Posts made by Weekend Gamer

@Baghdaddy:

I wonder what happens if I push this button…

Item #2 on the top 100 famous last words.

And what would Item #1 be?

“It makes you look fat.”

:lol:

LT,

Don’s essays are probably still the best thing around, especially the points regarding dead zones and purchasing for the long term.  They don’t address the new units - artillery and destroyers – and they don’t take account of the new defensive capabilities of tanks or the lower cost of carriers (16 vs. 18 in Classic) and fighters (10 vs. 12 in classic).  They are also a little too biased against strategic bombing, in my opinion.  Strategic bombing can be part of an overall strategy, just not your ONLY strategy.  As for taking the changes into account, I would say:

1.  Tanks are obviously a much better purchase in Revised, since they not only attack at “3” but also defend at “3”.  A tank can thus be viewed as a defensive purchase as much as an offensive purchase.  For example, I like Russia to have several tanks because, when it gets down to the defense of Russia, it helps to have those “3s” to roll on your defense.

2.  Fighters are more affordable in Revised, but the change in price isn’t like to cause you to buy a lot more fighters since they are still twice as expensive as tanks.  They are still great for defense, but now, so are tanks!

3.  The new units probably won’t change your purchasing that much – I rarely buy destroyers (and seldom see others buy them) and artillery are something you buy when you can’t afford tanks or have an extra IPC you can’t do anything else with.  Neither piece is a game-changer, although artillery do help improve the attacker’s odds in small-scale battles, which comes in handy.

4.  By far and away, the most important change is to the transport capacity rules.  In Classic, you could carry two infantry or ONE of anything else in a transport.  In Revised, you can now carry one infantry and one of any other type of piece, which makes it MUCH easier to transport tanks to the front.  In Classic, being only able to carry half as many tanks as infantry in a transport tilted thing heavily in favor of purchasing infantry.  Sheer numbers would overwhelm the superior attack value of tanks (especially when tanks only defended at “2”).  But in Revised, you get a better balance among the various pieces, which means you have more flexibility in your purchase options.  The addition of the artillery unit, while not earth-shaking, does round out your purchase options nicely to where you can almost always purchase to ensure full transports.

That’s not quite an essay, but that should give you the idea from one who basically learned how to play the game from reading Don’s A&A essays many years ago.  :-)

I could not get on myself for most of the day.  Dave, what time are you planning to shut down for upgrades?

RJ,

I undestand your point about phased game play.  However, playing with a computer utlity is HARDLY comparable to playing FTF.  For one thing, when I am playing face to face, I’m not having to look at the map like I am THIS CLOSE to the board!!!  I have the ability to “zoom out” and look at the map as a whole.  I am MUCH less likely to miss my British transport on the corner of the board in sz42 when playing FTF than when playing Triple A where I have to scroll like crazy to see the whole board.  I agree that there should be some limit to how many changes you can make and that some folks are more anal about this than others, but I think it should be an option that can be turned on or off depending on your preference.  For me, taking advantage of another player’s goof from a moment’s inattention is far less satisfying than beating them straight up.

Now that I think of it, please add a “zoom out” feature to your list of requested fixes!  :-)

@rjclayton:

Do you believe US citizens work hard enough to deserve vacation?  Because your government doesn’t.

This is the problem with you Canucks/Euros – you think prosperity is something that can be legislated.  Have you noticed that US unemployment is around 4.4% whereas France has been stuck above 9% for over ten years?  Can you say EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT REGULATION, anyone?

RJ, thanks, that is helpful.

Sorry, I don’t mean to whine like a little girl, but it’s just been frustrating trying to figure out how to do a simple edit when I see you and Frood editing things all over the place.  Either I’m dumb, or the edit feature is just not intuitive.  The additional tab labelled “Edit” pops up when I enable the edit feature, but for all the good it does, it might as well not even be there.

So let me see if I have this right.  During MY combat move phase, if I have enabled “edit”, I can move my OPPONENT’S pieces too?  I never would have figured that out in a million years.  Why not link this function to the tab labelled “edit”???  I’m no programmer, but is that so hard?  :?  Just put a button that says “Move Pieces” on the “edit” tab that allows you to move anything on the board.  It that complex logic or what?

I also have one other bitch about Triple A while we are at it.  There should be a “back” feature that allows you to go back to a previous phase.  I’m not talking about going back to the combat move phase after already rolling your combats – I mean being able to re-do your noncombat moves after you move to the placement phase.  It happens all the time – I’m building units in my ICs and discover a piece I meant to move.  But I’m stuck using Triple A!  grrrrr.

I do like this application – it is very easy to use.  And I appreciate that it is a work in progress.  I trust you appreciate receiving feedback, even when it’s not all positive.

rj, the edit feature on my Triple A doesn’t work for shit.  Are there instructions somewhere for using the edit feature?  Is there a patch for the edit feature?  I seriously cannot figure out HOW to move a unit or add one.  I can delete a unit, but if I can’t add one, that doesn’t seem to help.  :|

Has anyone noticed the following glitches with Triple A:

1. It won’t let you move a fighter 3 moves to a seazone without an adjacent friendly territory unless you move an AC within range DURING YOUR COMBAT MOVE!

2. It won’t let you land planes on newly built carriers

3. It won’t let you build planes on newly built carries (not 100% sure about this one, but believe it to be the case).

It’s my understanding Triple A started out as a utility to play the Classic A&A Game and that the Revised module was added later.  It looks like they got some, but not all, of the rule changes implemented.  Is there a patch out there to fix any of these glitches?

Thanks,
G

DF, great quote on the siggy!

@Ddraiglais:

I am actually restarting. I started playing the MB version back in the 80s. In the 90s I had a bunch of expansions for it. The game is not hard to grasp for me. That’s why I was asking about expansions.

You do bring up a good point though. If D-Day is easier, I might use that to help my sons understand the basics of the game. We’ve played revised, but I’m not sure they get the whole thing yet. I should have D-Day in a little over a week. I will probably pick up Europe, Pacific, Battle of the Bulge, and World at War as well at that time. I’ll just play D-Day with my sons and play the others with my friends.

I don’t think I’m interested in A&A minis. I already play 40K for a more advanced game. If I wanted to do a WW II game with miniatures, I’d probably go with Flames of War. I have a few of those books, but nobody else around me ever got interested in it. One quick question about A&A minis: are the pieces compatable with regular Axis and Allies? Some of those miniatures look really nice. I wouldn’t mind picking a few up and painting them for use in other versions of Axis and Allies.

I still love Axis and Allies though. It’s easy to teach. My biggest problem with it is that it is fairly predictable. Most games play out in only a couple of different ways. That’s why I loved the expansions I had in the 90s. That’s also why I am looking at different expansions and/or rules sets. I am very interested in The Struggle for Europe and Asia and The War Game: WW II. Those seem to be very different in the way they pan out.

Adam,

I think you are asking two different questions:  (1) “what’s the easiest game for my sons to play to learn the mechanics of A&A?”, and (2) “what are the coolest expansions out there for advanced players like myself?”  That’s two TOTALLY different things.  The expansions may be cool to you, but unless your kids are geniuses, they are likely to be overwhelmed by World at War, never mind Europe at War (with rules so complex, I don’t see how you could play it in one sitting – maybe THREE sittings  :lol:).  So, I think you should slow down and introduce them slowly to the world of war gaming.  Maybe start out with Risk II or Samarai Swords – something real easy to learn and easy to play in a couple of hours.  It will suck for you, but these are your kids, remember?  If they are having fun, you will be having fun.  If they show interest, then I would introduce them to Classic.  It has all the basics and is the easiest to learn.  IMO, A&A D-Day is a completely different game – basically, a tactical game like AAM rather than a strategic game like A&A.  If you start them with that game, they might like it, but it will only confuse them when they go to play Classic or Revised, because the rules are very different.

Anyway, good luck.  As for expansions, my money is still on World at War, although I don’t think the Axis can win without a bid somewhere in the 20s (at least not between players of equal ability).  Anything more complex than that is beyond all but a very tiny minority of the gaming community, at least in my experience.

MW,

Ft. Myers is where I was born!  :-)  Sadly, I live in Jacksonville now, which ain’t exactly right around the corner.  If you ever get up this way, we could hook up FTF.  I’ve hooked up with Mateooo once (although he seems to have disappeared from this site) – it was good times, although it would have been better with 3-4.

Adam, try looking here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=36.0

@ncscswitch:

It would also skew the hell out of Europe.

Imagine Germany’s 6 FIGs and BOM backed up by a large stack of INF…  Throw in an ARM or seven…

Can you say “steamroll” anyone?

Hmmm, so exactly what kind of “restaurant” was this where you were being served by a gorgeous waitress and you were leaving $100 tips (in small bills, perhaps?)?  I thought only the sailors frequented THOSE kinds of establishments.  :-D :lol:

Dan, if it makes you feel any better, I think your old dicey is the most popular one on this site, including with yours truly.  :-)

But now that you have me playing Triple A, I will now be using it primarily for checking battle odds . . . (which I should have done for the Germany defense – I was just getting lazy with that one).

@froodster:

I’m fast approaching Bomber, and it’s been less than a year.  :-o

Ditto here

@newpaintbrush:

@Gamer:

Hey, sweet!  I just noticed . . . I’m a tank, I’m a tank, I’m a tank!!!  Woot!   :mrgreen:

At the time of this posting, you are a “fighter”.

Needless to say, that was a while ago . . . okay, not THAT long ago.  Sheesh!  I need to get a life . . .  :roll:

Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein.  The atmosphere of the book is SOOO early 1960s, but it is truly one of the best novels I have ever read, period.  And what’s more – nowhere near 1,000 pages!  :-)

For what it’s worth, I agree with Agent Orange about the ranged attack units (the archers and gunners).  They give you what Imperious Leader calls “preemptive fire” meaning their casualties don’t get a defense roll.  So I focus my early purchases on maxing out my archers, then my gunners.  I buy as many archers as I can, even dumping them in my provincial forces (since there is a limit to what you can add to your armies each round through purchases) and then soak them into my armies at the first opportunity.  Then, I converge at least two armies with 5+ archers and 5+ gunners total on an enemy army and just watch that army melt away!  (With or without a fort, I might add).  The small forts add only 4 spear chuckers (I forget their official name) and the big forts give you 5 Ronin swordsman.  But if they get no defense, who cares?

The key to the game is killing armies.  The Ninja is one, very risky way to do it.  I prefer speed and overwhelming force.  Oh, and after I max out my range pieces, THEN I buy up the Ronin to add that extra punch to my attacks.  Again, sitting still is a recipe for getting killed.  The forts just don’t add enough defense, especially since the attacker gets to decide when he attacks (which will be before the defender can reinforce it if the attacker buys the sword!).  Keep those armies moving!

When they reduced the IPC value of SFE and Yakut to 1 (and added a Buryat worth only 1 IPC) in Revised, the game designers really disincentivized either the Allies or the Axis to pay much attention to the Soviet north east.  It is just too damn difficult to have much effect on the game outcome going that route without a large commitment of forces.  Japan has the easiest time committing those forces of any player.  For the U.S., it is plain silly, unless the Japanese player does something very foolish, like leaving that route wide open (in which case, the Japanase capital is likely also wide open!).  Even in that case, the U.S. forces are probably too far away in any event to take advantage.  A U.S. Pacific strategy can only succeed by going South (via the Solomons).

@Axis4life:

Art is an asset when you build a lot of INF and are pressing an attack.  They are a solid purchase for Germany for sure and the UK.  Russia has limited use for ART.  After the first few rounds Russia is generally think of ways to stave off the incoming attacks, so why would you spend and extra IPC for a piece that offers no defensive advantage.  So I guess I would say that ART are worth it if you are pressing attack, not so much for defending the homefront.

I have to disagree with this assessment somewhat.  Because Russia has limited air power, I find it is useful for Russia to have a few artillery to deploy because it increases my odds of killing German (or Japanese) troops with minimal commitment of forces on my part.  So, for example, if I attack Ukraine (with 2 German defenders) with 2 infantry and 1 fighter, my odds of taking Ukraine are only 58% versus nearly 70% (69.65% to be exact) if I attack with 1 infantry, 1 artillery and 1 fighter.  That extra almost 12% odds means greater odds of taking the territory from Germany, gaining an extra 3 bucks in income and forcing the Krauts to take it back (with a 1 in 3 chance of killing another Kraut in the exchange).  In any case, I would much rather lose 7 bucks worth of units trying to take a territory, even if not successful, than losing 8 bucks worth of units, especially when Russia needs those tanks later on for the defense of Moscow.  I always buy tanks early and in later rounds.  But in the middle rounds, artillery can be a good purchase for Russia, IMO.