Posts made by vonLettowVorbeck1914

@robert:

Quitting A&A because of a new game is the wrong approach.
Not buying this game or future games by WOTC is the correct way.
You have already bought the games, so WOTC has been supported.
Now, not buying this will send a better message and not come across as a knee-jerk reaction of an upset person.

On the bright side, WOTC IS including money with this game so maybe they are listening to one of the biggest gripes people have with the A&A line.

I agree with a lot of this, but my worry is if this game tanks because it is miserable gimmicky garbage, then WOTC might decide that A&A not is worth it anymore, and mis-ascribe the reasons to it being A&A instead of it being gal-durned Zombies.

I’ve been playing all sorts of A&A games over the year and I remember the days of US spending all its money to try to get heavy bombers and then rolling 3 dice at a time to do direct IPC damage to Germany.

But looking at 2nd Edition Global rules I’m tempted to think strategic bombing is a little overpowered (although both sides can do it so it’s not really an Axis vs. Allies balance issue as a SBR vs other strategies issue)

We have house ruled just the other day to have strategics only add +1 to rolls (we also don’t play with tech) and intercepting fighters roll at 2. Just wondering what other people think about the strategic numbers in the 2nd Edition Rules and if when you play 2nd edition OOB your player group is satisfied or not with the OOB situation.

@Gargantua:

If you don’t capture Gibraltar, a fun move for Germany is to poison pill it.

Bomb the UK Naval Base there, and if London is Axis controlled the allies can’t repair the base.  This is made worse when Morocco is also still French - the US has no where to build a NB, unless they attack neutrals.  This can buy the axis alot of needed time, and reduce alot of the US threat.

Oh my this is diabolical.  :evil:

Thanks for all the replies. It sounds like in our games USA may have been playing a bit too timidly, just trying to keep the Japanese from getting the needed cities while committing the rest to Europe.

I also like the idea of some island NO’s, it might reward some aggressivity or at least incentivize a few more picket battles.

So my dad and I are going to play a global game pretty soon but we’ve noticed that while there’s a lot of variation on the Europe map in our games (at least enough to be interesting, in the Pacific it often becomes a few island snatches while two increasing navies stare at each other from one too many spaces away.

I think we last played with Alpha 2 rules or something like that (yeah, a while), but has anyone found an edition that might encourage something else? Or maybe a strategy that encourages something else? I have heard of something called “Balanced Edition” or whatever that was.

Anyways what helps avoid the big naval stack (other than one player choosing not to do it and putting themselves at a disadvantage for variety’s sake)?

@DouchemanMacgee:

Larry was busy making War Room, @Hunter:

Can someone tell me why we needed this? I would really like to know. I would buy it for the sculpts if we get any new ones besides the zombies.

Better than the brand being dead IMO.

I could be wrong though (I’m saving my temper tantrum until we get more info on the game), which is why I haven’t voted in the poll.

@redinight:

especially ones that don’t involve the original designers or creators.

Larry’s gone, man. He’s moved on from A&A to make War Room as a new take on the WW2 Genre.

(Un)fortunately, the A&A brand is with Avalon/Wizards, meaning we still get new A&A games.

…The downside of course, is that we’re stuck with gimmicks like this mess for the time being.

I think this above sums up just about everything. Yeah, it’s total rubbish. “Gimmick” is the perfect word. It reminds me of the video game Dino D-Day where US soldiers would fight an unholy alliance of Nazis and genetically engineered dinosaur clones. The best review of the game that I read, and the one that sums up this game, was something like “once you stop giggling after about 2 hours at the absurdity of the premise, you’ll be perpetually bored each time you log on.”

But at the same time, it’s interesting that there’s at least a spark of life in the A&A franchise. Is it a bit too on the nose, though, that the theme here is the undead? “Yeah A&A is basically dead, but we can have it come back with the shell of what made it great.”

In any case, this might be the start of something.
Looking forward to:

Axis & Allies: Twilight
50 Shades of Germany: Axis & Allies Kinky Edition
Axis & Allies: Tide Pod Blitz!
Axis & Allies: Disney Princesses
Axis & Allies: Dank Memes Kamikaze Assault
Axis & Allies: North Africa

I haven’t read every post in here, but I should say that my dad has been making big bomber buys for Germany for years and I always gave him a hard time for it. Seems the old man may know some things after all!

Great stuff KNP!

Strategy wise, I am really unsure how Germany is supposed to get any momentum against Russia in this game. They can be wiped out of Russia R1 (except for E. Poland and Bessarabia) and then have next to nothing left. I am only one turn into a test game, but wow, it looks quite grim for Germany after just 1 turn.

Europe standalone is OK, but it is still lacking in options. Honestly, I don’t really plan on playing pacific alone ever again.

@eddiem4145:

I have played countless other games of different variants and editions. The new rules, set up, and NO’s I think are enough to prevent the allies from ignoring Japan. They can’t ignore them. A japan that takes Anzac, China, India, the middle east and half of Russia would still be a major power to contend with, even if Germany falls. So the 6 victory city is not needed.

To contend with for doing what? Without the 6 VC rule, how would the Axis win? An 8 VC rule? USA has 3 major factories, and can drop 20 units a turn easily if the Japanese even get close to Los Angeles.

I’m not saying I liked P40 when Japan didn’t have the 30 IPC bonus to contend with, but Pac alone is now extremely one-dimensional. There is no option of helping the Germans with the Soviets as Japan. There is no balance of deciding where to commit forces between India and Egypt as UK. There is no decision for balancing the pacific and Atlantic as USA. Perhaps Japan can choose between going for Australia or India first, but I really don’t see any other actual strategic choices. And to me that is what makes the game fun, trying new strategies; not trying the same strategies and just adapting them a bit to different dice.

I still think that the 30 bonus is a good thing because before it Japan was far too powerful, but in fixing the gimmicky overpowered KUSAF, it brought the game closer to balance, yes, but still hasn’t made it exciting. I suppose we have the lesser of two evils though.

WOW! What timing! I just got on today looking for the 1941 file after getting a new computer.

Lucas McCain has only 4 posts but is #10 in post voting. Very interesting.

I don’t even know if I have ever voted a post up or down. Would probably be less than 5. Where do you get those stats again?

IL, We are talking about illegitimate voting on posts.

I don’t see why agreeing with someone that you should be the posterboy for the above is off topic. But then again, that’s one of your tactics. When the evidence gets too much for you to handle, it becomes off-topic!

@Gargantua:

Everyone knows it’s imperious leader.  I believe this was established some time ago.

No sense beating around the bush.

It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he employed a separate account simply to agree with himself and vote his posts up.

http://teamplayergaming.gameme.com/playerinfo/166677

Look up user Lucas McCain and see the posts he made in the WWI forum.

More pieces and more types of pieces.

Bigger, better connected board.

A legit IPC tracker.

It’s pretty fascinating to me how splitting up forces over different fronts really hampers the CP.

100 Austrians and 100 Germans (to use nice round numbers for the sake of clarity example) attacking the French (100 inf) in a territory is far weaker than 200 Germans or 200 Austrians

Austrians 100@ 3= 50 hits
French 100@ 3= 50 hits

50 Austrians, 50 French lost

Germans, 100@3= 50 hits,
French 50@3= 25 hits

That’s 75 on the CP, whereas if a force of 200 had attacked instead of 2 100’s, the casualties would have been 50.

It’s worse to have a multinational army since the defender gets to fire at you twice. At first I thought that this was silly, but then I realized that there was a lot of disunity and lack of coordination between powers in WWI, so it is actually pretty cool (although then I guess it is a bit weird that there is no penalty for defending, but whatevers)

This isn’t really news to A&A, but it seems in our games players are tempted to have multiple powers attack one territory more often than in other versions, which makes it pretty salient in WWI A&A.

I am a bit confused by your round 2. What do you mean when you say Austrians die without even firing at Russians?

Ironic IL, that you think you make other people less confident, when you are the one constantly dodging direct questions.

Still waiting for an actual link to any of the alleged “defeats” Kinda hard to tell when only my posts are shown…