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.

Bonehead European setup?


  • 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    @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


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 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:


  • 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    @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 🙂


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 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”.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 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?  😉

    … 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.)


  • 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    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!


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

I Will Never Grow Up Games

63
Online

13.3k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts