Posts made by zooooma

Check it out:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=882

Hooray!

Thanks Kreig!  Nine for victory sounds awesome!

Still, I think the official rules should sanction any agreed upon number of cities for victory (perhaps with recommendations).  Such options could only serve to add to the game, and for less than a pennies worth of ink.

This edition is said to have pro____ neutrals.  This is a (perhaps modified) rule dating back to the Nova Games edition in 1981.

Pro____ neutrals did have an IPC value, and that money went directly to the power to which the neutral was pro.  eg, when Germany collects income, they add the IPC values of all the territories they control as well as the values from any pro Germany neutrals.  Germany still could not enter those neutrals without violating neutrality like anyone else.  Once violated, a neutral becomes an ordinary territory.

If the neutrals in AAP40 don’t generate income, we will need a new definition of what it means to be pro____.

Perhaps the true neutrals won’t generate income.  In that case we would only ever attack them for strategic positioning.  I remember in MB edition seeing an American player invade Spain and put some tanks there.  That way if England captured Western Europe, even in a trade, America could blitz into Southern Europe.

Classic RISK Kind of Sucks.  It can deadlock.  The newer versions with secret missions are okay.

@Jermofoot:

Risk is like a gateway drug:  it introduces you to bigger and better games.   :-D

Yeah.  Growing up on RISK is apt to make one interested in Axis & Allies, Supremacy, Diplomacy, any area map war game.

@Battlingmaxo:

Castle risk is definitely broken.

Yup.

@cyan:

regular risk is ok, but i think risk 2210AD is much better. it gives you allot more options and connects Australia and South America to the rest of the world. if you ever have bad luck during placement you can always shoot for the moon.

Now there’s a game!  It’s no A&A (what is, really) but still very strategic and fun.  I have all the Front Line expansions and the five promo “Major” cards.

@frimmel:

I think that Risk:Godstorm is a blast. Summon Gods to aid you in battle, wage war in the underworld, sink entire continents.  Lots of fun.

I only played this once.  At the time I didn’t like it as much as 2210, but I’d like to try it again.

@Imperious:

Whatever you do buy Titlist Napoleon edition Risk… thats the bomb!!! its like axis and allies risk. it will cost you 50$ on ebay but its worth the price. They have generals and navys and its totally historical based. Not to mention you can allways sell your copy for more than you paid. Make sure you buy the ottoman expansion as well.

I’ve always wanted this, but lately decided it was probably too costly to justify for a RISK variant.  How much strategy is involved?  Please sell me on this!

I believe the World at War expansion by Xeno Games had a similar rule for tech.  I’m not sure about the price, but I do think it took a turn or two before it became available on th open market.

I haven’t actually bought this yet (shame on me).  I am certainly going to!

I am wondering if the Victory Cities have been changed?  Is there still a minor victory option (eight cities, I think)?

Thanks!

@Veqryn:

Lastly, neither Revised or 1942 have National Advantages, the poster above must be thinking of AA50.

Revised had National Advantages - U-Boat Interdiction, Super Fortresses, Soviet Patriot War, etc.  Not to be confused with National Objectives from AA50 and the upcoming AAP40 & AAE40.

@Krieghund:

Does that make the Nova version the Zeroth Edition?

Shhh.

• At the beginning of the attack and/or move stage, each player secretly decides where he wants his sub located for that particular stage.  Write down the name of the sea in the Admiral’s Registry.

• Subs have a fire power rating of 6 and 10 kill points

• Submarines cost $200 M plus one grain unit, one oil unit, and four mineral units.  This gives you a submarine loaded with two nukes

There are some other rules about choke points, sub detection,and ambushing.  Also L-stars are at a reduced defense against missiles fired from submarines.

Somebody should remind those guys that Axis & Allies was first released in 1981, not 1984!

Has anything been said about CAPs in the 1940 line?  Has it been asked?  I loved CAPs!

I’ve certainly finished games (maybe not A&A) that were almost over yet completely forgone.

A&A can take a long time to finish.  I once played the Gamemaster edition against an opponent who insisted the game wasn’t over till I occupied both Germany and Japan.  I had a factory in the Soviet far East building Russian transports by the end of it.  It was fun, I admit.

@Axis Roll - I think you are being funny.  I find the game most fun when I’m under some pressure but still have a good fighting chance.  But sometimes these games are the best when you’re brand new.  Then you can buy whatever you want because you haven’t yet learned that some purchases are stupid!

If either side has 13 or more VCs and the other hasn’t conceded yet you are only still playing to kill time.

@cts17:

Most of the stores I go to that are into selling board games, fantasy accessories, and RPG’s have these in limited stock. But they still have them, usually at $129.99 CDN

I paid about that for my second copy in the spring - about $150 after taxes.

The game is still sealed in its original shrink.  I am willing to sell it but might prefer to trade it for a game (or games) of roughly close value.  The games I want most are listed here on BGG:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/crimhead?want=1&subtype=boardgame&gallery=large&ff=1

Cheers.

Here’s a new take on a blockhouse unit:

Cost One IPC.

Move zero

Attack zero

Defense zero

If you buy three of these proceeding a battle, you are down one third of a hit in the first round.  But going into the second round (assuming the battle is large enough to lose all three the first round) you’ve lost three one IPC blockhouses instead of three three IPC infantry units.  Minus the infantry you could have bought instead of the blockhouse your net gain is two infantry, giving an instant return of two thirds of a hit!  Minus the third of a hit you lost in round one, your up one third of a hit.

Of course your opponent will get extra fire power on round two, but only to the tune of an extra one third of a unit.  This this is probably an attacking infantry, so your opponent only gains one third of one sixth of a hit, or one eighteenth.  Since you gained a whole third, my blockhouse (in the correct proportion) proves more efficient than defending infantry.

However, I think the above stats may still be overpowered!  Defending infantry is the most combat efficient thing that IPCs can buy.  I question the merit of adding a defense piece that’s more efficient still.  The greater the gap in efficiency between defense and attack, the more likely stalemate ensues.  If you’re not convinced consider the following extreme unit:

Super Defender - attack zero, defense six, cost one.

Add this to the game and nobody will ever capture a capitol again - complete guaranteed stalemate.  Obviously a less extreme defending unit will have a less extreme effect.

Right now the most efficient attack force is infantry plus artillery.  Twenty one IPCs buys six units at two for an average of two hits a round.  Twenty one IPCs in defense buys seven infantry defending at two, for an average of two and two thirds hits per round.  That’s an extra two thirds of a hit per round plus extra cannon fodder.  So as the attacker (all things being equal) I need an extra 3.5 IPCs a turn on the defender for every twenty one IPCs we each earn just to keep up.  That means producing 116 2/3 per cent of what the defender produces, just to break even.  I need more to actually gain an advantage.

Should we give the defender an even better way to spend those 21 IPCs, I will need even more than 116.6666667 % of their economy to gain an edge in battle.  If this number gets too high, the game breaks.  I simply suggest keeping this in mind when designing a new and better defending unit.

@Imperious:

Not problem solved for 20 invasions of France, Karelia, and Caucasus each game.

We’re talking about the new upcoming 1940 games aren’t we?  Maybe your games of A&A:Europe play out differently than mine?

@Imperious:

This can lead to long lags of all building and no fighting, or worse yet a complete stalemate.

This is your central point. It will defiantly lead to fewer invasions where double collection occurs which causes both sides to buy more units, hence more dice rolling, hence longer game.

The old 1981 Nova edition solved the double collection problem.  The turn you capture a territory you would collect income from the opposing player instead of the bank.  That way a war ravaged territory generates no income instead of double.

I’m also not convinced that each side buying more units slows the game down.  Nor have I ever played a very long game and credited the length to too many small battles or too much dice rolling.  Battles and dice do not make up the bulk of a turn.

@Imperious:

With the blockhouse people will make sure they have enough to take the spot from counterattack, which leads to a quicker result, rather than piecemeal attempts to secure the same territory over and over again with NO RESULT. I feel the game will have a quicker result.

There will always be dead zones in A&A.

@Brain:

@zooooma:

@Adlertag:

Blockhouse cost 6 IPC,  move 0, attack 0, defend 4 or less. This is strong enough.

Strong enough to never be purchased ever.  This is far worse than two infantry.

Can you please expound upon that?

Okay.

Two infantry or one such suggested blockhouse have the same cost - six IPCs.  Either purchase gives you an average of two hits every three rounds of combat.  On the surface they look pretty much equal, but the infantry have a couple advantages:

• The infantry have the abilities of movement and attack.  This makes them far more versatile.

• Even when strictly in defense mode, the infantry will out preform the proposed blockhouse.  Why?  The two infantry can take a hit and keep on fighting at half capacity.  The blockhouse takes a hit and just dies!  The ability to absorb more hits than your opponent is a huge advantage - two infantry are a big favorite attacking just one even thought hey average fewer hits!

So, given the above, why would anyone ever buy the blockhouse instead of two infantry?  It’s worth mentioning that a blockhouse against a single attacking unit defends better than the two infantry.  The blockhouse still averages two hits in three rounds, but the infantry hit only five times every nine rounds.  This difference is not only slight, and obscure, but almost completely irrelevant.  There is no single unit which can soundly attack two infantry or one blockhouse.

Incidentally, infantry in defense mode is already by far the best bang for your buck.  I don’t see the need to further increase defense efficiency.

@Adlertag:

Blockhouse cost 6 IPC,  move 0, attack 0, defend 4 or less. This is strong enough.

Strong enough to never be purchased ever.  This is far worse than two infantry.

@Rammstein:

The game should’ve had a 13, 14, and 15 VC option, not 13, 15, 17.

Or eleven, twelve, and thirteen.  Thirteen is game over regardless, so anything higher is redundant.

@Adlertag:

Blockhouse: attack 0, defend on 4 or less, move 0, cost 6 IPC

This fit right into the A&A line of simple units. No mumbo jumbo of opening phase fire or targeting specific units. Thank you.

This is quite a bit worse than two infantry.  For the same price, the only advantage of the blockhouse is that it averages slightly more hits against a single attacking unit.  The two infantry have the advantage that they absorb twice as many hits, and can actually move and attack!  Any devoted defense unit would have to be substantially better than its attack capable counterparts from a strict cost vs combat value analysis (giving consideration to hit absorption).

@Imperious:

…we need some defensive unit with teeth.

Do we though?  Remember the Gamemaster edition?  Infantry on defense was the more efficient by far than any unit on attack.  This lead to very long games with huge walls of infantry such that neither side could attack.  Since then we’ve seen the innovations of artillery pieces and the 3/3/2/5 tanks, much to the game’s improvement.

When it’s more efficient to build a defense force than an attack force, you require a much bigger economic advantage in order to successfully invade.  This can lead to long lags of all building and no fighting, or worse yet a complete stalemate.  I do not wish to see a strong defensive unit.

@Battlingmaxo:

In the games I’ve been involved in resignations come before achieving VC requirements.

Victory cities are irrelevant in AA50.  If your opponent has thirteen cites it’s game over.  You lose.  Period.  Whether you acknowledge this as a victory condition or not there is simply no coming back from such extensive decimation.