rez it to show what they wanted.  Similarly, upon consideration, I think that they had someone familiar with the game set it up deliberately so that 1) all countries (particularly the US and France, since they’re one of the new hooks) are represented, 2) the board is “evocative” of what the board will look like in play without 3) looking anything like the actual setup.

This is a movie trailer.  It shows a few big explosions, a couple great one-liners and catchphrases, and makes you want to see the movie/play the game without giving away the farm.