Useless Land



  • I am going to chalk this up to another of your ideas that I would love to prove wrong…


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @ncscswitch:

    I am going to chalk this up to another of your ideas that I would love to prove wrong…

    the idea isn’t to stock pile cash only, Switch.  You spend it, you just don;t use the resources on attack…then you have the MOST resources at round 10 and “win” in a financial only game.



  • Jen, you are again over-extrapolating my (and others) previous comments.

    It is not JUST about economies.  It is about units and position also.  But it is damn hard to get units and position if you are pinned to your capital with an income of 8, 10, or 12.  You need income to build units.

    Even if it were JUST about economies, then in your scenario… the “sleeping Giant” sleeping in for a half score of turns… then economy is STILL not out of it, because the US would ahve an income of 38, the Axis an income of 128.

    The US cannot sit out the war until Moscow and London have fallen.  Otherwise, for those 10 turns, the Allies are being out-spent and out-produced by 70-80+ to 50 ish; and the longe rit goes, the worse it gets for the Allies.


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

    Saving money is the same as “losing Tempo” You have to spend every penny possible in order to pace the value of your enemy. You can’t win a war sitting on your hands. They must be filled with tools to do the job and win the war. Holding back is like telling employees to take a rest and do nothing.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Of all the nations on the board, the only one that doesnt have to spend it all every round is america.

    This is especially true in Classic, but it holds in revised too.  After all, nothing says america has to build fleet/land units.  They could build bombers for SBR on Japan/Germany and tech.  Or they could just sit there building fleet until Japan get’s nervous.

    Now, don’t over extrapolate here, I’m not saying it’s the BEST course of action, but america is hte one nation not immediately under threat of serious assault in the first two or three rounds of the game.  (I don’t count China/Sink, since without them you’re still earning more then you were in Classic.)



  • i think the fundamental problem with the design of the game is that economy (or income) is used as an incentive to take and hold territory when i don’t think that’s realistic. Example: Germany’s economy wasn’t cut to 25% of what is was in 1942 when the Allies had Germany surrounded, but in the game that’s what it would be (Germany starts at 40 and the territory of Germany is worth 10). I don’t think that economy is the right incentive to use for taking enemy territory. Maybe something like victory city points for every territory, obviously having some territories worth many more vcps than others but still having all territories worth at least 1.

    I never said that income is the only incentive, just that it is an incentive. It would be ridiculous to say that it’s the only incentive, but you can’t deny that players will attempt an attack just to collect a couple extra IPCs and take a couple away from the opponent. Other incentives for attacking might include positioning units, trying to surprise your opponent with a trick maneuver, getting closer to attack an enemy capital, etc…

    I’m getting the feeling that some people can be quick to put words in my mouth and criticize me for the words that they put there. Let’s all remain careful to criticize so as to not waste time with arguments where no one is of the opposite point of view and also to not discourage others to post new ideas.

    I am saying that an unrealistically disproportionate large amount of IPCs are contained in territories away from the capital. Realistically, the capital of a nation should have a much higher proportion of the IPC total, and all other territories controlled by that nation should have a proportionally lower amount.

    If this change is made, then the Allies economic advantage will last longer (specifically, that it will last until one of the Allied capitals is captured). This is an advantage to the Allies. Therefore, we should also propose another change that will be either an advantage to the Axis or a disadvantage to the Allies (some people see that as the same thing and others don’t… let’s not get into an argument over it).

    Maybe we could restrict US and UK infantry purchases, which would be realistic too. How exactly we want to do that I’m leaving open to interpretation right now. Any other ideas?


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

    I’m sorry but as far as i can see you just quoted yourself and responded to your own post… Am i missing something?

    Anyway can you make some time to brefly scan our latest draft that tekky has come up with?

    Its that rapid share file thing. Just down load that and comment.

    Your somewhat limited time and your skills are wasted in this thread. The useless land thing will be addressed under phase 3 where any map changes go. And we allready decided to give these pacific island some value plus other things.




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

    Yes its probably the one with the largest file.



  • if you haven’t downloaded yet

    http://rapidshare.de/files/29374405/Axis___Allies_Historic_Edition_Phase_2_Draft_20060813.rtf.html

    uploaded a newer one just for you



  • Our naval fighters have a reduced range compared to normal fighters. 4 vs. 2.

    We’ve also taken the typical air movement restriction of not able to use X-1 movement points to get to your destination. You can only use X/2.

    So the Pacific Islands now have a degree of importance.

    You can no longer fly a FTR from Japan to Midway. Normal even with Long in Non-Combat with LRA tech.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Getting back to the island value thing I think that in order to make islands more valuable to players there needs to be an increase in zones in the Pacific so that there is a need land in islands thus making people conquer them more. And as for Gibraltar I think that it should close the Med if it is taken because wasn’t it basically a fortress preventing ships from passing through into Atlantic?



  • If you are going to do that with Gibraltar, the same rules as for the Suez should apply:
    Control both, your side only may pass.
    Mixed control, neither side may pass


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

    right that remains unchanged from OOB and LHTR


  • 2007 AAR League

    Just a question … why were places like Rio De Oro and Saudi Arabia put in the game just to make it historic or something because they dont do much of ne thing and why is Argentina nuetral wouldn’t it be more on Germany’s side because I mean America gets Brazil (i’m not sure but wasn’t that more sided with Germany?)?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Neutrals were just put in as useless lands too.  Common, Switzerland???  What is making that a neutral going to turn it into a barrier for?  Spain, Mongolia, Argentina/Chili/Venezuela I understand.  The rest are pointless as well. (Those, btw, being the commonly invaded neutrals.)



  • @ncscswitch:

    If you are going to do that with Gibraltar, the same rules as for the Suez should apply:
    Control both, your side only may pass.
    Mixed control, neither side may pass

    Yeah. The map proportions are inaccurate.
    The Med Sea opening is actually wider then English Channel!

    And did Algeria have coastal batteries like Gibraltar?

    @ajgundam5:

    Just a question … why were places like Rio De Oro and Saudi Arabia put in the game just to make it historic or something because they dont do much of ne thing

    Actually its not useless.
    If the nearby areas are fortified you can make an easy/easier landing by attacking the neutrals.
    On the other hand it models why people inavded neutrals as even when defending a region. They may have no army, no income, but strategically they needed to.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I’m sorry, your explaination is right, but I just cannot see America going:

    “Oh shoot, Germany’s got 400 tanks in French West Africa, I’ll land in Rio de Oro instead!!”

    So yea, I have to say, most of the neutrals really will never get used.  They’ll be unscratched areas on the board until the day it disintegrates in the hands of an archeologist a billion trillion million years from now.

    Some of the others are awesome!  Tkae Mongolia to avoid Yak.  Take Spain to avoid Sea Wall in Europe.  Take Argentina to invade Brazil.  Take Venezuela to liberate Brazil!  Take Switzerland for….uhm…uhm…ere…uhm…CHOCOLATE!  That’s it!


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 50
  • 6
  • 1
  • 30
  • 19
  • 42
  • 12
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

45
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts