• One of the arguments for the G1 turkeyshoot I’ve seen in this thread is “its aways been that way” - I find that kind of funny. It reminds me of the old story of the housewife who always cut the ends off the ham before baking it. The husband asked why. She said “Because my mom alway did it that way.” Her grandma was then asked and she said HER mom always did it that way. Finally it got back to great-grandma who said “I did because my baking dish was so small.”

    My point is because of tradition you can get attached to bad ideas. If you’ve had fun playing 50 games of global, you will be attached to the tradition of that setup, even if part of it is terribly flawed.

    We should respect and honor these game testers and designers, but they are still just guys. I think Larry Harris is great, but he is not God and his ideas, like anyone elses’, can be improved upon. Has anyone seen his answer to why he changed the price of AA Guns from 5 to 6 IPCs?

    “Frankly I don’t remember…I’m comfortable with them costing 6. I could live with them costing 5 too. I don’t recall where the exact seed of the idea came from however. This seems to have first appeared in Anniversary and continued from there. This was not a mistake it was a change and I simply can’t recall the exact reason.”

    http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1708&p=21378&hilit=remember#p21378

    Does this sound like a sacred wizard of all rules - or an unapproachable game rule genious?

    Most of the time it takes an outside mind to introduce a positive change to any organization, as everyone within the group has become accustomed to the “way it is” - no matter how preposterous.

    Now let me show you an alternate Eurpean setup. Granted its not been tested and would need improvement like anything else, but here goes. These are setup changes only, no rule changes.

    Germany -

    • Move BB to SZ 114, remove tspt and add a DD
    • NORWAY - add 3 INF, 1 AA gun
    • WEST GERMANY - add 5 INF
    • DENMARK - add 4 INF, 1 AA gun
    • HOLLAND BELGIUM - add 6 INF. 2 AA guns
    • Move SS from SZ124 to 119
    • Move SS from SZ116-106
    • Move SS from SZ130-105
    • Remove subs from SZ118, 108

    United Kingdom -

    • UK - Remove 1 INF, 1 MECH, add 1 FTR
    • Scotland - Remove 1 INF, add 1 FTR
    • SZ 109 - Remove TSPT, place carrier, 2 FTR, SS, BB, cruiser, 2 DDs, French cruiser
    • SZ 110 - remove navy
    • SZ 111 - Remove navy
    • SZ 106 - remove navy
    • SZ 91 - add DD

    Italy -

    • Move all navy in Med to SZ 95

    To illustrate using TripleA, the area around UK would look like this:

    The zone by Nova Scotia would look like this:

    Gibraltar would look like this:

    And the Med would look like this:

    Now I admit this setup would wipe out Sealion. I meant to do that. Historically, Sealion was not possible. The German High command realized that and turned towards Russia - get over it, people! Sealion did not happen, nor was it possible! The Brit air force and navy were TOO STRONG.

    But now it will take the UK several rounds to threaten the German coast. There are extra infantry and AA guns there, and the UK is given more pressing problems to deal with, like the intact Italian navy in the Med and German u-boats running loose.

    And best of all, no one starts off getting groin-kicked by a German jackboot before they can even look in their units tray.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @LHoffman:

    So, next question, which really does not belog on this thread, though goes with where the discussion has progressed:  shouldn’t there then be an Allied bid put in the rules, if so many people think it necessary? Like there was in original Europe. Unless this is what most of you have been driving at the whole time, without actually stating it in explicit terms?

    Well, there is some debate on this.  Some would prefer Larry Harris ‘balance’ the game and release an updated set-up.

    I don’t mind there being imbalance and a bid.  Bidding is definitely confusing for newbies…but that’s just the thing, newbies to the game don’t bid…bidding is for experienced players.  Bidding improves the game in the following ways

    1. Fair way to decide sides
    2. Bids and bid strategies help keep the game fresh.  A bid of 10-12 is excellent because there is such a wide variety of bid placements to experiment with.  Where one decides to put the bid can have a big impact on how the game plays out, and all this helps keep things fresh.  A healthy bid was actually a big part of what made Revised and AA50 so interesting and popular.
  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Zhukov44:

    1. Bids and bid strategies help keep the game fresh.  A bid of 10-12 is excellent because there is such a wide variety of bid placements to experiment with.  Where one decides to put the bid can have a big impact on how the game plays out, and all this helps keep things fresh.  A healthy bid was actually a big part of what made Revised and AA50 so interesting and popular.

    Agreed.


  • Sealion was possible, as long as germany wiped out the RAF.  The problem was that hitler changed the objectives in the middle of everything.  He told the luft to stop bombing strategic targets and to start terror bombing cities like london.  Before this, the UK air defense system was close to collapse.  But when germany changed to civilian targets, this gave the RAF time to get back up to strength.

    Sealion was not impossible, it was that Hitler managed to rip defeat from the jaws of victory.


  • @ghr2:

    Sealion was not impossible, it was that Hitler managed to rip defeat from the jaws of victory.

    “We possessed neither control of the air or the sea; nor were we in any position to gain it.” - Admiral Donitz

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Der:

    One of the arguments for the G1 turkeyshoot I’ve seen in this thread is “its aways been that way” - I find that kind of funny. It reminds me of the old story of the housewife who always cut the ends off the ham before baking it. The husband asked why. She said “Because my mom alway did it that way.” Her grandma was then asked and she said HER mom always did it that way. Finally it got back to great-grandma who said “I did because my baking dish was so small.”

    My point is because of tradition you can get attached to bad ideas. If you’ve had fun playing 50 games of global, you will be attached to the tradition of that setup, even if part of it is terribly flawed.

    You can finger me out specifically for that assertion, I don’t mind.

    Perhaps your analogy is more apt than you realize. Maybe the reason the setup is like it is because the previous versions of A&A “were so small”… ha! (I am sort of half serious there.)

    And I agree that because of tradition you can get used to (any) ideas. I am especially prone to that being very conservative and reluctant to change. I will entertain new ideas but I won’t endorse them until they have been proven effective. That is the reason for my persistence on this issue. If nothing else I am motivating you to find a workable solution.

    My position, is evolving, but for now remains that the current UK navy setup, which has always existed in one form or another, is not a hinderence to balanced or fair gameplay. The game works predominantly alright, if it does need a few tweaks here and there. To me the setup does not need to be altered… for balance purposes anyway.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but you Der Kuenstler have never said because of the UK navy setup the game as a whole is unbalanced or gives the Axis an unfair advantage to win. If you do not feel that the game is broken (or close to it) because of this, your problem is that the setup just irks you.

    That is perfectly fine. I guess it does annoy me too when I play as the UK. If you can find a way to circumvent the Royal Navy being blown out of the water on G1, while still retaining balance in the game then more power to you.

    @Der:

    We should respect and honor these game testers and designers, but they are still just guys. I think Larry Harris is great, but he is not God and his ideas, like anyone elses’, can be improved upon.

    Most of the time it takes an outside mind to introduce a positive change to any organization, as everyone within the group has become accustomed to the “way it is” - no matter how preposterous.

    Obviously I never likened Larry to God or even that, because he designed it, it must be the best. I have been on these forums long enough to recognize the shortcomings of many involved in this game’s production. However, I support the setup for what it gives us and has given us for some time: a playable game.

    I actually like your proposed setup and would gladly playtest to refine it. I appreciate your willingness to look for another, equitable way to approach the setup, I really do.

    However, I would like to add something for consideration:
    I am not up on what everyone’s current strategy for Japan is, but from my memory and, again personal experience, find that when Japan makes its move to attack the Allies, most people do not follow history and attack Pearl Harbor and then fight the United States. Instead primary focus is given to taking territory in Asia (China & India). This does not follow history very well at all. Maybe someone can elaborate on their strategies and tell me if I am right.

    If this is the case, the Japanese player does it because it is more effective than what Japan did in the war. Effectively this is the same as the European situation with Germany and the UK. Instead of following history and not attacking the Royal Navy, Germany turns around and does it anyway because it is in its best interest.

    Though I guess the point is that you want to change it so that it is not only not in Germany’s best interest, but impossible to do anyway.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @ghr2:

    Sealion was not impossible, it was that Hitler managed to rip defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Ha! George Dubb-ya … Love it!  :lol:


  • @LHoffman:

    If this is the case, the Japanese player does it because it is more effective than what Japan did in the war. Effectively this is the same as the European situation with Germany and the UK. Instead of following history and not attacking the Royal Navy, Germany turns around and does it anyway because it is in its best interest.

    Good observation.


  • @LHoffman:

    @ghr2:

    Sealion was not impossible, it was that Hitler managed to rip defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Ha! George Dubb-ya … Love it!  :lol:

    Or like BO :)

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @ghr2:

    @LHoffman:

    @ghr2:

    Sealion was not impossible, it was that Hitler managed to rip defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Ha! George Dubb-ya … Love it!  :lol:

    Or like BO :)

    Naw, BO can never be so classic. His legacy will be that in total he spent 75% of his speech time stammering with “Uh-uhs”.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Der:

    @LHoffman:

    If this is the case, the Japanese player does it because it is more effective than what Japan did in the war. Effectively this is the same as the European situation with Germany and the UK. Instead of following history and not attacking the Royal Navy, Germany turns around and does it anyway because it is in its best interest.

    Good observation.

    I’ll one up you: I guess the key then is to make it not in their best interest.

    … heh, pretty good huh?  :wink:

    … but you already knew that.


  • http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28764.0

    Trying to get a historical setup going so the Royal navy will be in the game and also giving them a real purpose to hunt down subs.
    Please check it out, i need all the input i can get.


  • My only concern with trying to adhere to history is this: If we are successful, then this game will be pretty boring, as the axis will lose 100 percent since they did so historically.

    Because it is a game, it permits other choices to be made. It is the pursuit of these choices and the outcomes they provide that makes this game entertaining. If we structure the game so that only one choice is taken predominately, then that is just as boring as following history.

    While sea lion was not historically likely given the conditions in history, in this game we are provided the option to use resources differently and to provide those resources in a manner that will permit other outcomes. Adjusting the game, to prevent non historic outcomes has in my opinion reduced the amount of viable options available to use.

    The best strategy game in my opinion will offer the most paths to either victory or defeat. The elimination of certain paths because of personal preferences and personal experiences is a disservice to other gamers who have different preferences and in game experiences.

    Will certain tactics prove more successful than others? Yes. But if the amount of options is sufficient as to permit random variances, then people who get used to one method may find themselves unsettled when new scenarios present themselves.

    Eliminating or reducing the effectiveness of non historical axis strategies such as Sea Lion and America First in essence steer the axis towards a Russia first strategy every time. Russia is sufficiently prepared to make this gamble unlikely of success. Especially if UK is in a good position to prevent a maximum effort against Russia.

    For example, first edition 1940 out of box rules permitted the axis to occupy Canada and permit a combined German and Japanese effort on hampering the USA’s effectiveness in game. This created new opportunities for UK and Russia and did not assure an outcome for one side or the other. When I outlined these techniques, rules were inserted into A+2 to permit the USA to enter the war when Canada was occupied. This can only mean that personal preferences disliked the idea of going after America first as this was historically abhorrent.

    Later, when most players pursued sea lion first, rules were changed to permit USA to declare war once London was taken. This was steered at discouraging another historically abhorrent strategy. I exploited this rule to creatively increase my UK experience and my allied effectiveness by pulling all resources out of London turn 1 with a maximum effort on Italy. Theory: to trade UK for Italy and bring USA into the war more quickly. The effect was to discourage such an early capture of London, and when it was ignored, USA entered the war on turn 2 in a much better position as it used its turn 1 production to prepare for this. Typically, Germany did not use its resources on a large transport fleet, which made holding London and taking northern Russia harder.  It also assured Italy would be crushed by turn 3 or 4 due to the strong UK resources and follow up USA effort. Of course, this idea, to sacrifice London is also historically abhorrent.

    That’s why this is a game, and that’s why it is fun in my opinion. Responding to your opponents choices is the essence of a strategy game, and as long as options are readily available; this game will continue to captivate the creative and resourceful players.

    With A3/second addition we see Sea Lion and USA first as non options. The only exploit with second edition new rules now is a possible convoy strategy on the USA which I am testing and have found reasonable counters to prevent. As such, second edition creates a Russia first every time scenario and has continued to discourage my interest. There is now less creativity and less reward for such creativity. I will keep playing patiently in hopes of future designs. (I also do not like this design by committee effort we are seeing now, as it only creates a less satisfying product when too many people seek to remove or change too many options.)


  • I am not so much for history repeating itself over and over - as you said - it is a game and shoud be fun. Yet doesn’t the Royal Navy get sunk over and over G1 in this game? What I am against is an opening setup that allows a player’s pieces to be decimated before he even gets to move. Surely there could be a more creative setup that makes a fun game for all players, not just Germany and Japan.


  • @Gargantua:

    You’d have to NCM blind.  And it would make balancing totally impossible.

    What about a fog of war? In order to see the sea movement you would have to scout it?  Could this mechanic be involved and used?

    blind NCM is a great start, I really like where this idea could go


  • This thread is really nice, but more importantly I think people are advocating for fun.  Not historical advocacy etc.  Fun.  So how do we give Germany more options without breaking the game.  Thanks for all the input guys!

Suggested Topics

  • 24
  • 18
  • 9
  • 8
  • 4
  • 16
  • 8
  • 7
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts