• '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

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

29

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts