Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Should Axis and Allies be reduced to 2 turns?



  • I think this would allow for better strategies as well as cut down on game time. Lets face it, no one really wants to play a 10 hour game.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    You can’t just make it all axis and all allies and have the game magically be balanced.

    The point he is making is one of reducing the time playing by 35%, which since 2004 i can say AARHE did this in reducing AAR by that same time.

    The balancing idea is one of just keeping the allied players out of too much harm, like they did with AAP or Bulge, Guadalcanal, D-day, or most any other wargame. Actually, its harder to make a balanced game with 6-8 alternative turns as opposed to 2. Its easier to play out and test as well.



  • @ Imperious Leader- if you had to speculate, would you say playing global with this system (alpha 2) would favor the axis or allies? And how much would it favor one over the other?Feel free to give a specific breakdown if u would like (ie the axis would have an advantage in Europe whereas the allies would have an advantage in the pacific, etc…)



  • I like the way it is; putting powers that had the edge first before other powers. Ex. Germany definitely had the initial edge over everyone at first. Russia goes next b/c they counter-attack and lead later. They’re before Japan b/c they declared war later on on Japan. Japan goes next b/c they dominated the pacific early on. The US follows b/c they lead the counterattacks in both europe and the pacific. China follows and goes before Britain in order to create a situation in china where the British aren’t just always getting the Burma Road for china (they have to get it for themselves if the Japs take it). Then comes the UK, who are obviously before ANZAC b/c they’re larger and ANZAC was kind of under the UK. Then comes Italy, who pretty much got owned by everyone except the ethiopians. They’re only rivaled by France b/c France was obviously the worst of the all, falling the fastest. So I vote no. Realism and history over simplicity and possible playability improvements (though this is debatable as well).


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @The:

    I like the way it is; putting powers that had the edge first before other powers. Ex. Germany definitely had the initial edge over everyone at first. Russia goes next b/c they counter-attack and lead later. They’re before Japan b/c they declared war later on on Japan. Japan goes next b/c they dominated the pacific early on. The US follows b/c they lead the counterattacks in both europe and the pacific. China follows and goes before Britain in order to create a situation in china where the British aren’t just always getting the Burma Road for china (they have to get it for themselves if the Japs take it). Then comes the UK, who are obviously before ANZAC b/c they’re larger and ANZAC was kind of under the UK. Then comes Italy, who pretty much got owned by everyone except the ethiopians. They’re only rivaled by France b/c France was obviously the worst of the all, falling the fastest. So I vote no. Realism and history over simplicity and possible playability improvements (though this is debatable as well).

    Well said.  Also, I think previous A&A games were the reference point.  And the logic behind the turn order for them was very similar to this anyway.

    The only thing I would add, is that the USA goes after Japan primarily so that Japan can safely destroyer block the USA and be sure that the USA cannot penetrate deep into the Pacific as rapidly.  When UK/ANZAC went between Japan and the US, it was much harder on Japan because destroyer (or small fleet) blocks could be opened up by the lesser powers…  Also, lesser powers could take an island and then the USA could land aircraft there before Japan’s next turn (Carolines esp, what with the airbase and naval base and all).


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    What is your justification for saying that global time will be reduced by 35%? Global is quite a different game than AAR. Has this been playtested in global? Where are the play reports? Where are the alternate setups for a 2 turn game? Where is the proof? How many times has this been tested? What percentage of the statistics presented are made up out of thin air?

    Check some of the files on that. I don’t play online, but others did. You need to search 3-5 year old posts to get that info.The games are not much different except for the NO’s, Map, and total nations to play. It won some award as well for Gone Gaming Awards ( who ever they are).

    It did contain lot more historical ideas which made it contain more layers of rules, but it still took less time. Just think about doing the same thing as Global 40 except you play all the turns together and everybody is busy and not waiting for others to do all the various turn steps.

    AARHE 1939 was another product that captured more of the flavor of Global 40, since it had Italy and France.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Do you still claim 35% shorter applies

    The claim was for these AAR variants. I never said any different. It stands to reason what since their is a similarity in the games, that the Global should play faster, since the other 7 people/nations are not sitting around waiting to perform. You got 3-5 people playing turns at the same time. The other 3-5 people are rolling dice as defenders, rather than one. This is consistent with saving time, which is the whole point.

    Of course the setup needs changes, so i suggest a new scenario using Dec 41 as a start date with Russia playing first , then all axis, then all allies with Japan and Soviet Union neutral until provoked.

    We made 3 versions of AARHE, plain, with Italy, and 1939 and each time the game time got reduced from OOB rules. It was about 1/3 of the time was cut out.


  • TripleA

    I think axis and allies should continue to be its own thing and not copy another board game unless that board game’s sales warrant a change to fit the consumer preferences.
    ~

    most games of axis and allies are played 1v1. multiplayer games usually have a lot of chit chat and socializing… and yelling and bickering… the occasional judo throw and dice strangulation mixed in.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    not copy another board game unless that board game’s sales warrant a change to fit the consumer preferences

    So how would you get the information to make any change in that regard?

    You think AA invented every idea and is totally original? Its not. Area movement games for example have been around for many years before AA.

    AA even used ideas from other games, and even some recent rule ideas.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    @Imperious:

    not copy another board game unless that board game’s sales warrant a change to fit the consumer preferences

    So how would you get the information to make any change in that regard?

    You think AA invented every idea and is totally original? Its not. Area movement games for example have been around for many years before AA.

    AA even used ideas from other games, and even some recent rule ideas.

    😮

    :lol:



  • this is an absurd question. what you are proposing is

    should axis and allies not be axis and allies anymore.

    having to coordinate the forces of different nations on different turns is the whole point of A&A its what makes A&A, A&A. to suggest doing away with it, which may very well make a better game, or a very good game in its own right, is to suggest baseball become cricket.



  • Aside from any game considerations, the back and forth is simply more fun for me. Playing around a table, people are going to fade out while waiting for their turn. It’s already bad enough sometimes with people wandering away to watch TV or whatever.


  • TripleA

    it depends on who you are playing. Like I said, this is a bigger game and people who want a shorter game play AA50 or revised (v4 only exists if uk’s cruiser is a battleship and +1 inf in egypt).

    Global appeals to people who like a huge game and have time to spare.

    Also time can vary depending on different players. I plan my moves while my opponent is moving and my opponent does the same typically. Some people take long… I know I take awhile when I ask a rule question and no one knows and we have to look it up. But global rules are becoming more and more familiar.

    It’s like the new tax rules that roll around each year… some people catch on quickly and do tons of forms like me. Other people are like durr from jan-feb and catch on a couple weeks after tax season kicks off. Other people suck and get fired and get picked up by a public firm…

    I met some people who take forever and totally suck at this game. A two turn system would help these people hugely.
    ~

    Just know that you are appealing to different audiences. I got this game because I was really satisfied with AA50 and figured what the heck… I kind of like the pacific half on its own, but only if I am playing Japan… allies is kind of snooze… all responding.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I said:

    “I’m not saying global won’t be faster with 2 turns, but there is ZERO evidence to say how MUCH faster it will be, only sweeping generalizations from 30-50% of a decade ago. There’s an accurate statistic.”

    there is ZERO evidence to say how MUCH faster it will be, only sweeping generalizations from 30-50%

    I never said 50%. I said 33-35%. The reference of 30-50% is a function of time in your quote.

    Second part:
    of a decade ago

    no. of the period of 2004-current. It is not something we last played in 2004. Our group and others ( like 10,000 who downloaded it) play it from time to time.

    Last time we played was about a year ago.

    So everything you said was incorrect.

    AND if we took the sentence you wrote and believed that people could write such a sentence using those words; don’t you really think instead of: only sweeping generalizations from 30-50% of a decade ago would be written either: 1) Since 2004, or 2) seven years ago.

    Its not like when people say last Thursday, they will say 30%-50% of last week

    They WOULD SAY LAST WEEK OR LAST THURSDAY.

    IF the time was 4PM and now its 430PM, nobody who speaks English properly is going to say  its “50% of an hour latter”

    They will say 430 or half hour latter.

    Since this is not proper English, anybody can only assume you are just backtracking.

    The kicker in all of this is you add a RANGE of value of time. I said it was back in 2004 that we started and we still play to this day.

    You wrote a range of time that does not even account for anything. It only means you MEANT to inflate the values of the time savings from 33% to about 50% to make my point look worse and your arguments ( however faulty) look better.

    And on top of that you have no experience in playing this way. But claim that you know it can’t save time? Perhaps instead of posting, you might just decline to comment unless you play with the rule. I have so i can comment. And AAR is not that different from another global game. AAR can take 12 hours or more to complete.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    You’re my hero Mantlefan.  Where did you come from? 😛


  • 2017 2016 Customizer

    You folks are putting way too much thought into this. Keep it simple. Keep it the way it is as, in my mind, it keeps the game balanced.



  • I might have mentioned this in another post but what about making movement of units more infantry 2,tanks 3,all navy 3. I think this would speed up the game dramatically. That is if that is what you are looking for.



  • I support the “All Axis, then all Allies move” because:

    1. When only one player act, then the other 7 players get bored. But if 4 players act at the same time, then the 4 others must pay attention and nobody gets bored.

    2. Easyer play. If you want your infantry to sail with a friendly tranny, you must embark on your turn, sail on the friends turn, and offload on your turn, wich makes it a long-time prosject with the current rules. In an “All Allies turn” you just put all the allied land units on the trannies, sail, and then off-load in the same turn. Same with the fighter on a friendly carrier, who follow the carrier down if the carrier got sunk during an attack, when the friendly fighter just land on an adjacent island.

    3. The friends can defend togheter, but not attack toghether, with the current rules. This is not historical correct, nor does it makes sense. If you have 30 allied units from several nations in territory “A”, they are not strong enough to attack 10 Axis units in territory “B”, because the Axis will roll dice too many times. But if this 30 allied units can attack together in the same turn, they will be strong enough. No more insane stacking.



  • The current turn order system force the players to nation specific purchases. This fact was most blatant in the classic game, with the notorious " The German Crush Move". Russia would buy nothing but infantry. USA would buy nothing but infantry and trannies. UK would buy tanks and fighters. Then all three allies would stack in Karelia, and when strong enough attack East Europe. After the German turn, UK would attack with tanks and fighters and take the ground, then USA would reinforce with infantry, and at last USSR would reinforce with infantry too. Now Germany would not be strong enough to attack this huge stack, and the game would soon end.

    With the “All Axis, All Allies Move”, all friendly players can now attack together, and because of that all players can purchase a more balanced mix of units, just like they did in the real war.



  • No more can-openers.

    With the current OOB turn order, one enemy can attack and occupie your frontline, and in next turn another enemy can exploit that hole with a huge Tank-stack attacking the territory behind. This force you to place infantry as Tank-blockers in every territory you own.
    The All Axis, All Allies Move make can-openers obsolete.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    The All Axis, All Allies Move make can-openers obsolete

    Umm, NO.

    Unless I am misunderstanding something?  There is still a “technical” turn order, even though everyone goes at once.

    It’s not like Russia, Uk, Anzac, and USA can all attack the same territory as a group at exactly the same time!

    It’s technically spaced… so Germany can can-opener for italy - for example.



  • To Imperious Leader & Mantlefan:

    I believe I speak for everyone when I ask, could you two please quite with the back & forth. It’s not productive, and its getting old. I ask this in respectful way. You two both seem to have a lot of knowledge about this game, and your input has been great, but there seems to be some kind of rivalry between you two or something, especially judging by Mantlefans comments at the bottom of his or her page. It reminds me of politics or something. We are all here b/c we love this game, so lets focus on that….

    Regarding the two turn method, I am pleased to see how much debate this is fostering, even if most are not in favor of it.

    Here are my thoughts on it:

    1. I do believe it will cut down on time, as to how much, one could only speculate at this point.
    2. @ Mantlefan. You ask if its worth Larry spending so much time to reduce a game from aprox. 10-12 hours or so to about 7-9. That depends. If it will prevent Larry & others from utilizing their time for other important things such as a newer a version, updates, etc., then perhaps not. But if A&A Global is intended to be his final product, and he has the time, then I don’t see why he could not focus his time on a 2 turn based game. It all depends.
    3. I think Razor highlighted some very good points as to why it should be considered:

    • “When only one player act, then the other 7 players get bored. But if 4 players act at the same time, then the 4 others must pay attention and nobody gets bored.” I think A&A would be more enjoyable if Germany and Italy, for example, could collaborate with one another about attacking Russia in the Ukraine (“You send your tanks and I’ll send my infantry and aircraft”)
    • The ability to attack together (stated above). This ability makes the game more fun, and is historical too.
    • Easier play with regards to loading on friendly transports, landing on friendly AC’s, etc.

    4. Last but not least, I think (I am speaking from my own personal experience here) it will create a game that is more user friendly to the general population of people who like to play strategy board games. Marketing this game towards a bigger audience should be something desired by all A&A players. Even die hard A&A players I know hesitate to play a game that will last so long, yet they still desire something that is more in depth then the global version(s) out there.

    With regard to tradition and the fact that A&A has always been a game where each power goes on their own turn, so what. Il has already pointed out that the makers of this game have borrowed a number of concepts from other games. Its what people in this business (and others) do. You do not have to always be original. I think the makers should consider any changes that would improve the gaming experience, even if those ideas are not necessarily there own.



  • @Gargantua:

    The All Axis, All Allies Move make can-openers obsolete

    Umm, NO.

    Unless I am misunderstanding something?  There is still a “technical” turn order, even though everyone goes at once.

    It’s not like Russia, Uk, Anzac, and USA can all attack the same territory as a group at exactly the same time!

    It’s technically spaced… so Germany can can-opener for italy - for example.

    The very first ruleset had the one turn combined attack for UK and US, and that pretty much ended every game. Let’s make that available every turn. I foresee no problems.  :evil:


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Good post, Panther, thanks.



  • There seems to be a discrepancy with what the idea actually means. Does the idea at least in terms of the OP’s intent mean that all Axis nations move together at once then all Allies or that Axis moves first but in a turn order then Allies move first but in a turn order. I interpreted it as the first option. Lately I have been brainstorming a way to make joint attacks feasible since they played such a huge role in the real war but are completely unrepresented in global. The only way I concluded it would work without convoluted rules placed into G40 is to revise the turn order in the way I described above (first way).


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 25
  • 37
  • 9
  • 9
  • 4
  • 116
  • 18
I Will Never Grow Up Games

53
Online

13.3k
Users

33.5k
Topics

1.3m
Posts