A suggestion to limit major industrial complexes to, say, territories with a value of 5 or more might be in order. Along with this, use a minimum 3 value territory for minor industrial complexes. This alteration may be feasible (and be somewhat more realistic too).
Posts made by aethervox
-
RE: Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 3
-
RE: Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 1
You, Poloplayer15, may have no problem with easily distinguishing between the various Destroyer, Cruiser & Battleship models but not everyone will. The modellers could have done just a little bit better job in having distinct ‘sizes’ between the three. You did mention, as I implied, that it would have been great if the manufacturer had ‘gone all the way’ and supplied a distinct vessel type for each national navy (etc, etc for land & air units too - but that is getting rather expensive). The alternate is to go back to the original game design where one model of tank or destroyer was used for all nationalities, then there is no room for confusion. In my own seven player A&A variant I have done just that - I found a suitable metal or plastic model for each military unit that is common to all the seven sets of pieces (besides the present range of units I use Paratroops, Corvettes and Motorized Artillery).
-
RE: Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 3
I did not consider the possibility for building major industrial complexes on these new 3 value territories. Rather, I was simply suggesting (relatively speaking) more accurate valuations. The national totals are the same - just distributed differently. In regards to building industrial complexes (major or minor) - it appears to me that with all the forces on the board and the time contraints that the Axis are better served maximizing their build for every turn. When exactly do the Axis spend precious IPCs on extra industrial complexes? The same is true of the Allies for the most part too - they have to defend. It appears to me that the setup offers sufficient industrial complexes. To my mind, the game is won on maximizing builds for both sides and on the specific battles and die roll results. Why even bother with extra complexes (or air bases and naval bases, for that matter) or even try R & D?. Just maximize you income and your military builds.
-
RE: Historically Accurate Gripe
I hope it wasn’t my earlier postings titled ‘Design Flaws’ that got this thread on historical accuracy going. A board game simulation of history cannot be 100% historically accurate. However, I agree entirely with Imperious Leader’s assertion that A&A Global has gotten more historical and become a better game for it. Whatever my criticisms are they are intended to suggest ‘tweaks’ that to my mind improve the present game. I alter games as I see fit to make them more enjoyably playable to me and I am sure a great many players do exactly the same (house rules). Since this is an open forum, alternate views and suggestions on any aspect of the game should be discussed without recourse to tarring commentary as being ‘too historical’ or, alternately, as ‘not historical enough’. However, this writer does lean towards being as ‘historical’ (however one defines that) as the simulation may allow. When any gamer sees what appears to him/her rules that seem out of place or military/territory values that seem to be skewed/odd then those concerns (whatever they are) are open to criticism and discussion. I an sure most respondents have the same sentiment when suggesting improvements to this game (whatever the suggestions may be).
-
RE: Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 4
My reply is directed at Gamerman
s post where he says a Ukraine territory value 3 can pump out 10 units per turn. Only if a major industrial complex is placed there (quite a few IPCs that). I have already concluded that if an enemy spends IPCs on industrial complexes it is only because they can afford to do so. When a player does this then their enemy(ies) has that fewer opposing units to remove. Personally, I would take advantage of this at every opportunity since only by relentless attacks can the Attacker win. Point taken too that the game must be fun - this appears to be the original game expanded. I still remain skeptical whether Larry Harris hit one out of the park (to use a baseball analogy). I also think that the Axis would have had a very difficult time to have eventually won WW2 (with our 20-20 hindsight we have). However, certain events (Dunkirk, SeaLion, Battle of the Atlantic, Pearl Harbour, Midway, Russian Winter, different political decisions) made the outcome of WW2 doubtful - history may really have been different. It is informative to read the different posts - if A&A Global was perfect there wouldn
t be anything to say, hehe. -
RE: Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 2
Anzac, in reality, could only defend itself versus an eventually over-extended Japan pushing south. 6 IPCs will build just enough Inf to survive. I don
t recall Anzac invading anywhere except into New Guinea whereas Canada at 11 IPCs could build Inf & Transports to do what it actually did, re-inforce United Kingdom bedises have it
s own beach & army on D Day. Boring maybe but definitely more realistic to what happened & a mark of a good simulation is to be as realistic as possible. The designers put a Canadian emblem on the board - too bad they didn`t distinguish the Canadian forces that should be on the board (like the Anzac) & possibly provide some control markers, as well. -
RE: Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 4
These ‘Global Design Flaw’ posts are, as you see, early posts of a new registrant. Thank-you for the responses to my observations/critiques. My ‘thing’ is map accuracy/ historical accuracy where if accuracy can be represented then, imho, that is better than ‘abstracting’ it. For example, the point totals being the same for Germany say, I’d argue that some of the territory values could & should be altered (see my Flaws, Part 3 post). The same for Bonus Income, is it realistic - maybe the Sea zone 125 convoy bonus is in some way but the 6 IPCs per original Ger territory still is not (imho).
-
Map Question
Does Sea Zone 110 include the English Channel? I assume it does. However, it appears the English Channel could be considered sparate from Zone 110 - it certainly would give consideration to the Strait of Dover as a dividing line between the North Sea (zones 110,11 & 112) and the English Channel.
-
RE: Krieghund - a brilliant new idea
Where do you get this idea, Maegenstein that Germany is very bad in retreating and counter-attacking? This is what Germany did on the easten front after Kursk. I do think any & all RD attempts, if successful, should be available to any player who obtains them (like the original game rules).
-
Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 4
This commentary will deal with the Global Game Setup & the Bonus Income Rules. First off, the game starts before Germany invades France, hence the German turn starts in May 1940. So what is the esteemed designer Larry Harris saying in his designer’s notes that “In June 1940, the British and other remnants of the Allied armies had just evacuated Dunkirk…… I decided to begin the game at that moment.” Well, Larry, if you had done so there wouldn’t be a big French army in France along with it’s British assistants nor would there be a French Infantry unit in the United Kingdom before France falls). So please, just get your history right, first off. Place that Fre Inf in Normandy (or in France).
Secondly, the rulebook (A&A Europe, pgs 33-35) doesn’t say (correct me if it does) whether players gain bonus IPCs for any pre-existing conditions prior to the game start when the conditions for gaining the bonus IPCs are, in fact, already there. The game tray unit setup lists give the starting IPCs but to my reading of the rules, if the conditions are met for the bonus income at the start of the game then that will alter the listed starting IPCs. Hence, for example, Germany should start with 30 + 5 = 35 IPCs (the wheat and oil from the Soviet Union) since this economic trade was part of the German-Soviet Union Non-Aggression Pact. I also interpret this to mean that the Soviet Union would then start 37 - 5 = 32 IPCs for the very same reason.
My main criticism of the Bonus Income provisions is that, imho, there are too many of these bonuses and they appear to have little basis in reality. For instance, 5 IPCs for the Soviet Union if sea zone 125 is free … etc? Why? What about transport(s) loaded with either units or IPCs actually moving to Archangel to effect an economic transfer (not some freebie extra 5 or whatever IPCs)? Or worse yet, 6 IPCs for each original German territory if the Soviet Union captures them? Are you kidding? So now the Soviet Union will get 18 IPCs (instead of just 6 for the territory values) for holding Romania & Slovakia/Hungary (as an w example)? Too bad Germany can’t get IPCs like that for all the Russian territories it might control.Could these bad design sops be included just so the Soviet Union has has some? Sure looks like it. -
Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 3
As A&A Global has, imho, incorrect values for many territories, I submit the following territory value revisions, which are more ‘relatively’ correct (again, imho);
Western Germany 9, Norway 1, Greater Southern Germany 3, Slovakia/Hungary 2, Romania 2, Poland 3, Karelia 0, Novgorod 3, Baltic States 2, Eastern Poland 2, Western Ukraine 3, Ukraine 3, Belarus 2, Archangel 0, Russia 6, Urals 0, Timguska 0, Evenkiyskiy 0, Buryatia 0, Sakha 0, Siberia 0, Soviet Far East 0, Scotland 3, Trans-Jordan 0, South-West Africa 0, Gold Coast 0, West India 3, South India 1 (new)[or include in West India], India 6, Shan State 0, Borneo 2, Sumatra 2, Celebes 2, Bali/Timor 2 (new)[Islands east of Java], Moluccas 1 (new)[Island east of Celebes], Queensland 1, West Australia 0, South Australia 0, Northern Territory 0, British Columbia 2, Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba 2, Ontario 3, Quebec 3, NWT 0 (new)[Canadian blob of land west of Greenland], France 6, Southern France 2, Morocco 0, Northern Italy 5, Albania 0, Finland 1, Eire 1 (new)[Ireland]* include 2 armies defence symbol, Turkey 3, Saudi Arabia 1 and Brazil 3.
I have altered my global game boards to reflect these alterations. Hopefully, whatever game balance is in the original design will be positively or, at least, neutrally affected by these changes (playtesting will tell). -
Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 2
My next criticism concerns the map territory values (in general) and (specifically) the starting IPCs of Anzac & Canada. To any reasonably educated student of history it is apparent that the map has some flaws where territory values are concerned. As a glaring example - Borneo worth 4? In WW2 Borneo was nothing but jungle! How is it worth the same as Malaya (Singapore) or Java (Batavia/Djakarta)? How is it that Aus/NZ territories combined total equals 10 yet Canada’s total equals 7? The reality is that, historically, Canada has twice the population of Aus/NZ and Canada certainly has equal (if not more) natural & manufacturing resources. Furthermore, the Canadian army had one of the four beaches assigned ot it on D Day. Canada was used to train thousands of Commonwealth (read British Empire) pilots during the war and, last but by no means least, Canada, during WW2 had the world’s fourth largest navy (after US, Jap & UK)! A more accurate territory value for Canada is 11 and Aus/NZ 6 ( due to population & manufacturing capacity). Canada is not 70% of Aus/NZ, it is more like Aus/NZ is 55% of Canada. This leads into comments about the Starting Positions and Starting Incomes for the UK and the Anzac pieces.
I suggest the UK Setup pieces listed for Ontario, Quebec and Zone 106 be changed to Anzac pieces to reflect Canadian units. The Canadian forces will move during the Anzac (now termed Canzac) player turn and, as the UK player must have two separate IPC accounts, so too the Canzac player must have two separate IPC accounts. To allow A&A Global afficionadoes to properly incorporate Canada into UK/Anzac Setup necessitates altering the values of the following territories; British Columbia 2, Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba 2, Ontario 3 *include a Minor Industrial Complex, Quebec 3 & New Brunswick/Nova Scotia 1 then New Zealand 2, Victoria 1, New south Wales 2, Queensland 1, Soouth Australia 0, West Australia 0 & Nothern Territory 0. Note that the combined value of Canada & anzac remains the same (17). -
Axis & Allies Global Design Flaws Part 1
First off, before I raise anyones hackles here, the new combined game is impressive if nothing else. Lots of starting forces, more nationalities and some different units & representative pieces. However, there are still some plain wrong things and missing units in this latest version. Let us begin with the missing pieces for this new game. Where are the plastic Factories and AA Guns? Where is the cash (the IPCs)? The different representations of the naval pieces are nice but some are confusing since (in some cases) Destroyers/Cruisers or Cruisers/Battleships are difficult to distinguish due to a too similar size. Instead of going to all the expense of including so many different naval pieces (not too mention the air units & the land vehicles) why not give the buyer the factories & AA Guns? Also (as a picky point & an example) what is with French T-34s or the Italian Panther? Both nations had plenty of well known tanks of their own. There is still, I believe, a few missing units for the stable of A & A games, namely, Paratroops & Corvettes. Paratroops (1 Att/1Def, Cost 3) & Corvette (1 Att/1Def Cost 4). [These values are aligned to the A&A Global game unit costs, some costs of which, in my opinion, may be another design flaw] For instance, the original Fighter was 2A/2D, C12 (4/12=.33), now same fighter is 3A/4D, C10 (7/10=.70), more than double the cost effectiveness especially considering it has a 66% chance of hitting on defence.
-
RE: Lets Talk Paratroopers!
I have had Paratroops in my house rules since 1984. It is obvious what their stats are; 1 Att, 1 Def, 1 Move Cost 4. Paratroops must be carried by a Bomber, hence, their true cost is 19 (4/Para & 15/Bomb). Paratroops have their uses. It would be expensive to build & use mass Paratroops. A very useful & historical addition to A&A.
-
RE: Article Submissions forum
Here’s an article submission topic: Why haven’t the MB/AH/Hasbro game designers offered a mechanized/motorized Infantry unit before 2009? I, personally (in house rules), had motorized Infantry by 1984. Why has it taken A&A so long to get this simple addition into play? What other aspects of the original game were ‘flawed’ is another topic with myriad existing ‘threads’.