Posts made by Seven_Patch

I was thinking about this the other day and I’ve got two possibilities.

A

Player 1 - US, ANZAC and France
Player 2 - UK, USSR and China

B
Player 1 - US, USSR and China
Player 2 - UK, ANZAC and France

I see pros and cons for both but this is a difficult decision.

I got an idea, why not let the players decide by choosing in an order, flip a coin to decide who picks first.

Player 1 picks first then Player 2 gets the second and third picks, back to Player 1 for pick 4, then Player 2 for pick 5 and Player 1 is stuck with what’s left.  I have a feeling A will be the outcome.

@calvinhobbesliker:

I hope this game wasn’t created to be anti-British. If Sealion is successful(which it should never have been allowed to be), then the US does most of the fighting and has to “save” England. This seems to play into Americans’ misconceptions that we “saved” the allies.

Heh I always thought that was a funny messed up joke to tell to buddies from England.  “Yeah you bought me a beer?  Well we saved your asses in World War 2!”

Personally I like that Sea Lion is a possibility, by no means should it be a prime strategy, just a risky one that requires a lot to go right in order to work.  Once you start designing games to block strategies and pigeon holing a player into one strategy you really hurt the quality of the game.

No, it would seem according to the rules that UK India can never recieve the IPC’s from West India if UK london is captured.

This is really strange.  I always thought it was a rule that retreating forces had to return to the territory that they attacked from.  In the case of amphibious assaulting units they return to the transport (vulnerable to dying with the transport).

So even if you attack from two different territories and retreat, whatever units remained had to go back to the correct territory that they came from.

Seems really weird to retreat to an entirely different territory, it’s a free move that you shouldn’t get.

If Germany takes London then it only gets the UK (Europe) current IPC’s from the UK player.  UK India still collects IPC’s from the Pacific.

UK india can not move into Europe UK territories to take those IPC’s, it can only collect IPC’s from the Pacific side of the Global map.  Although you think it would be able to just collect the IPC’s from say Africa and Midlde East in the real world.

Yeah LHoffman, I agree with you.  You can’t compete with UK and US in IPC’s, especially once you go to war with Russia.  As far as keeping Britain honest, Germany can only afford to do that in the first and second turn while it is potentially only at war with UK and France.  After that the war of the Atlantic is likely to tilt in the Allies favor and Sea Lion becomes a complete lost cause and impossible to feign.

I think it will be a balance of preparing for war with Russia and feigning a Sea Lion attempt.  Who knows you might catch UK on a bad day and Sea Lion becomes a real possiblity even though you weren’t planning on it.  That might be the key to winning, the perfect balance.

@LHoffman:

@Koningstiger:

Another question has to be posed.  Do I buy two fighters for 20 IPC or one battleship?

Yeah I’d say it depends on your application. Overall, fighters are the better buy, regarding more expensive units, no matter what… A thought process that started for me in AA50.
Now that we have airbases, multiple air techs, scramble rules etc… fighters/tac bombers are the most versatile units in the game. This plethora of options really outweighs the usefulness of a tank (for 6 IPCs) or any surface warship. While battleships are an intimidating sight, and a status symbol, fighters and a carrier are actually the most powerful agents of AA military might.

As it should be which is really cool for A&A to get right.

So when you start comparing Battleships and loaded Carriers it makes sense that the cost of aircraft has to go hand in hand with the cost of the BB.

2 BB = 40 IPC 8 attack total 8 defense total 4 hits to destroy both BB
1 CV, 1 FTR and 1 TAC = 37 IPC 7 attack total 9 defense total 3 hits to destroy but aircraft have 4 movement and if you have two fighters then you increase the defense to 10.

There are pros and cons to both but if you increase aircraft IPC costs you have to increase BB IPC cost.

So those 3 IPC are buying you

As SAS points out and from what I’ve seen the German player has to keep UK honest and at least keep Sea Lion open as an option even though it is very difficult to pull off.  If the German player completely gives up on that option then the UK player is free to have minimal defense and use it’s IPC’s on other aspects of the game.

When I play as Germany I don’t think I’ll spend my IPC’s solely on naval units because I’ll want to prep for an inevitable conflict with Russia and if Russia is able to build up it’s land forces that they are greater than mine then the eventual outcome won’t look good.

Pretty cool game mechanics if you ask me.

@gamerman01:

@Flashman:

Is there a danger that people might see fighters as a more economical buy than expensive tanks

Absolutely.  Even when tanks were 5 (AA50) I was sensing that fighters were too cheap.  It’s interesting that in the original A&A, infantry were 3, tanks were 5 (defended at 2) fighters were 12, carriers were 18, bombers were 15, and battleships 24.  And there was unlimitied production.  So infantry was king.

Now with carriers down to 16 (from 18) and absorbing 2 hits (although defending on a 2 instead of a 3) and fighters down to 10, and mobility more important than ever, it’s interesting.

Fighters being able to attack all targets, only costing 2 more than a destroyer, granting bonuses to Tac bombers, providing by far the cheapest fleet defense, being able to attack and return to a safe landing place, getting 5 movement from airbases, being able to scramble, escorting and intercepting SBR’s, and what else am I forgetting?  Oh, launching from aircraft carriers and being able to land where-ever those carriers can get to, often with THREE movement points……  Not to mention the jet fighters tech, the long range air tech…

Yes, I think we should be talking about how fighters are too cheap, not how tanks are too expensive!  :lol:

I agree when you consider how many IPC’s exist in Global, it seems like it’s so easy for one power to tip the scales very easily and get up to 80 or 90 IPC’s a turn.  They could by 8 or 9 fighters one turn and move them to defend vital locations very easily.

Another question has to be posed.  Do I buy two fighters for 20 IPC or one battleship?

My guess is no, but you didn’t ask me  :-D.  If you zoom in on the hi-res map you can make out a little sliver of Colombia between Central America and Venezuela.

Obviously we should wait for Krieghund’s ruling.

I’ll wait for the real thing.  Plus I don’t have Fench and Italian peices.

Probably the only thing that would make the Russian player keep more of it’s infantry on the front line would be to make those zones worth a lot of IPC’s.

I always wondered how the game would turn out if you swaped an axis power for an ally power.

Greenland, the last alliance strong hold after a disastrous turn of events that led to the world being concurred by the Axis!

@WILD:

Hey, that’s the smartest thing you’ve said all day IL.

I understood everything except “bean counters” and “glitch”.

I was curious if anyone knows where to purchase a table big enough for global that is relatively cheap?

I have a dining room table that I think is just big enough but it’s pretty old.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Seven_Patch:

Well the IPC value is even between both the Axis and the Allies (except the original global set up of 19 Allies Infantry), I’m hoping it doesn’t throw things off too much.

Glad you like it.

If they have equal ipc’s of units, allies win due to their greater economy

My changes to the additional Global setup pieces are equal so it would just add equal amount of IPC value to the base set up.  I haven’t checked on what the balance is like for the base set up, I would imagine that the Axis have more units to allow the Axis a chance to try and win early while the Allies have to survive until their economic power tilts things back in their favor.

The Allies did win though, historically speaking  :wink:

I give credit to the testers and designers of this game, a game of this size and scale can’t be easy to balance.

At what point does a conversation turn into a discussion?  When does a discussion turn into an argument?

One thing is clear though, an argument turns into a fight as soon as the fists start flying.  :-D

@calvinhobbesliker:

@reloader-1:

Most casualties in WWI and WWII would disagree with you.

Artillery was the biggest killer in those two wars.

I thought bombers caused the most death(London blitz, bombing of German cities, Firebombing of Japanese cities, atom bombs). Maybe you were talking about military casualties?

My money would be on Artillery causing the most deaths.  Bombers probably caused the most destruction.

EDIT: Automatic Machine Guns have to be up there.

Pluto is not a planet! End of discussion.