Posts made by zooooma

Sold!

@ Elk, artillery was a great addition to A&A back in 1999, but back in the 1980s the old Gamemaster version was nonetheless the best game going.

I love A&A global 1940 with all the cool new units etc.  But A&A 1941 is meant to be a faster, simpler version for those sessions when I am short on time or when I’m playing with people who are not ready (and in some cases never will be) for more sophisticated versions.

I’m not looking for house rules to add depth to the game.  I just want it to be (roughly) balanced without a bid.

@scrubsbigd:

I don’t understand how to battle please help

Here are the basics (though I don’t own this version and haven’t read the rules):

During combat movement, you move units into hostile territories or sea zones.  Air units need to save movement points to land.  When all combat movement is finished, battles are conducted one at a time.

Each unit rolls one die in battle and record ether a hit or miss.  After both attacker and defender have rolled, casualties are taken, and the attacker may chose to continue the battle or retreat.  And so on until one side (or both) is destroyed.

Do you have any specific questions?

@Krieghund:

After consideration of the feedback so far, Larry has decided on some more modifications.  See this thread for details.

I haven’t bought this game yet.  It’s the only WWII A&A board game I don’t own, so I should probably pick it up soon.

Are these changes going to appear in print in newer editions of the game?  Or perhaps as an option in an official FAQ?  I note there is no link to a FAQ for this game on the Avalon Hill site.

Thanks!

http://webdiplomacy.net/index.php

I’m playing my first online game now.  I ever realized just how rushed my tactical analysis was playing ftf!

My only real complaints about the cite are that it does not facilitate messaging multiple opponents in a single thread, ad it allows messaging during retreats and adjustments.  Otherwise all is good!

@Herr:

While strategy does play its role, it’s mainly a matter of forging secret and well-negotiated alliances and backstabbing the right people/nations at the right time.

I would argue that strategy is the most neglected area of this great game.  Probably because suave and persuasive negotiations can go a long way to make up for strategic shortcomings.

@1Bean432:

Is it just me. Or does the diplomacy board look scarily similar to 1914 mechanics wise.

Diplomacy is like A&A in that it’s an historic war game played on an area map.  They both feel a bit like “advanced Risk”.  However, mechanically they are not similar.  Diplomacy is more like checkers or Stratego, where only one unit ever occupies a space and units move one space per turn.  Units can support the moves (attacks) of other units, and the force with the most support wins in case of movement conflict (equal forces result in a stand off).  There are no dice - just the uncertainty of what the other players’ units will actually do.  Diplomacy mechanics are more abstract, classic, and elegant.

Other points:

• You need seven players for a whole day - start late morning and go past your bedtime (fortunately there is lots of moving, not all day sitting at the board).

• Despite being an all day commitment, Diplomacy is an elimination game and some of your friends will be knocked out early.

• For the above reasons, the game is more suited to e-mail or postal than face-to-face play (although live play is a blast).

• There is a wonderful blend of strategy, diplomacy, and tactics; with much written on all three.

• Back-stabbing can give you a quick boost, but you can do well being honest if you have an ally who understands cooperation is in your mutual interest.  Good players also are careful when expanding to be sure that they and their ally are not getting in each other’s way nor are over exposed to each other (new players constantly screw this up and wonder why they are betrayed so often).  Back-stabbing too much will kill your reputation if you play with the same layers frequently.

• The game is usually a draw.  When it’s down to three players, two can only work together so long before one of them is in contention to steal the win.  Basically the only way to get a solo win is if somebody blunders.

• This is one of my all time favourite board games - on par with A&A.  It’s a classic and will never die.

• $20 for one of the best games ever designed is a snap buy (though the box may get a little dusty).  I have over four copies I think.

Another point of interest - originally produced in 1959, the first Diplomacy players where historic war-gamers (war games where primarily miniatures at the time).  In the 1970s, two other gamer demographics took a interest in Diplomacy.  Bridge players brought tactical (and strategic) analysis to a whole new level, while Dungeons & Dragons players excelled at the role-playing and negotiating. That’s when the game really became great.

Hello.  I can’t find anything on WotC’s site about 1941.  Is this simply the anniversary edition re-released, or is it a whole new game?

If USA buys (Atlantic) navy turn one instead of ground units, this strategy can be very strong.  So strong that a good US player should always buy ground forces turn one.

Now If Japan follows through ans poises of coast for a J3 invasion f North America, USA can build another round of troops.  In so doing, USA has enough forces it seems to deal with the Japanese threat.  I’ve looked at this from many angles - maximum pressure on Western US, trying to force through Panama, even taking Alberta G3 and landing the entire Japanese airforce there.

So far, however I seem to cut it America can still defend.  Then the Japanese attack loses steam (most of it’s strength comes from the initial air advantage) and America begins to divert forces away from homeland defense and into Europe.  USA is delayed, but not long enough for a post Sea Lion Germany to begin to put real pressure on Russia.  Italy is in trouble too, with no Japanese pressure on British India.

Incidentally, we play OOB,not alpha.  I encourage you to keep thinking about this and trying it, but I’m running out of optimism for this strategy.

@rockrobinoff:

That said, autopilot Germany attacks Russia sinks UK ships and waits for Japan to help strats fail miserably.

At least they seem a bit slow.  What if Japan delays the India crush to burst through China more quickly and fierily?  My Mediteranean play could stand much improvement too.  Based on just our games (ignoring the buzz on these boards) I’d not give up on a standard Barbarossa just yet.

You agreed (suggested even) after our last game that the Indian campaign didn’t accomplish anything meaningful.  What if the land and air units burst straight through China and the fleet crawls towards Europe?

Even the standard approach has a lot of variation in this edition and is by no means straight forward.  I’ve got lots of ideas yet to rule out here.

@Stefano1189:

India Crush? Did you play with monkeys? :-)

A veteran player can stop a naval J4 DOW, we made bloody battles and Japan advance in every global with slowness

How do you manage that?

Just to be clear, nobody said anything about alpha.  We’re talking about the official game?

The monkeys in my games tend to favour a strong Mediterranean attack over a strong Indian defense, but I think J4 vs India works either way - just a question of how much Japan loses.

@JamesAleman:

I’m currently waiting on a ruling regarding what territories C.US borders.

Did you ever get that ruling?  On the back of the board (where the picture is wrapped around) Central US clearly touches Alberta.  But if we get a ruling that the two don’t touch, the Japanese air force is safe in Alberta even if they declare war so as to fly over BC.

@MaherC:

Since that’s what I’m famous (infamous  :evil:) for, I’ll say it.

G40 is broken.   Just like P40 was OOB.

Indeed.  It atkes time to establish infamy, and you’ve been saying this since early on.

It also takes time to develop and less obvious strategies for a game this complex (Global 1940 is far more complex than AA50), but you haven’t allowed this time.

Yes, the haste with which you declare this game broken allows me to completely dismiss your opinion.  If your are right, it’s a coincidence.

Case in point (as Robin already mentioned) AA50 was thought for months (or more) to heavily favour the Axis.  Since then, some bizarre and sophisticated Allied tactics have been developed which can slow the Axis down to the point where the game is roughly even.

But you don’t find these strange but winning strategies by whining that the game is broken when the conventional and obvious strategies don’t work.  You rack your brain diligently until you’ve explored every angle.

@MaherC:

Until you show me a consistent Axis strat that can lead to victory with the starting setup…

And unless we find one in the first four weeks the game is broken?  You do undertand the idea that one side can have an easier game when obvious strategies are employed, while the other side might have a stronger position when more complicated strategies are developed?  It takes longer to develop complicated strategies than obvious ones (obviously), so it’s natural to expect one side will take longer to study and develop.

This is common in A&A.  A&A:Europe (1999) was though to be too hard for Germany at first.  The game is now considered broken in Germany’s favour (and the German Start is fairly simple).  AA50 was the same.  Even when Pacific 1940 came out the Allies were claimed to be winning most at first.

If you don’t want to take the time and effort to study AA50 OOB box that’s fine, run away and play alpha.  We’ll let you know.

and even more especially, the Alpha P40 setup which people think makes the G40 setup more even…

Then I will counter with the game is very set piece.  Do this G1 etc.    The game is broken to me in that there is little room for Axis flexibility if you want to win.   Relying on hot dice to win as axis is not a balanced game.

@deadbunny:

Rockin,

I have to second your statement at this point, you have never said it was broken.

Agreed, Robin doesn’t laim the game is broken.

But he claims I’m out of ideas for the Axis and that beating me two out of three times means that any plans I’d been previously working are worth abandoning.

@Robin -

I think I have notions of how the Axis could have a strong competitive game by applying new innovations, further refinements, and different combinations to my previous attempts.  If you disagree, you must think you have probably considered all the same ideas I have, and dismissed them.  Given that you admit to having had no real study of this board and set up, and that I’m at least as good as you at this and have taken more time to think about it, I just think you should give me the benefit of a doubt when I say there is much to test and reformulate.

@special:

I suppose India could lend a hand in any needed initial defence.

They could offer a nice swanky tom stone next door to their own.

India falls J4 - first DOW.  America lands A4, builds an IC A5 (after Japan upgrades Indian IC and builds 3 tanks).  India won’t have any units to help with, unless they’ve abandoned their capitol.  In that case they can’t help much!

Now if Japan is going KAF or delaying South East Asia in favour of Russia and/or China, this could be a grand play.  But if Japan plays India crush forget it!

Welcome to axisandallies.org!

I don’t know much about miniatures, but you can make good homemade boards if you can track down a projector.

Best of luck!

@calvinhobbesliker:

Interesting, but make sure Japan doesn’t take Australia

You don’t leave your home turf till A2, and you by’ve saved all the ANZAC build for use in the Pacific.  I think it’ll still be a nuisance for Japan to send an invasion force.  An Australian invasion slows Japan down a lot, and doesn’t hurt the allied war effort that much.  It’s really not worth the money I think.

Anyway, this is not meant to be brilliant, just trying to make ANZAC useful.

now, i think you are at least as good as me, and probably on the balance of things, still a solid notch above, and yet our games have not been all that competitive. all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top. this suggests to me, that ideas for axis are at a minimum more difficult to come by, and that, again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position.

@rockrobinoff:

the evidence thus far suggests axis does not (have an equal position), even though it is far from conclusive.

I disagree.  The evidence is that Axis optimal strategy (or even sound strategy) is far less prosaic, and far more precise than sound or optimal Allied strategy.  It is highly conclusive!  There is no evidence either way as to whether or not the game is ultimately balanced.

@rockrobinoff:

…you, on the other hand, have put at least some serious time in working out ideas for axis, and have failed miserably.

That’s not fair.  To the extent that I’ve put serious time into ideas, I have not failed miserably, and o the extent that I’ve failed I have not put serious time into ideas!

I put lots of thought into accomplishing Sea Lion (less into post Sea Lion).  If you recall I won the Sea Lion game.  I got lucky at the end, but I blundered at the end too.  We both played poorly early game.  I Don’t see this as a miserable failure, and haven’t ruled out Sea Lion.

Game two was KAF which hadn’t been thought out at all.  I had a terrible time G1, and did not try and could not play Sea Lion which was the purpose of KAF to begin with.  Germany did almost nothing that game, including not attacking Russia soon enough, and handing over Southern Europe to the UK.  I consider that game was a wash, but not a failure!  I think You’ll be buying ground units US1 from now on - and that still might not stop me…

Game three I tried a “standard” Axis approach, but this was really the only time I’d ever tried this, and I’d not put any thought into how to play it.  This a loss but not such a defeat that I can’t look back and think about what I could have changed to possibly come out ahead.  I don’t consider that a miserable failure.

In all three games I played the Med like a newb.
@rockrobinoff:

i think i have been winning not due to superior play or to fortune, but for having the much easier job.

@rockrobinoff:

…all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top.

Is my job easier because the Axis are inherently disadvantaged, or because there strategies are more limited, more complicated, and harder to refine?

You seem to believe the former. But your evidence rests on your impression on how much thought I’ve put into the game, how much of this thought has translated into my performance (surprisingly little - I’ve cleaned up several strategies but then not tried them again) compared to how much room I have left to refine and improve these strategies.

Me, I agree it’s been harder for me to discover a sound Axis system.  I also think this has caused me to make far more mistakes than you (by virtue of having more vital moves to miss).  Put another way, My position being more complicated than yours means you easily have outplayed me - despite my having put in extra thought and a possible skill discrepancy.  Although your moves may have been more obvious than mine, I nonetheless think your play has been more sound than mine.

@rockrobinoff:

…again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position.

Personally, I believe I have to explore and improve with both KRF & KRL.  Maybe I’ll discover neither work.  But I insist there is no onus on anyone to demonstrate optimal play 'at this time".  That is not reasonable.  The onus is on the kindred intellect to look thoroughly for non prosaic winning Axis strategies, and for everyone else to give us time.  Ask me in six to twelve months.

A1:

• Two fighters to Western Australia.

• Fleet (with cargo) to sz63.

A2:

• Two fighters to Western Australia.

• Two fighters to sz39 (on UK CV)

• Fleet to sz64

A3:

• Two fighters to Africa - reunited with the ANZAC Egyptian garrison.

• Two fighters to sz39 (on UK CV).

• Fleet to sz88 (with US permission).

A4:

• Two fighters to Africa

• Fleet lands on West coast of Africa

I haven’t thought about builds - some basic stuff to keep up defense and maybe take Dutch colonies.  This could be fun though, and the ANZAC troops just might make a difference in Africa and the Mediterranean.

This is a cute move but no good against a J4 India crush.  Best America can get is one build before Japan steals the factory.

Yeah, I was going to lose.

What If I’d pulled back to Europe G5?  with those troops, I could last a bit longer - you may need to build that IC (and produce with it) before you crack Berlin.  Japan would keep its air force intact, and have 10 tanks plus a turn pouring into Russia within a turn or two (it had some units there already).  Russia couldn’t send too much into Europe I think without rolling over for Japan.  If I lose Germany but end up with Japan in Russia, we might have had a game again?

@rockrobinoff:

maybe i am not being clear, but all i am getting at is that Axis strats are not at all obvious, and that the obvious Axis strats, are failing.

I think you also said something about me running out of ideas.

I don’t think a strategy can be said to be failing when we tried it but once.  In those three games the Axis used three radically different strategies.  We’ve been stumbling through - We’ve played sea Lion with no forethought of post sea Lion, we played a Japanese KAF which had barely been analised and was uncoordinated with the European Axis powers, and I played a Barbarossa which I’d devoted roughly zero thought towards.

I’m now finally starting to think about Barbarossa a little.  But it’s slow going.  I’m still working out KRL and its counters.  Basically, I’m nowhere near out of ideas.  The players who are out of ideas already are playing alpha I think.

@rockrobinoff:

yes, you havent had time to work out complicated and nuanced axis attacks…

@rockrobinoff:

…Will such balancing strats materialize for Global? Perhaps, but the onus is on those who claim Axis is in the game with an (nearly) even chance, not on those who say “ok, but how?”

I’m saying there is insufficient evidence to suggest the Axis don’t have a roughly equal chance.  The onus is on anyone else to give me sufficient time (and a freakin’ break) before expecting an answer to “how”.