• @skinny1:

    I understand that but it is the principal of the matter. A set of games that are as pricey as these are should not have these many issues.

    Exactly the problem I have with Microsoft… 😮

    I’m interested in reading through this setup thread, gonna dive into it, but so far, I’ve not had any problems with E40 like I’ve had with P40, and when together, I’m not seeing these issues as glaringly either…yet at least.  I have some concern that as everyone’s had almost a year to ripe into issues with P40 that now the community is going to over-react on the fixes… alas, should at least give the benefit of the doubt at this point… 😐


  • Thanks for the quick response and welcome guys. I will continue to faithfully play test each set-up, and hopefully there will be something official and final soon.


  • Maybe the problem is reading the forums. If I would just play the games as they are right out of the box without knowing about the errors then there wouldn’t be any issues with buying AAE40.


  • Yeah, that ignorance is bliss thing is not always so bad…

    And on the other hand, had some of these problems been seen earlier they wouldn’t have needed to send us extra tac bombers for Japan only to take them away now…  (unless that was Krieg’s plan to get us extra pieces all along)

    Here’s Larry’s latest take on the alt setup, Scenario Alpha (from earlier mentioned thread)
    _I call this setup “Scenario Alpha”.
    All the National Objectives and bonus incomes remain as they are in the present Pacific40 rule book, with the exception of the following two NOs:

    Note: The UK will gain 5 IPCs for controlling Kwangtung and Malaya at the same time but only if at war.
    Note: The United States will collect 5 IPCs per round for controlling the Philippines but only if at war.

    China
    Szechwan 5 Infantry and one fighter
    Hunan 2 Infantry
    Yunnan 4 Infantry
    Kweichow 2 Infantry
    Shensi 1 Infantry
    Suiyuyan 2 Infantry

    ANZAC
    Malaya 1 Infantry
    New South Wales - 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.
    New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
    Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
    Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 63 – 1 Cruiser

    United Kingdom (India)
    Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship
    Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
    Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
    Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
    Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
    India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC

    United States
    Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
    Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
    Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
    Midway - 1 Airbase
    Wake Island - 1 Airbase
    Guam - 1 Airbase
    Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
    Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
    Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport

    Japan
    Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
    Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber
    Palau Island - 1 Infantry
    Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Formosa - 1 Fighter
    Shantung - 2 Infantry
    Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
    Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
    Siam - 2 Infantry
    Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
    Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.
    Korea - 3 Infantry
    Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
    Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.
    Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport_


  • @LuckyDay:

    Yeah, that ignorance is bliss thing is not always so bad…

    And on the other hand, had some of these problems been seen earlier they wouldn’t have needed to send us extra tac bombers for Japan only to take them away now…  (unless that was Krieg’s plan to get us extra pieces all along)

    Here’s Larry’s latest take on the alt setup, Scenario Alpha (from earlier mentioned thread)
    _I call this setup “Scenario Alpha”.
    All the National Objectives and bonus incomes remain as they are in the present Pacific40 rule book, with the exception of the following two NOs:

    Note: The UK will gain 5 IPCs for controlling Kwangtung and Malaya at the same time but only if at war.
    Note: The United States will collect 5 IPCs per round for controlling the Philippines but only if at war.

    China
    Szechwan 5 Infantry and one fighter
    Hunan 2 Infantry
    Yunnan 4 Infantry
    Kweichow 2 Infantry
    Shensi 1 Infantry
    Suiyuyan 2 Infantry

    ANZAC
    Malaya 1 Infantry
    New South Wales - 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.
    New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
    Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
    Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 63 – 1 Cruiser

    United Kingdom (India)
    Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship
    Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
    Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
    Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
    Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
    India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC

    United States
    Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
    Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
    Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
    Midway - 1 Airbase
    Wake Island - 1 Airbase
    Guam - 1 Airbase
    Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
    Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
    Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport

    Japan
    Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
    Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber
    Palau Island - 1 Infantry
    Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Formosa - 1 Fighter
    Shantung - 2 Infantry
    Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
    Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
    Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
    Siam - 2 Infantry
    Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
    Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.
    Korea - 3 Infantry
    Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
    Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
    Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.
    Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport_

    Is this the final official set up? If so will WotC provide some stickers for the set up boxes with the correct setup on them?

  • Official Q&A

    Nothing is anywhere near official yet.


  • I totally agree with a lot of people here, thorough playtesting should have been done a long time ago.  The setup changes every week!!!  I really want to continue to play Global, but every time I sit down to play it the setup changes!!!

    Now I’m afraid Europe is going to have to go through a setup change because of the whole Sealion theory.  People knew about the India Crush months before the setup went through changes.  The same will happen with Europe.  Eventually Larry will get it right, but it will take months before we get a much more corrected and balanced “Global” setup. 😞


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @skinny1:

    I am uncertain if I am going to buy AAE40 or not now. I have AAP40 and was looking forward to getting AAE40 for the big combined game but after reading about set up changes I am thinking of not spending the $90 + tax to get it. I was disappointed with AAP40 after the first set up and only played 1 round. AAP40 has not seen a table since the first week it was released. Seriously thinking about selling AAP40 now and just playing AA42 which has no errors in set up and only 2 rule clarifications according to the FAQ.

    Dude, it’s not that hard to make a few setup changes. They’re well worth it to play an epic game where China is 18 territories instead of 3, Russia is 30 territories instead of 10, and Africa is 20 territories instead of 10

    except i have pages of errata, can’t use the setup on the top of the boxes as issued…if you meant epic as in epic fail, yes, you are correct.


  • @MaherC:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @skinny1:

    I am uncertain if I am going to buy AAE40 or not now. I have AAP40 and was looking forward to getting AAE40 for the big combined game but after reading about set up changes I am thinking of not spending the $90 + tax to get it. I was disappointed with AAP40 after the first set up and only played 1 round. AAP40 has not seen a table since the first week it was released. Seriously thinking about selling AAP40 now and just playing AA42 which has no errors in set up and only 2 rule clarifications according to the FAQ.

    Dude, it’s not that hard to make a few setup changes. They’re well worth it to play an epic game where China is 18 territories instead of 3, Russia is 30 territories instead of 10, and Africa is 20 territories instead of 10

    except i have pages of errata, can’t use the setup on the top of the boxes as issued…if you meant epic as in epic fail, yes, you are correct.

    So what? After a few games, you memorize the setup anyway. Then the setup charts don’t matter.


  • For the more hardcore fan these things are not as big of an issue.  For a more casual fan, that finds the broken things, they can turn them off to the entire franchise.

    I put in a vote for the ‘more playtesting’ camp, preferably with an electronic version.  Granted that will never happen so oh wells.


  • Personally, I would love if the axis games came with additional set ups or scenarios as Anniversary edition did.

    Regardless of history, you could label them by year or Month, or just cal them scenario 1 or 2, etc. Heck, you could call them battle plans or war games.

    With regards to the game designer trying to address issues with Pacific. I applaud the fact that they are willing to “fix” the game for those that enjoy playing it.

    I agree its preferable if playtesters can test everything possible, but that is unlikely in any game. I imagine they didn’t look at too many Kill America first scenarios in either Europe or global. But I imagine players will try many things that playtesters won’t. (In Global KAF would work best if Germany takes UK first and Japan stages its full air force in Alaska the turn before the UK German survivors hit Quebec.)

  • Official Q&A

    @questioneer:

    The setup changes every week!!!  I really want to continue to play Global, but every time I sit down to play it the setup changes!!!

    That’s why it’s called play_testing_.  It’s going to change and evolve until it’s right.  That takes time and experimentation.  That’s what playtesting is.

    The new setup is not intended for use by the public at this point.  If you’re not interested in testing it and providing useful feedback, don’t use it.  Wait until it’s finalized.

    @questioneer:

    Now I’m afraid Europe is going to have to go through a setup change because of the whole Sealion theory.  People knew about the India Crush months before the setup went through changes.  The same will happen with Europe.  Eventually Larry will get it right, but it will take months before we get a much more corrected and balanced “Global” setup. 😞

    Sure, people knew about the India Crush, but it had to be proven that there was no way to stop it before the game could be considered “broken”.  That takes lots of people spending time studying it and playing out different scenarios.  It has not yet been proven that this Sealion attack breaks the game.  If it turns out that it does, steps will need to be taken.

    As a game designer, you don’t want to go through something like this unless it’s absolutely necessary.  It causes a lot of upheaval, bad feelings, and negative publicity.  Most designers in Larry’s position would just try to sweep it under the rug.

    @bugoo:

    For the more hardcore fan these things are not as big of an issue.  For a more casual fan, that finds the broken things, they can turn them off to the entire franchise.

    My guess is that the more casual fans will play for years before uncovering these issues, unless they find them on the Internet.

    @bugoo:

    I put in a vote for the ‘more playtesting’ camp, preferably with an electronic version.  Granted that will never happen so oh wells.

    That is impractical, for a number of reasons.

    @JamesAleman:

    With regards to the game designer trying to address issues with Pacific. I applaud the fact that they are willing to “fix” the game for those that enjoy playing it.

    Yes, that is nice, isn’t it.  Nobody’s paying Larry to do this.  He’s doing it for you guys, because he cares.  Not only is he doing it, but he’s allowing public participation to make sure it’s absolutely right this time.  He’s really putting himself out there for you guys.  It’s something to think about, isn’t it?


  • Larry is the greatest because he cares, many designers would not care a jot if their game was deemed ‘broken’.


  • by definition playtesting SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE WOTC GOT MY $180.

    I PAID TO BE IN A BETA?  AWESOME.


  • @MaherC:

    by definition playtesting SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE WOTC GOT MY $180.

    I PAID TO BE IN A BETA?  AWESOME.

    They made a mistake. They got flak for it and they are now trying to fix it. That’s the best they can do at this point, and it’s very generous of Larry


  • Generous to fix a mistake…

    This is why our economy is failing.


  • @MaherC:

    Generous to fix a mistake…

    This is why our economy is failing.

    Perhaps, but it’s better than leaving it unfixed(I’m talking about the game).

  • Official Q&A

    @MaherC:

    by definition playtesting SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE WOTC GOT MY $180.

    Agreed.  In a perfect world, every conceivable angle would have been looked at by the playtesters.  However, we don’t live in that world.  Mistakes were made, and it is regretable.  How long do we have to beat this horse before we move on?


  • I think its great that Larry and players are willing to fix the setup and I really appreciate the time Larry, Kreig, and everyone else play testing the setup changes has put in so far. I love Axis and Allies games, and this 1940 game is so huge, epic, and full of potential that I’m willing to test a few different set-ups. If the game had been delayed for further playtesting people would’ve complained on here about missing release dates and such. You cant please everyone. Just wanted to add my 2 cents.


  • I understand that but it is the principal of the matter. A set of games that are as pricey as these are should not have these many issues. When all of the issues were brought up with AAP40, Larry and WotC should have made sure that AAE40 had no issues before being released. I don’t know what has happened with the AA franchise but these kinds of things are really disturbing. I was going to pick up AAE40 next Friday when I get paid but after seeing this thread I am really debating on whether to get it or not. I am being more selective in the games that I buy with the price they are now. Too much money to spend to have to make corrections on the set up boxes and any issues that might come up with the new rule book.

    your right,why they cant get it right first time,or get some fans to play test it,im sure some guys here would love to do that,its just not on


  • Honestly, the balance won’t ever be perfect. As long as there’s no cheese strategy that works every single time, I’m happy to play at a slight disadvantage. I thank Larry for the work on balancing, but until it’s official I think I’ll just start with OOB rules and make a few personal balance tweaks.


  • And in all honesty, balance wise AA does pretty well when you take into account all the variables.

    Revised required a what, 7 IPC bid?  A change of perhaps 1% to create perfect balance.  AA42 is considered balanced.  AA50 is in the same camp as revised to some, balanced to others.

    Pacific has such a huge swing factor due to the design to begin with.  Not only is it a 1 v 4, but the starting TUV/unit count is massive and extremely mobile.  Combine that with all the options of war dec turns, targets to go after, etc, and I’m not surprised at all with the balance issues.

    As far as electronic playtesting I only suggest it because TripleA custom maps tend to get pretty well balanced fairly quickly, but that is mainly from the speed in which you can play and test strats with it and lower testing cost.  I also know as long as GTO (the true evil one in the entire C&D debacle, and a place I equate with a similar level of distaste right now as ubisoft) has the digital rights this will never happen.

    The largest problem that crops up in a ‘revision’ is everyone has there own ideas and preferences.  For example when I play pacific I just move the caroline fleet to Iwo and take 8 planes from both sides and the game is fine.  But a weak china and struggling ANZAC do not bother me in the least as I see it as Japan vs US and friends.  Whereas others would love to see a powered up china and other things.  And this is also why the ‘bid’ balance is such a great thing as it allows you to ‘fix’ it yourself.

    Lastly, sea-lion is debunked now IMHO and can only work with really good luck with the dice since you can bring 3 units from africa to London.  And thats without even going into if loosing the UK at the cost of Germany’s entire income/starting units breaks the game debate.


  • @bugoo:

    And in all honesty, balance wise AA does pretty well when you take into account all the variables.

    Revised required a what, 7 IPC bid?  A change of perhaps 1% to create perfect balance.  AA42 is considered balanced.  AA50 is in the same camp as revised to some, balanced to others.

    Pacific has such a huge swing factor due to the design to begin with.  Not only is it a 1 v 4, but the starting TUV/unit count is massive and extremely mobile.  Combine that with all the options of war dec turns, targets to go after, etc, and I’m not surprised at all with the balance issues.

    As far as electronic playtesting I only suggest it because TripleA custom maps tend to get pretty well balanced fairly quickly, but that is mainly from the speed in which you can play and test strats with it and lower testing cost.  I also know as long as GTO (the true evil one in the entire C&D debacle, and a place I equate with a similar level of distaste right now as ubisoft) has the digital rights this will never happen.

    The largest problem that crops up in a ‘revision’ is everyone has there own ideas and preferences.  For example when I play pacific I just move the caroline fleet to Iwo and take 8 planes from both sides and the game is fine.  But a weak china and struggling ANZAC do not bother me in the least as I see it as Japan vs US and friends.  Whereas others would love to see a powered up china and other things.  And this is also why the ‘bid’ balance is such a great thing as it allows you to ‘fix’ it yourself.

    Lastly, sea-lion is debunked now IMHO and can only work with really good luck with the dice since you can bring 3 units from africa to London.  And thats without even going into if loosing the UK at the cost of Germany’s entire income/starting units breaks the game debate.

    How can Africa troops get to London? can’t the Italian fleet kill the transport on the way?


  • @bugoo:

    For the more hardcore fan these things are not as big of an issue.  For a more casual fan, that finds the broken things, they can turn them off to the entire franchise.

    I put in a vote for the ‘more playtesting’ camp, preferably with an electronic version.  Granted that will never happen so oh wells.

    I would consider myself a casual player and I was turned off to AAP40 after I got it and saw that there was a shortage of Japanese tactical bombers. Since then WotC corrected the problem and sent out additional pieces which I really appreciated. When I saw that there was a setup change for AAG40 I was turned off all over again. I will play AAP40 with the setup on the nation boxes and faq (hopefully in 2 weeks) until something is official about the changes for AAG40. I still plan on picking up AAE40 next Friday when I get paid and playing each game separately since I do not have the room to set up the full game right now and do not have room to leave a game set up so I will have to resort to writing down what each nation has for pieces on the board and where they are so I can pick it up at a later date.


  • Has anyone play tested AAP40 only using the AAG40 turn order as a possible fix to the J3IC problem? This would give UK the ability to open the Burma road for China, making them a beast while still losing India….It might hurt Anzac’s ability to load on U.S. transports since they now go before them, but pair this with the OOB set up and I think you have a game.

    If you abandon India turn 2 and send your mech force and planes to secure territory for China who could then build in those zones, Japan would still face a shortage of units in mainland Asia until India started producing, but a drive North into the rich territories could reduce Japan’s income to a manageable level while still buying America more time.

    Look at the Yunnan attack on J1. Normally China throws away 4-5 units just to get the road, on UK1 or 2, they can liberate it for China, and China could reinforce it, the only draw back to the new turn Order, is that UK could not stack its air on Newly taken Chinese territories.

    Just something to think about.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 49
  • 42
  • 51
  • 19
  • 1
  • 18
  • 41
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

28
Online

15.8k
Users

37.4k
Topics

1.6m
Posts