@DoManMacgee Thanks; both of these posts were super-helpful for me.
Posts made by Argothair
RE: Why is Global better than Revised?
@Slip-Capone Can you elaborate a little bit on how or why these rules opened up new strategies? It looks like almost every territory worth 2 IPCs or more is a Victory Territory. How does playing with this list of Victory Territories change the strategy compared to just saying “whoever has more money after 6 rounds wins?”
RE: Why is Global better than Revised?
Very interesting, thank you. So, digging a little deeper, can anyone articulate what it means for something to be a “wargame” or why G40 would scratch the “wargame hunger” better than Revised? In concrete terms, why does G40 feel like a wargame?
Also, does anyone have a link to the WBC tournament rules for Revised? I’m not familiar with them.
And, yes, one thing I like about SiredBlood’s rules is that they encourage a broader variety of strategies, even in competitive play. At the first SiredBlood tournament, I saw neutral crushes, I saw Sea Lions, I saw paratroopers hitting Cairo, I saw India Crushes, I saw serious attempts by Japan to grab the eastern Pacific islands from US/UK, I saw Italians in Brazil and Canada and Pakistan, and I think once, just for variety, I saw the traditional Italian can-openers for German tanks rolling into Moscow. I’m sure some of that is because it’s new and people are still sorting out what works and how to counter the oddball openings, but I also think the victory conditions (where both VPs and IPCs are distributed more evenly across the map) helps players branch out a little, compared to either G40 2nd Edition or Revised, where the vast majority of the money and the VPs are in or adjacent to Berlin or Moscow.
Like, if you look at the strategies available in Revised, the Germans need to hold France / Rome / Berlin, all of which are adjacent to each other, and that’s 22 IPCs and 3 VPs, which is enough to hold out for a very long time. Similarly, if the Russians can keep trading the bubble of territories immediately adjacent to Moscow, that can bring in over 20 IPCs. So almost all the action focuses around those two ultra-rich clusters of money, factories, and VPs. It kind of has to, right?
But what else are you going to do? Either the action has a central focus (in which case people will complain that the only thing to do is go right for the center) or the action doesn’t have a central focus (in which case people will complain that it feels casual and screwy and ahistorical and winds up in stalemates where you trade the same peripheral territories forever). Maybe I’m feeling too philosophical today to talk sense. I’m just trying to figure out what makes A&A games fun and what makes them frustrating, at a really abstract and general level.
RE: UK Boxing
@Afrikakorps Mostly agree with Taamvan here – you’ve described an interesting gambit, but it sounds like your opponent fell for your trap by passively consolidating his Italian fleet and leaving it idle.
As other commenters have pointed out, the Axis can completely counter this strategy by using the Germans to clear away blockers, taking Egypt or Gibraltar pretty early and with potentially disastrous results for the British.
Even without German reinforcements, the Italian player can still actively consolidate their fleet by bringing it together in a different sea zone each turn, killing one British unit at a time. Italy-1, you kill a destroyer. Italy-2, you kill a cruiser. Take casualties on your air units or battleships, save your money on Italy’s first turn, and by turn 2 you can build an Italian carrier + sub, or carrier + fighter, or whatever else you need for naval parity. By passing up the opportunity to kill the Italian fleet on UK1, you may lose the opportunity to ever kill off that fleet, and if you follow through with plans to move the entire RAF to the Med, spend part of the UK economy in South Africa / Persia, etc., then Germany will have a free hand in the north Atlantic, and Moscow will be more vulnerable when the Germans are ready to attack it. Basically any time you concentrate the mobile British forces, you need to achieve decisive results within a couple of turns, because events will continue to develop elsewhere on the board, so if you’re merely stalemating the Italians in the Med while losing ground in the Atlantic and Moscow (and perhaps India as well), then you’re not making the right kind of forward progress on the globe as a whole.
Why is Global better than Revised?
This is a serious question – obviously people here are very passionate about Global; you might play dozens of Global games every year, and maybe you haven’t played a single Revised game in a decade.
The Global map is bigger, and there are more rules, and Global is the more recent release. For some people, that’s enough to justify only playing Global – they want the biggest, most gonzo experience they can find, or they want whatever the latest version is because they like new things or they like official things or it’s just what their friends are playing. Fine.
But if you have consciously chosen some form of Global because you like Global better than previous versions of A&A, especially A&A Revised from 2004, then why do you like Global better? What are the key features? What makes Global more satisfying or more fun? What are you able to do in Global that you’re not able to do in Revised?
RE: Argo's Middleweight Map for 1939 & 1942
Is it possible to get TripleA to allow transports to move or unload only during noncombat? I was thinking it might be interesting to have two kinds of boats that move land units:
- Transports, which move 3, carry any 3 land units, and can only unload during noncombat
- Landing Craft, which move 1, carry 1 infantry, bombard at 1, and can load/unload at any time.
This would make it very challenging to win a beachhead, but very easy to reinforce a beachhead once you’ve got one – you could even follow up the same turn, e.g., landing craft to get from London to Normandy, and then if you actually capture Normandy then maybe transports can unload some tanks into Normandy from Canada or even New York during the non-combat phase of the same turn.
I’d like to find out if this is possible before finishing my sea zones.
RE: Bombardments - no Incentive to invest in BBs and CAs?
Well, I’d agree with you that buying a single naked BB rarely makes sense – BBs are strongest when they can be used as the capstone of a larger, more diverse navy.
I’ve been known to buy CA + DD for the Brits in Anniversary, where the British fleet can just project monstrous power out of the English Channel – you’re threatening France, Norway, Berlin, Poland, etc. all from the same sea zone, and many of those territories come with large national objectives attached.
And in a social game of Balanced Mod Global, where I’m aiming to have fun more than I’m aiming to win, I could see buying CA + DD + Marine for Italy or Australia, just because Marines are a cool unit, and sometimes your economy means that you can’t afford a second loaded transport, but you can afford one loaded transport plus one marine, and that extra oomph will get you over the finish line to take Cairo or Singapore or whatever.
In Classic Global, though, I just don’t see it – if there is enough of an aerial threat that you need the DD+CA at all, then you probably need a massive fleet that includes at least one fully loaded carrier, and if you don’t have the cash to drop that fleet all at once, then it’s better to save up for a turn and buy the fleet next turn.
RE: Alternate dice rules
It’s a hard problem. My favorite rule so far is to give each team 3 “low luck” battles over the course of the game. You can declare a low luck battle either on offense or on defense before any dice are rolled – but only 3 times per game. It’s your choice how to use them; you could use them on opening naval battles, or on the battle for Moscow, or on little fiddly battles where you really want a guaranteed hit to knock out your enemy’s only infantry … but you can’t use them all the time, so you have to think about where you care enough to do the math, and where you’re willing to just accept the luck of the dice.
My main objection to LL is that with sufficiently motivated players, it turns every battle into a chess game; people go back and forth furiously calculating all of the numbers and find a way to shift an infantry over by one territory so that they can pick up an extra 8% chance of holding both territories…it feels more like work than like play, to me.
If you let players use LL when they really care about the battle, and force them to roll regular dice the rest of the time, then that keeps the game moving at a reasonable speed without leaving you feeling like you lost the whole game because the dice went against you in one crucial battle.
RE: Bombardments - no Incentive to invest in BBs and CAs?
Well it’s not the one-shot rule that anyone is complaining about; I think everybody here agrees that BBs and CAs should only get one round of bombardments per battle. The question is whether an infantry that gets hits by that bombardment should be allowed to return fire.
And as far as CA & DD in pairs, again, that ignores the way that BBs can soak a free hit.
Let’s say you buy 6 CA & 6 DD to attack me, and I buy 5 BB, 1 DD, 2 SS to defend. You can expect to inflict an average of 5 hits, and I expect to inflict an average of 4 hits. As you say, a slim attack advantage for your fleet – but only on the first round of battle. After the first round, 4 of your DDs are dead, but all of my ships are still in the fight.
Now you have 6 CA + 2 DD = 22 pips of offense, against my 5 damaged BB + 1 DD + 2 SS = 24 pips of defense. Suppose you roll slightly above-average and score your 4 hits, and I roll average and score my 4 hits. Now you have 4 CA left, against my 4 damaged BB. Clearly at this point my fleet outclasses yours, and you should expect to lose the battle if average luck continues.
Pairing CAs with DDs might be the way to get max value out of CAs, but that certainly doesn’t mean you should routinely purchase them – the maximum value you can get out of a CA is still noticeably less than the maximum value you can get out of other ships.