Saying its fine as it is doesnt help any, as we (and others out there I believe) prefer to play with this system in our group. Im not asking your group to change, or Larry to change it either, I just want to know from veteran players, like yourself, how you think it would play out, theoretically, that way we could make appropriate tweaks.
Your point concerning Italy is a good one. I am open to suggestions on how to prevent England from falling so easily.
Mantlefan, I have played several games this way, but they always included a number of national advantages built in, so it is hard for me to say how this would play out with none, which is exactly what we are proposing to do.
But yes, in most games the Italians become very strong, almost too strong, and the UK usually gets trounced in the Med right off the back. We had anticipated this strength in our rules and made Russia quite a bit stronger, and that seemed to help balance things considerably.
My friends and I REALLY want to use the 2 turn system for our game (for a number of reasons, including time saver, etc). This would clearly favor the Allies, considering there are more of them to gang up on the Axis.
The poll relates to what we would need to do to re-balance the game with such rules. Obviously one can only speculate, but your input would be appreciated!
Hey are you still around the springfield area and looking for players?
I don’t have the rulebook on me, but could someone please explain how the Paratrooper tech works. I believe it launches infantry from airbases, but how many spaces can they launch, and how many can be launched per airbase?
If Japan attacks ANZAC, and the US declares war on Japan, can the US also declare war on Germany and/or Italy?
Question:
Does an attack on ANZAC bring the US into the war??
Just wondering given the fact that Japan had been fighting the UK and ANZAC before the US got involved.
One component of A&A that I have not been satisfied with is the ability, or lackthereof, to conduct any sort of meaningful form of convoy raids, especially with Germany.
One idea I have come up with is listed below, but really I want to know if anyone else out there has any good ones?
Idea: Subs have special ability to do immediate damage to convoys, but can only attack surface ships (for the sake of balance) at a 1.
Another idea I have is only allowing destroyers the ability to attack subs.
Let me know what you think, as I am simply looking for some ideas.
I agree that the sub rules need to be changed. I mean, it seems like in most games we play subs are not very effective in disrupting convoys, which is not historical.
One rule change I have considered is allowing subs to do immediate damage to convoys. To offset this subs can only attack at a 1.
What do you guys out there think about the concept towed artillery, that is mechanized infantry being able to move artillery with it on a 1:1 basis?
I prefer to maximize my infantry purchases….you will need all of the cannon fodder you can get when you take on Russia.
Oh and could somebody please explain to me how to quote correctly…Thanks in advance!
but not really fair, since Japan and Germany will not likely make as many combined attacks as all the allies.
Il, you said it would not be really fair, yet you seem to imply that b/c Japan and Germany can make joint attacks as well that it will balance out. Could you clarify this point? With the joint strike rule, who does it benefit more, Axis or Allies?
For the record, the game I am talking about is All German and All Italian units would attack all Uk units, just as if they (the Axis units) were from the same power. As to who gets the territory, I like the old Europe rules for this…if they axis cant agree, then an allied player can decide :)
@Cow:
italy is still pointless in a 2 turn system.
Italy is not pointless, although I do recognize that they appear to become significantly weaker. I actually like this, as it more closely simulates the real war (Italy needs Germany’s help in Africa and Middle East or it will get its butt kicked…) and is good for adding newer players, which our group seems to do regularly. What I mean is Italy is a good power for someone who is inexperienced to use, because if they make a mistake it most likely wont cost the game. IMHO Italy always seems underrated, and can actually make a significant impact in the game with just a minor amount of aide from Germany.
Well as far as setup goes I am talking about the regular setup-Alpha 2 that is. I would speculate that it would be somewhat balanced….the Axis would have the early advantage with the US being out of the war, but once the US enters it would shift to favor the Allies, which I kind of like b/c its historic—>The Axis have a limited window to win the war.
I know we are speculating here, but I would appreciate any input, as many in my group want to try this. If possible, list why it would favor one or the other. For example, it would favor the Allies b/c Japan would be at a big disadvantage, etc.
To Imperious Leader & Mantlefan:
I believe I speak for everyone when I ask, could you two please quite with the back & forth. It’s not productive, and its getting old. I ask this in respectful way. You two both seem to have a lot of knowledge about this game, and your input has been great, but there seems to be some kind of rivalry between you two or something, especially judging by Mantlefans comments at the bottom of his or her page. It reminds me of politics or something. We are all here b/c we love this game, so lets focus on that….
Regarding the two turn method, I am pleased to see how much debate this is fostering, even if most are not in favor of it.
Here are my thoughts on it:
1. I do believe it will cut down on time, as to how much, one could only speculate at this point.
2. @ Mantlefan. You ask if its worth Larry spending so much time to reduce a game from aprox. 10-12 hours or so to about 7-9. That depends. If it will prevent Larry & others from utilizing their time for other important things such as a newer a version, updates, etc., then perhaps not. But if A&A Global is intended to be his final product, and he has the time, then I don’t see why he could not focus his time on a 2 turn based game. It all depends.
3. I think Razor highlighted some very good points as to why it should be considered:
4. Last but not least, I think (I am speaking from my own personal experience here) it will create a game that is more user friendly to the general population of people who like to play strategy board games. Marketing this game towards a bigger audience should be something desired by all A&A players. Even die hard A&A players I know hesitate to play a game that will last so long, yet they still desire something that is more in depth then the global version(s) out there.
With regard to tradition and the fact that A&A has always been a game where each power goes on their own turn, so what. Il has already pointed out that the makers of this game have borrowed a number of concepts from other games. Its what people in this business (and others) do. You do not have to always be original. I think the makers should consider any changes that would improve the gaming experience, even if those ideas are not necessarily there own.
@ Imperious Leader- if you had to speculate, would you say playing global with this system (alpha 2) would favor the axis or allies? And how much would it favor one over the other?Feel free to give a specific breakdown if u would like (ie the axis would have an advantage in Europe whereas the allies would have an advantage in the pacific, etc…)
I think this would allow for better strategies as well as cut down on game time. Lets face it, no one really wants to play a 10 hour game.
