Posts made by Striker

I think it’s important to remember that this has been described as a “slightly streamlined” 1942 level game in terms of rules and things to keep track of.  I guarantee you won’t see anything as in depth as vonlettows list above.

We will probably see something that is dependent on one or two territories, or an IPC count.  Turn # could matter as well.  Definitely not all three of those will be considered together though, it will be one or two. I’m no sure if the fate of something as important as a whole nation will be decided on a dice roll, but we will see.

@Mallery29:

One million-kajillion posts

Your debate would carry more weight if you acknowledge the existance of the edit/modify button.  Presentation matters.
I see a a large amount of cherry picking, strawmanning and assumptions.  If you two are so sure of your strategies, play a game against eachother and prove them.

@Cow:

How many people really enjoy pacific? It’s so lackluster. Naval cost lots of money and once one side is sunk that’s it. there’s no coming back. Not to mention attacking is rough, there’s no retreating because you can’t repair, so you’re all in no matter what. It’s so stupid.

It’s a world war two game.  The pacific kind of saw a major war fought in its theatre.  Naval warfare is a whole other ballgame to landwarfare and really adds an element of authenticity and “Fun” to the game.  That’s why the alphas are trying so hard to make sure a war has to be fought in the pacific from a gameplay/game advantage point of view, so as to avoid the KGF’s and JTDM’s of all the other axis and allies games before this one.

I for one do enjoy the pacific battle, and that’s why I tend to avoid playing online games since the most “efficient” strat for both sides in games up untill now have been to ignore the pacific.

Having the amount moved relate to the territories IPC value on one hand makes sense, as IPC value would give a rough estimate of the capacity of supply trains/road quality to quickly move forces.  However there are three reasons I’m overall against limiting it.
1. K.I.S.S.:  Does the rule need to be made for complicated with the additions of limitations?
2. Cup of water into the ocean: If you are attacked by a 20+ strong force 2-5 reinforcements may not be enough to make a difference.
3. Is it really a problem?: Say I do move 10, 20, whatever amount to support the defense.  Is this abuseable?  It’s only from adjacent territories so it’s not like the whole strategic map has been redrawn.

If i was to impose any limit it would be #reinforcements that can be brought=# of original defenders.  Can’t think of good realistic reason but seems to fit gameplay well.

I still think it’s effective and succinct at “-If a combat lasts more then 2 rounds, the defender may make a free move with any units in adjacent territories(that did not fight this round as well) to the attacked territory and take part in the battle.”

(Originally posted on Larry’s forums, but this sees more traffic so I’m interested in opinions)

Axis and Allies has come a long way since classic, but there are still some “gamey” tactics still alive that bug me, as they neither represent reality at all nor do they add to the fun factor of the game. These can be traced to two sources, one game mechanic that needs modification, and another that needs adding.

Problem Examples:
-It’s most often best to have one massive stack, attacking on multiple fronts is suicide as your smaller stacks get gobbled one at a time. Thus, a veteran player’s invasion of Russia with Germany is made of a one pronged attack that goes straight to Moscow, sometimes going through Leningrad or Stalingrad first.

-There is no reason for the allies to push the Germans lines back from France/Italy when a substantial landing force can just “snipe” Berlin and end the game. This forces Germany/Italy to garrison their capital with a large stack once the US is in the war. Capital sniping effectively ends the game.

Source of Problems/fixes:

• The sense of time scale in A&A can seem off when battles happen. When a territory is attacked, the defenders are on their own regardless of how long the battle is, even if there is a massive friendly force just one territory away. In real war, if one part of the lines are attacked, forces from the reserves and flanks would relocate to support the defense.
  I suggest that if a battle lasts more then two rounds, then the defender may move units from adjacent territories into the battle to support the defense(this is a “free” move into the attacked territory) In A&A 42 this may seem beyond the scale, but in either of the A&A40 games I think it is a reasonable mechanic. I’d expect a force in West Germany to be able to respond to an attack on East Germany, or France/Normandy, North/South Italy, navies in adjacent seazones, etc.
  This would fix some problems and promote more interesting Gameplay. The “one stack to rule them all” would be still viable but not be necessary, since 2 stacks could support eachother. There would be reason to attack across a broad area rather then making needlepoint attacks(vulnerable to being cut off from supplies in real war). In addition, defense in depth would become a viable tactic and the concept of reserves could be put to use on the table top. I think it’s a fairly simple rule that could do so much for the game.

-Capitol loss.
The current mechanics for capitol loss do not seem to make sense in either a realistic sense or a game play sense. It does not make sense for Germany to get all of Britain’s income from around the globe because it captured London. As well, the current capitol loss mechanic makes victory cities redundant. The large majority of the time the game is effectively over once one side loses a capital, regardless of the amount of “other” victory cities owned. Losing a capital provides the other side with a ridiculous reward and take the victim pretty much out of the war, even if it wouldn’t make sense. If London was conquered, then the common wealth would fight on and keep producing, lead by Canada in the European theater and India in the pacific. Likewise, Moscow falling wouldn’t necessarily end Russia, as much of their industry was east in the Urals.

-Suggested fix: If you lose your capital you discard all current ipcs. This is one time, and you collect income as normal at the end of your next turn.
Effect: This represent the damage done by losing a capital, as the government would be in turmoil for some time. However, after reorganization a secondary government would survive and continue the fight. I think it would benefit gamewise since it would make for a more tense situation after loss of capital since the victim could still have a chance to reclaim it on his own. As well, both the mechanics combined would discourage capital sniping.

@oztea:

For the Axis, losing their capitals would be the end of the war……so i support gameplay that forces them to hold onto them at all costs with stacks. Its realistic to have a bulk of your force in your homeland.

Is it really though?  To my knowledge, most(almost all) of the german fighting forces were at the front lines in France and Eastern Europe, not garrisoning homeland territory.  The problem with the flow of the game is that it doesn’t properly account for reactionary defenses.  If the allies landed first in East Germany, they would not be able to reach Berlin before every jerry from France to Ukraine had a chance to be recalled.

I’m also not a fan of handing money over either. I’d understand if all money was discarded to the bank, as the turmoil of capital loss would devastate the nation. But how does Germany capturing London get their resources from across the globe?  I see no reason, for the sake or realism or game mechanics, to have it this way.  I think it would make for a more tense and exciting game if capital loss wasn’t the game ender that it is, and that there was a (slight) chance for recovery.

I guess that’s two house rules I’m considering now. 1) defender can move units from adjacent territories into battle after two rounds of combat from occurred.(Makes one massive stack less necessary, Helps discourage “sniping”) 2) Capital loss changed to victim discard all IPCS(one time, collects again in further rounds to represent reorganization of secondary government.  Helps to really put the emphasis on victory cities, as right now capital loss just means early conceding of game.).

Capitol loss is a good way to end the game when the enemy is already weakened to the point of no return, but it by no means makes sense for every country.  If London was captured the common wealth would fight on, led in the European theater by Canada. If Moscow fell it would not be the end of Russia, since their industry was concentrated east of Moscow in the Urals.  But what really bugs me is “capital sniping.”  Germany/Italy(as applicable) need a 10+unit stack sitting in their capital every turn once the US gets into the war, lest the allies forgo the outlying territories and just grab the capital.  If this was attempted in “real life” it would never work, the landing would initially have good results against poorer defenses, but it would take too long to get far enough in land to reach the capital before a crap-ton of reinforcements from the rest of the front arrived. Currently the rules don’t represent the movement of forces for defence/counter attack.  It would be cool if there was some rule like “if combat lasts more then two rounds, then the defender can move units from adjacent land territories into the battle”.

What did the poor players playing China and France do once they were wiped in the first two turns?

And dont forget the USSR NO requires that they control all their original territories as well.  Having Norway doesn’t matter if the germans even have bessarabia or east Poland.

I don’t think it was a case of me missing a specific city.  Rather, I thought “there’s 10 victory cities, we need 8, so that means we must capture all but Ottawa and Washington!”

Yeah…could have swore there was only 10.  Still, it would be fairly easy for America to have a stalemate going by kicking Italy out of Cairo and holding it with its mega fleet of doom.  But my above argument is void now.

Ummm…err, eh.  Blame it on late night gaming?  Guess we would have “won” after one more round. bleh.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

EDIT: Case of late night gaming mind ahead! Only read if you want to laugh at my expense.

Note: This is for Europe 1940 only, not the global combined game.

I admit I’m only basing this off of one game of actual play but the issue seems that obvious.

Four player game.  One player Germany, I played Italy, One played USSR/France and one was the western allies(UK/US).

Germany opened with taking just france(ignore normandy/south france) and decimating the whole northern british fleet.  Britain did not do anything offensive at all in his turn and turned hit south fleet away to rally in south africa and canada. I was then able to defeat north Africa without breaking a sweat. Throughout the game I did a quick land grab with the forces I had untill they got counter attacked by south african IC forces.  I had an IC in egypt and swung the tides again and grabbed South africa.  Meanwhile I captured the mideast to west India and helped Germany with Barbarossa.  I all the southern territories of Russia(Including Stalingrad!) while he was able to capture Moscow comfortably(The russian player’s critical mistake was sending too much forces to take finland/norway).  Axis have 7 of the 8 needed victory cities to win.

End Turn 4 after Start of Barbarossa: http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j275/Striker_002/DSCF0370.jpg
3 Pictures of when we called it, first is full view, other two are half views for better detail.
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j275/Striker_002/DSCF0371.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j275/Striker_002/DSCF0372.jpg
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j275/Striker_002/DSCF0373.jpg

A picture is worth a thousand words, but for those who are on slow connection here is a summary:
The situation is this:
Russia is out except for a moderate force holing up in leningrad.
Germany has run out of conquer tokens.
ITALY has run out of both Italian conquer tokens and french proxy tokens!(Making 35 Ipc’s natural)
America has mega fleet of doom controlling atlantic/mediterranian. Only axis fleet is small italian one chilling on other side of suez canal.
Britain is making less then 20 IPCs, ferrying troops into normandy. Netherlands being traded but allies don’t WANT to liberate france(making money off of “liberated” french colonies)

Even though the axis powers have  exceeded expectations and conquered Euroasia and Africa, they have only equalized their economy with the allies because of the US!.  The allies do not have the ground force to successfully push into mainland Europe, but the Axis can’t hope to destroy the US/British fleet any time in the foreseeable future to get access to invading London.  Even if a major axis airforce was able to kill the navy, the British player could garrison a crapton of infantry in London to delay the inevitable even more.   We called the game at this point since it was 2:00am and victory for either side was nowhere in site.

My complaint is that axis victory is not reasonable to achieve. The axis must conquer all of Russia, africa, and then knock britain out to win.  There are 10 victory cities but two are completely inaccessible in North America.  This leaves London as the only way to end the game.  The axis have two choices but the paths lead to the same conclusion.

1. Do an early sealion and THEN conquer Russia.  However, by the time russia is defeated america will have liberated england.

2. Do not do sealion and conquer Russia sooner.

Both lead to similar end game scenarios assuming successfully knocking out russia.  Allies have control of seas and Axis have control of mainland Eurasia and maybe africa.  Even when the axis perform very well they still haven’t won.

If the Axis completely control Europe and Africa, that should be considered enough to meet the victory conditions.  I’d suggest South Africa as the location for a new victory city so that this is obtainable.

/Rant

I’ve run the odds in triple A(which will slightly skew results towards Axis,as right now the calculator assumes tactical bombers only ever attack on 4, when of course they will be attacking on 3 after the right amount of casualties).

ASSUMING:
Defense
11 allied infantry(1 brit 1 french at placement, 9 bought the first turn, Canadian transport sunk)
3 fighters

Attacker:
4 fighters, 3 tactical, 1 bomber, SB BB, SB CA, 3 tanks, and 3 Infantry

56% of the time the attacker will win.  Basically you are doing a game deciding gamble on turn two.  And this is assuming Germany took no fighter casualties G1! If even one dies then the odds are 41% win or worse for the attacker.

If I see the 9 inf defense build by UK as Germany I’m not going to go for the attack. It took probably an hour to set up the game, I’d at least like it to remain interesting for a couple rounds in.  Might as flip a coin to see who wins.

I still find it strange that UK’s 45ish income was split to prevent exploits but The USA’s 80+ income is still allowed to concentrated in one theatre.  I would have thought forcing the US to spend in each theatre would be the ultimate KGF stopper.

I think if Germany ignores Normandy the first turn, they can take Paris comfortably if they use ALL available ground forces on it.  This frees up the airforce to dedicate itself to fleet killing.  4 fighters, 3 tacticals and a bomber can take care of the southern french fleet and the battleship fleets with the help of the subs. It’s how I’ll try things when i get a chance to play Germany at least.

I was talking about a G1 attack on the south france fleet.  They wouldn’t be combined yet.

The Germans certainly can destroy the french south fleet(edit for clarity, on G1) using their air force thanks to the airbase.  This would make the british Taranto Raid suicidal as the Italians would be able to mop up survivors afterward.  Assuming average dice rolls the british will lose their destroyer+cruiser, and the Italians would be able to counter attack the carrier and 2 planes with their 2 fighters +destroyer+cruiser, then have a clear Mediterranean afterward.  Depending what Germany does, it may be more worth it for the UK to combine their southern fleet in SZ 92 and force a naval stalemate.  The remaining german air would have a hard time taking on a loaded carrier with 2 escorts(near mutual annihilation likely) and the Italians would not be able to deal with it either immediately, since their fighters wouldn’t have range turn 1. Either way the fleet either takes much of the German airforce out with it or becomes a pain that hampers Italy’s invasion of Africa.

It appears the Italy fleet raid was intended.

From Larry’s forums: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2537&start=8
@Striker:

I’ll be interested in hearing a reply from Larry or a playtester that says either “Yes, we intended that to be a possible opening move for Britain, duh.” or “Woops, we might have made and oversight there.”

@Krieghund:

Yes, we intended that to be a possible opening move for Britain, duh.

You spend 18 ipcs(one time) to deny 5 ipcs(a turn) so it may be worth it over the long run.