Here’s the latest addition, flak towers !
Posts made by Arreghas
RE: If you need some WWI / WWII buildings
I play this game about 4 times a year with friends. We’ve tweaked the rules are few times and now we have a pretty much optimal setup. The only added unit are trucks (basically land transports for Inf, Art and Tanks) and it makes for interesting moves and plays.
We’re of the mentality that historical accuracy should not get in the way of replayability and fun, so rules such as limiting the number of units in India, or changing the US involvement makes for more and more linear gameplays that are basically the same strategies happening with the dice becoming the sole factor in the game. We like to try new things.
Also, adding new units in a d6 game where the unit costs are single digits makes it almost impossible to balance correctly. Every time we tried tweaking land units values and costs we basically destroyed a unit and made another one completely OP. I think you would have to switch to a d8 system and multiply costs by 5 (and income of course) to allow proper tweaking. Also, it’s very easy to make units that sound good on paper but end up being fairly situational.
We’re dabbling with the idea of allowing players to build one extra factory at the start of the game, which would make for some cool tweaks. I am also thinking about bombers that would be expensive units that deal damage automatically and you can’t block it via tanks (though again, it may be situational). We’re also thinking of making air combat optional or last just one round as well, with the winner being the one with the most air planes in the end. We’ve had a few games where it was a 7v5 air battle and it makes no sense to lose so much IPCs in one go in a game that is about grinding, especially when this means you basically can never again challenge the enemy’s 4 hit artilleries.
All in all, the game as it is is pretty much fun and can become even better with few adjustments. The trick is to add an element that has good synergy with the current game meta. Otherwise you might as well just make a whole new game with its own rules.
If you need some WWI / WWII buildings
Here’s some of what I have done.
Ideas and suggestions are welcome and I will gladly look into making the parts you need. Please note that I will not do elaborate pieces like airplanes / infantry anymore. I prefer to work on buildings and other similar shapes.
V2 Rockets !
Now you can all destroy the Allied scum from afar with those powerful weapons !
RE: Need some good playable miniatures ?
Who wants an army camp ?
There is also a version for 12 to lower the per item cost.
RE: A Question Of Balance
Maybe it’s just me but I find the game to be well balanced. It might be the players I play with, but I find most of my games 50 50
I think the game is skewed in the Allies’ favor, though that is true of many A&A games. The one thing it does give is that it forces both sides to adopt different playstyles.
Compared to other A&As I have played (Europe, 1941,1942), I think that 1914 gives the Axis a slightly better chance of winning than other games, though you still do need a little luck of the dice.
What I do like about 1914 is that the one-combat round only makes it harder for people to lose a game in a single large battle and smaller battles can actually cause you issues if you get a bad roll, opening up opportunities. Overall, it’s my favorite game regardless of who I play.
RE: Need some good playable miniatures ?
How about victory cities for ALL victory cities…Manila, Honk Kong, Honolulu, Stalingrad, Cairo cities like this are not made
If you have ideas about how you would like that to look like, send me a private message ! I’ll be glad to help out if I can.
RE: Need some good playable miniatures ?
Here’s what it looks like :
There’s a stack of 12 available as well !
RE: Axis and Allies - Which games are worth extra units ?
Interesting conversation gentlemen.
You are indeed proving to me that changing any rule set is complex indeed and requires very thoughtful analysis.
Personally I like the die system although I also enjoy the 1914 concept of single combat round and unit synergies, and that is how I have been trying to modify the game instead of simply making units stronger or cheaper.
I’m thinking right now of a “flanking” mechanic for mobile units… Hmmm, I’ll need to think about it more.
Axis and Allies - Which games are worth extra units ?
I see a lot of extra units on HBG for different kinds of infantry, tanks and whatnot, and I keep wondering if any of it is good for strategy-level combat - by strategy-level, I mean games where you conquer entire continents, not just fight for a region of a country at the division level.
With IPC costs ranging in the 3-5 range for land units most of the time and with a d6 calculation for hits, I am having a hard time introducing new units in the mix in a way that they are useful or do not make other units pointless.
The only way I found so far was in AA1914 since there are more mechanics associated with land and air units (tank absorption, artillery support, air superiority) so that means you can build chemistry around new units.
What do you guys do to add new units to the game without breaking it or making it overly complex in WW2 strategy-level games ?
How to integrate bombers in AA1914 ?
One thing I like about AA1914 is the synergy between units and I want to keep that while adding on new things.
I am looking at how bombers could be added in a nice way.
Simply making it a powerful offensive unit would be wasteful in my mind because that means it would either be completely worth it or completely useless IPC wise. In other AA games, bombers are sometimes useful but in this scenario, with Infantry hitting on 2s and 3s, it’s just not THAT useful to have a unit with a stronger attack.
So far, here’s the rule I came with that would make it interesting :
- Bomber attacks or defends only when you have air superiority or no one has it
- Bomber attacks or defends before combat by rolling one die for every enemy ground unit (or maybe a set number)
- For every roll of 1, the defender has a suppressed unit, which means it cannot fire during that round of combat; this would decrease your enemy’s effective force for the duration of the battle.
I came with this idea after realizing that simply making a unit with a lot of dice to throw makes it uninteresting and hard to make different than simply having more troops.
I did come at first with the idea that the bomber would destroy units before the actual combat, but it is very difficult to find a balance that makes sense for all sizes of battles without finding a flaw.
I may give it more thought. Until then, I welcome some input.
RE: Aircraft Rule Change for AA1914
I see your point and believe you are touching on good items. That being said, for this to work, I would say that the defender should have the choice to decide if he fights for the air altogether.
Say you are attacked and the enemy has 3 airplanes and you have 1, you should be allowed to either defend OR not defend. The latter would mean that you forego aerial combat and leave your enemy master of the air for just showing up and your aircraft is not allowed to fire at the ground units.
Forcing the defender into one mandatory round means he could still get wiped consistently. I think players should have the option of :
- Engage in air battles at all (if you are the defender)
- Retreat from the battle and yield air supremacy
Yeah, on second thought, that sounds like a good rule !
Aircraft Rule Change for AA1914
I find that a fight to the death for Fighters in AA1914, where all other land battles are one round, makes it risky and sometimes not profitable to invest in air power as you can win or lose an entire set of IPCs on that one 4v4 battle that goes bad for you.
To make aircraft more interesting, I think Air Superiority should be decided as goes :
- Aircraft now hit on d3 instead of d2
- Attack lasts ONE round
- Player with the most aircraft at the end has Superiority; a tie means no one has the advantage
I understand this means you can overwhelm your enemy with large forces or aircraft, but honestly what odds would a 1v3 have of winning ? At least this way you strategize based on that to get that bonus.
What do you think ?
Need WWI stuff for AA?
Hello AA players.
Since I decided to play AA1914 I’ve been doing some custom units for some of my own needs and tweaks and I have placed them on Shapeways here : https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tablegamewiz?li=pb
I have 2 units so far, and I am looking at maybe building a bomber unit.
If any of you would like something added to their game, send me a private message about what you need and we’ll start a discussion. I’d be happy to give it a shot !
Enjoy your battles !
RE: Open table communication leaves me wondering…
We ran into some of these problems early on when we started AA1914. It took over 20 minutes of talk every time a country played because we analyzed everything.
Eventually, we settled with a 5 minute check for each side at the beginning of a turn and 1-2 minutes when a country was playing and the other side needed to discuss an important thing. It ended up being reasonable enough while also not always revealing the other side’s strategy.
I also suggest you limit the amount of players in a game. Four makes for 2v2, which makes decision making that much faster. Any team with three players slows the game exponentially just because you now have three-way communication and negotiation. We play 2v2 and it goes by fairly well.
Hope this helps !
Pieces for A&A 1914
I have been making a few special pieces of my own for AA1914 to make the game more interesting. I designed two pieces so far; a truck and an FT-17 Renault tank model for the WWI game. You can find them here : http://www.shapeways.com/search?q=jsebt
I try to make them in their most affordable material since they are playing pieces, so they have a balance between detail and structural integrity.
If you are interested in trying something out, please let me know. I welcome some challenges !
RE: Randomization in Axis and Allies
I personally am not in favor of adding randomization to AA. I feel this game needs a good balance between luck and strategy, and the fact that luck decides most of the battles means you need to compensate otherwise.
Add too much random and you may find the entire game is tilted one way or the other, which can be frustrating.
What I do like to do with my friends (we play the 1914 version a lot) is to tweak the rules every now and then to keep us off balance. I would also like to play around with allowing a limited amount of initial troop placement changes to modify the beginning of the game - which does have good impact on the outcome. It just feels more fun to have a certain choice about it or to have a mechanic itself modified rather than leaving too much of my fate in the hands of the dice.
AA1914 - Ship Cost Changes
Will be trying to downcost the cruisers and subs in AA WWI to see if this makes for more interesting naval conflicts. So far everyone only buys BBs and transports and I was loathe to increase BB cost as it would only make them too expensive and therefore removed from the game.
I figure that Cruiser cost of 7 and Sub cost of 5 will allow smaller fleets and therefore more choice in resource affectation.
Based on that cost, 5 Cruisers vs 3 BBs (35 IPCs vs 36) or 7 Subs vs 3 BBs (35 vs 36) yield the same theoretical outcome of BBs winning with 1 or 2 left and all remaining damaged. To me this makes sense because it still gives you the advantage of benefiting from your higher one-time costs of BBs yet still give you the chance to look into more slowly building up a force while not comprimising too much ground, which smaller powers could benefit from.
At current costs of 9 and 6, Cruisers and Subs are just pointless; with this kind of odds, I hope they will be better.
RE: Game length
I agree with drsnidely. Usually you should play the game until it becomes evident that one side is going to lose.
I play regularly with a group of equally-matched friends strategically and the game can still be undecided by turn 10 at times. Usually though, by that time one side will have a clear advantage and it would just be pointless to continue for a couple of hours for the unavoidable to happen.
I expect you should start to see how the game will go by turn 5, so plan for at least 7 turns and be prepared to fight it out for longer if strategy and chance dictate a close game.
RE: A&A 1914 with trucks - First impression
Here are my doubts about railroads from a game perspective (I am aware they are historically more accurate) :
Do unlimited railroads essentially make the game about holding a massive front like other A&A games with reinforcements dropping in the war zone almost instantly ? If so, this is certainly a historically accurate perspective but a very boring one game wise.
Do limited railroads make for a stiff line of mobility and become obvious targets, again creating a stockpile of units ?
What I do like about this game is that reinforcement logistics has to be accounted for. It has made for more fluid games.
I know I do not want to recreate mechanized infantry and the no-combat value is in place specifically for that, so it makes little sense to build so much it hampers your striking force. The only advantage this method has over limited railroad capacity is some fluidity - again, only some.
EDIT : I did forget to mention that trucks are not allowed to Blitz, obviously. That would make it beyond ridiculous.