Posts made by Striker

Depends on the intended audience.

For the more accessible games intended for 3+ in person playing(IE: 1941/1942SE), I would say late 1941 (not spring 41) would be the best time to start, for two reasons.

-The Japanese blitz/pearl harbor is a pretty dramatic start, and not having Japan start with a bunch of conquests paces their advance better.

-Russian winter counter offensive: Assuming it’s a multiplayer game, and someone is playing Russia alone, it’s more fun for Russia to have at least one turn on the offensive before defending for the rest of the relevant game time. Back and forth is more fun then defense only. The 1942 German setup is good from a game design point of view. Russia starts with positioning advantage vs superior German economy, which has superior might to the allies initially but inferior economy. It’s a double layer of asymmetric warfare.

For veteran players, the earlier the better really. An official game with a ~1936 start to provide for varied initial game states would be interesting, if nearly impossible to balance.

@taamvan said in AAZ: similar games for Axis and Allies?:

@thrasher1

nope. I don’t think this was a success, in terms of sales.

What makes you think that?

@Imperious-Leader said in Further Features and Ideas:

Why did they not make E40,P40,G40 game? 1942.2 is not exactly the most popular version out.

While I agree 1942 may not be the most popular amongst the veterans and competitive players that are predominant in this forum, I would its a different story when we look at the total player base. It is the flagship title that (along with 1941) is most likely to be present in stores and played by a greater majority of more casual players. I would guess significantly more boxes of 1942 have sold than any of the E40/P40/G40 combined, so from a marketing standpoint it makes sense to start with the base game.

@taamvan said in Further Features and Ideas:

@Imperious-Leader Dont play with pick up partners, play a whole side. I have 4-8 games going at once.

I don’t see anything “unsportmanslike” about choosing your version.

Not so much that, but in the screenshot showed with side by side games, don’t their intentions seem obvious?

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Further Features and Ideas:

@Imperious-Leader If an ally is quitting, you get control over their side.

I believe his issue is that the ally quits only after doing (intentionally?) an irrecoverable mistake.(Russian player buys a battleship and suicides charges his infantry into the nearest stack, exit game!)

Edit: Or, as just happened in my German game. My Japanese Ally suicide charged his fleet and lost all naval assets…turn 2. He forfeited afterward and left me with an irrecoverable disaster.

It is sometimes a blurry line between “forfeiting because an honest game is beyond hope” and “Trolling other players” but I really hope some communication/karma system is put in place.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Further Features and Ideas:

@Striker While I now understand what you mean, I guess that’s not a big deal. Players can take part in the games they want, and forfeiting is their right (it counts as a loss).

Forfeiting is a right, but I fear poor community experiences could turn into a bigger deal to the point of endangering the health of the game.

Put yourself in the shoes of, for example, a player choosing USA. One night he joins a game. He waits patiently for his turn over the course of a day as other players go first, he expects his turn the next night. Some slightly bad rolls happen on the axis side, and axis forfeits before US gets a turn. The US player has now wasted a day, how likely is he to recommend this game to his friends after this experience?

I’ve noticed a small trend of standard setup games in the lobby with axis positions filled, waiting for allied players. I worry that as more players discover the axis bias in the out of the box setup we are going to see larger lists of games clogging the lobby that has axis positions filled waiting for some allied fodder to begin.

Some sort of reputation/karma system might encourage better behavior.(Though being able to filter setup types may help problem 2 as well.)

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Further Features and Ideas:

@Striker What fun do you mean?

Maybe I’ll rephrase that as “calling out bad sportsmanship”:

1. people who quit before turn one is done because their country got even slightly bad rolls.
2. (in relationship to the screenshot): The same team made two games at the same time: Picking the axis side in the setup that is known to favor the axis and in there other game picking the allied side in the tournament setup that does not.

Certainly a general chatroom or equivalent would be nice. Would be nice to poke fun at those who forfeit just because dice didn’t favor them in risky attacks on their opening turn. I didn’t know how to feel about “winning” before I took my UK1. Have people noticed a lot of that happening?

Also I feel obliged to poke fun at people who do this

@thrasher1
Yes, and I still think you are comparing apples and oranges, as the standard world map games have japan in their 1942 setup, well after japan has entered the war and already made their economic gains.

@thrasher1
I don’t think it’s “hardcoded” as you say it is. Look at other games that start with Japan in their 1941 setup. Both pacifics, global,AA50 41…in each one Japan goes before Britain.
Both A&A1941 and zombies have this awkward situation where japan has a 1941 setup, before pearl harbor, yet…britain goes first? Japan doesn’t have the money islands yet to offset the alpha strikes.

I feel like it would be beneficial to the game to tweak the turn order first and adjust starting setup in response. As even with zombies there has been a feeling that “it takes too long” with some groups I’ve played with(meanwhile many of these same people liked how in D-Day both allied players move and collaborate together.) I like A&A and want it to succeed, but I feel we need to examine some of these “hard coded” aspects that may be outdated.

@squirecam said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

@Striker said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”

Those little battles matter, especially if you need them to block an assault on Moscow.

That justification can apply to zombie aggroing too?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I find it equally eyerolling whether it’s one infantry halting the blitz of the entire opposing tank force or a single sacrificial lamb whipping the zombies into a frenzy against the territory owners. It’s very subjective to say one is fine and the other isn’t.

The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”

@taamvan

I understand one player won quite handily with allies. I am wondering allies were favored across multiple games. Smorey hasn’t posted detailed results for zombies like hes done for other tourneys.

Speaking about the tournament, how were the results in general? Did allies consistently have the advantage /axis bid required as predicted earliar?

In the interest of quicker games and making japan/axis easier I’ve been considering a house rule of moving Japan’s turn to after Germany for effectively simultaneous turns, (and maybe adding an infantry to india to counter a t1 rush.)

@Argothair said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

Seems like pretty good evidence to me that the game is still biased toward Axis even with the 1942.3 setup changes.

That has been the consensus of veteran players yes.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

This is very insightful, Black_Elk. I’ve passed your concerns to the development team.

Some other data that may be useful is the results of last years tournament at GENCON. The tournament used the new set up/“patch” created by Larry to help balance the game
Changes from the Out of the box setup are:

Added UK-DD to Sea zone 7

Moved UK-Cruiser from Sea Zone 14 to Sea Zone 13

German Bomber in Germany moved to Ukraine

Remove 1 German sub from Sea Zone 5

Added 2 UK Infantry to India (Total now 5).from

The tournament results with this setup are below
( from http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/gen-con.html)

1942 2nd Ed. Games (all games 4 :45 min in length)
Bid 8 to Allies, 4 turn game, Allies Victory = 9VC’s/Surrender
Bid 6 to Allies, 7 turn game, Allies Victory = 8 VC’s
Bid 11 to Allies, 4 turn game, Axis Victory = Surrender
Bid 8 to Allies, 4 turn game, Axis Victory +3 Victory Cities
Bid 7 to Allies, 5 turn game, Axis Victory +3 Victory Cities
Bid 6 to Allies, 5 turn game, Axis Victory 10 VC’s.
Bid 6 to Allies, 7 turn game, Allies Victory 7 VC’s
Bid 6 to Allies, 7 turn game, Allies Victory 9 VC’s
Bid 7 to Allies, 5 turn game, Allies Victory 7 VC’s
Bid 8 to Allies, 6 turn game, Allies Victory 9 VC’s
Bid 5 to Allies, 4 turn game, Allies Victory +3 Victory Cities
Bid 2 to Allies, 4 turn game, Axis Victory +3 Victory Cities
Bid 6 to Allies, 4 turn game, Axis Victory +3 Victory Cities(Finals game)

The bid is how many IPCS worth of free units or extra income was given to the allied team.

I’ve been theory crafting setup changes in the pacific 41 setup to give Japan more to deal with, I’ll share it add to the ideas here.

Additional allied units: One chinese infantry to the 3 empty territories+move fighter to sikang. British Battleship in SZ 37(Japan has to sink Prince of whales/task force Z! Might reduce this to a cruiser though). India and Australia start with ICs.

Combine this with my version of NO changes(I try to keep NOs to two per nation for ease of play). The ones in the pacific theater are:
US
Pacific Holdings: +5 if allies control 2 of: Midway, wake island, Philippines.
Japan
+5 Ipcs for
Central Pacific Islands – 5 IPCS for controlling 2+ of Caroline islands, Iwo Jima, Wake Island
Co-Prosperity Sphere – 5 IPCs if Axis control 1 of India, Australia, Hawaii
UK:
ANZAC – 5 IPCs if Allies control Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands.

I think black_elk was referring to 1942 3rd edition, not a 1940 europe/pacific/global 3rd edition.

I a bit a of side rant, but I doubt updated French pieces will be a priority even if there is a 3rd edition for 1940. It would be cool purely for a collectors stand point, but only that, as from a game standpoint France falling is a forgone conclusion in Europe 1940 and feels more like busywork after the novelty of doing it the first time. The interesting strategy/decision making is everything else. The balance of destroying british navy/threatening sea lion/Blitz Russia/aiding Italy.

@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

In Global there is alot of money to grab while the other allies are weak. In this game, there are alot of $2 territories that would require you to, in many cases, sacrifice a transport and at least 1 man ($10) to take. More importantly, your adversary doesnt have a practical income of $9, he gets $32, which is subject to increase, not reduction.

I think what sums up Japan in the version compared to others(and why they are much weaker) is:

-Japan starts with less relative income and units
-Has to conquer more territories that relative to other games is heavier defended and provide less reward
-Is the one being alpha struck, instead of the one alpha striking.

“Gozilla japan” has been a problem in other versions(primarily OOB AA50 41 with NOs) but the pendulum swung to far the other way on this one.

While specifics differ, we seem to be all in agreement Japan needs something.

Heres hoping Japan gets some love when the faq comes around and they errata in some help like with russia in 1941.
(Hopefully Krieg’s been watching this thread and relays our thoughts…)