@Shakespeare:
“Too much complication….”
After all these myriad revisions?
You’ve got to be kidding me. :-(
These revisions unfortunately show in the 1st place that the rules are arbitrary. As is the setup.
I mean the attitude is that since the original game was hard for the Axis to win, WOW wonder how that ever creeped into a WW2 game,
we’ve got to arbitrarily revision the rules and setup until the Axis powers can win.
Wait till Axis and Allies Stalingrad comes out and the Germans keep losing the game.
What if AA Midway results in the Japanese losing the battle too often.
I can see the Japanese players whining: Give me an extra carrier or two.
When will this whining end? :?
I now hear there are Beta revisions coming soon and wait till you see Gamma!
It will insure the Axis wins 50% of the time.
Does this have an ending?
No, I am afraid becz the cat is out of the bag and now every revision is as arbitrary and as good as the next.
The attitude now seems to be that there no definitive rules and for me that is slowly taking away my desire to play the game.
Let’s take away the challenges in this game.
It is like this new attitude in American schools: lets get rid of competitive play becz it is too damaging for the self esteem
of our kids. No trophies for the winners or better yet trophies for all.
Yes. that’s it lets devise Omicron every nation emerges a winner!! :lol:
or
Revision Omega: Italy never wins, OK Italy goes 1st with it’s 4 BB’s in the Med……
This is really sad IMHO.
Shakespear, I know what you mean. I put up a few comments on Larry’s forums about tweaking the True Neutral rules a bit, and he stomped all over me. How DARE I propose to change HIS rules??? His comments to my response are in RED…
Yo, Larry, here’s a tweak to consider for the True Neutrals: Yo…? Do we know each other?
Can we change the True Neutral rules a bit? How about “Attacking any True Neutral causes other True Neutral Countries IN THE SAME CONTINENT (or REGION) to become Pro-other side”? Ridiculous that the Axis (which would gain the most benefit from it) have the option to attack them in this game but its infeasible to actually go through with it… (mostly because S. America with a BIG chunk of neutral income is going to go to the US anyway, if its either Pro-Allied OR Pro-Axis). I guess you summed it… it’s just ridiculous
Would Germany declaring war on Spain, Turkey, and Sweden really make Argentina BEG for Allied assistance to keep them from falling to the heathen Japs (not to mention letting the Allies recruit for FREE their entire standing army)? Maybe we can make attacking Turkey lets both Saudi Arabia and Afganistan become Pro-other-side as a special case (WWII Islamic country bloc?), maybe attacking Spain causes only Sweden and Switzerland to become Pro-other-side. Its even worse, True Neutrals, in Global… Would the Mongolians really join the Soviets if Germany attacked Sweden? Very much doubt they would (even care).
We already have a lot of countries that are Pro-Axis/Pro-Allied to begin with; if the overall Global situation isn’t changing with them being captured and/or mobilized, why should there suddenly be a major shift on the board for attacking a True Neutral? (Meaning most of all Franco’s Nationalist SPAIN, which pretty much owed its existence to Hitler and Mussolini’s help during its Civil War.) Plus, Germany STARTS THE GAME with several countries that were definitely TRUE NEUTRAL WITH GERMANY BEFORE THEY WERE CONQUERED (Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark (…etc., etc.), with treaties and everything), shouldn’t the rest of the board already be Pro-Allies then in 1940? If Germany’s already run roughshod over those pacts, why should it (and the world) suddenly care about it running over a few more? Hard to argue against such towering logic.
Just some points to bring up… Annoys the hell out of me that the US/UK uses Gibraltar to the point of exasperation EVERY single game but Germany attacking Gibraltar through Spain essentially gives the Allies +10 IPCs that ISN’T going to be realistically contended over during the course of a game (not to mention LOTS of free infantry). If I were you I’d toss your A&A game(s) into a dumpster and finally be rid of this ridiculous pretense of a game. :wink:
Really dislike how they’re willing to even discard historical accuracy and even ADD NEW GAME RULES (i.e., tweaks to scrambling!) in the name of GAME BALANCE (waaaah Taranto Raid is historical yet overpowered…. waaaah I am a bad Italy Axis player… waaaah)… yet somehow True Neutral rules are right off the table. I even put in another post on his forums later on that suggested that maybe the Axis could invade True Neutrals without penalty (cause they were doing it anyway before the game even starts in 1940) until the time the US enters the war on Turn 3, and world opinion shifts against them. But NO. Idea shot down.
It’s a hard enough game for the Axis anyway, but I’d rather see changes to the rules that can INCREASE their potential options available to them in 1940, as it was historically, rather than superficial artificial changes that just plop a lot more units down on the map at game start in the name of “balance”. We KNOW that Germany attacking Russia before they finished off Britain was a bad idea today, can we emulate that in the game? Invading Spain to get at Gibraltar was a strategy proposed by some of the German High Command to block the Brits from the Med, why can’t we do that instead of running our tanks willy nilly back from France to be in position for Barbarossa by G3? Russia is able in this game to pull back troops from the border territories without any problems during NCM, in reality Stalin forbid any withdrawals or retreats for any reason, AND the majority of their initial forces WAS on the border with Germany occupying E Poland. If Russia can withdraw troops without historical penalty, why can’t Germany invade Spain without historical penalty? I guarantee that the Allies at the time wouldn’t of cared a fig about Spain, as it was mostly Pro-Axis with Franco in charge to begin with.
Anyway, Sealion is pretty much out of the question in Alpha +2 version too, so now it looks (and plays) just like all the other versions of A and A. So much for all the new rules and special thought going into the N.O.s in the equation; we’re just going to play the game like it’s always been played…
Man, Larry really can’t make up his mind about this… The scale between the number of units on both sides of the board was BAD to start with, and adding units to the Europe side ain’t helping any. The Pacific and Europe games were probably never meant to josh together in the first place. He first slants it towards the European Axis by adding the Italian airbases and the new scrambling rules for the Med, then the Allied pro-UK players all start complaining that it’s so unfair now the Axis can stop Taranto, so then he beefs up the UK to the point of insanity AGAIN in the Med AGAIN to compensate for it yet AGAIN… Meanwhile we’ve got the same territory values so that a 30 IPC Germany is supporting a 10 plane starting armada, and the UK has over 300 IPCs worth of units at game start with a 28 IPC economy supporting it (out of which 90% of the extra Axis/Allied units will be sunk on Round 1 if Germany attacks SZ 110 and SZ 111, and the UK pursues a Taranto raid (of course they will!)). And France is still just worth 19 IPCs in the Global game. Kiss Sealion GOOD BYE…
Right now I’m looking at SEVEN planes sitting in the UK for a Round 3 Sealion attempt by Germany if the UK goes entirely on the defensive… retarded. 5 UK FIGs, 1 French FIG, and the TAC from the carrier in SZ 98. He even gave them an airbase in Scotland and a few more infantry, so that the UK is even MORE protected from naval strafes on the first round. The Germans get to shoot through a surviving fleet ALSO in SZ 110 now when they invade on G3. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a clearer picture from a game developer about what NOT to do with the European Axis with the “new and improved” Alpha +.2 setup. You might as well just plan Barbarossa G1 or G2!
I loved my “straight odds up the middle” G1-2 attacks to force an outcome against the UK, but it looks like Larry has killed Sealion outright with his latest incarnation. Thanks for narrowing the options and making the game the SAME as it ever was! 1940 IS THE SAME AS 1942!!! DOWN WITH THE SEALION OPTION AND THE SOLE REASON I BOUGHT AAE/P40 OR WAS EVEN INTERESTED IN A 1940 RULESET! LET’S THROW A BUNCH OF SPECIALLY DESIGNED NEUTRALITY RULES AND PEACE N.O.S RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW BY NERFING THE SEALION OPTION TO “HELL IN A HANDBASKET” CHANCES OF SUCCESS! YEAH!!! WHATCHA DOING PIDDLING AROUND WITH ENGLAND NOW??? GET ON TRUCKING TO MOSCOW ALREADY!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE DYING TO GET THE WAR STARTED EARLY OVER THERE!!!