nope. I don’t think this was a success, in terms of sales.
What makes you think that?
Why did they not make E40,P40,G40 game? 1942.2 is not exactly the most popular version out.
While I agree 1942 may not be the most popular amongst the veterans and competitive players that are predominant in this forum, I would its a different story when we look at the total player base. It is the flagship title that (along with 1941) is most likely to be present in stores and played by a greater majority of more casual players. I would guess significantly more boxes of 1942 have sold than any of the E40/P40/G40 combined, so from a marketing standpoint it makes sense to start with the base game.
@Imperious-Leader Dont play with pick up partners, play a whole side. I have 4-8 games going at once.
I don’t see anything “unsportmanslike” about choosing your version.
Not so much that, but in the screenshot showed with side by side games, don’t their intentions seem obvious?
@Imperious-Leader If an ally is quitting, you get control over their side.
I believe his issue is that the ally quits only after doing (intentionally?) an irrecoverable mistake.(Russian player buys a battleship and suicides charges his infantry into the nearest stack, exit game!)
Edit: Or, as just happened in my German game. My Japanese Ally suicide charged his fleet and lost all naval assets…turn 2. He forfeited afterward and left me with an irrecoverable disaster.
It is sometimes a blurry line between “forfeiting because an honest game is beyond hope” and “Trolling other players” but I really hope some communication/karma system is put in place.
@Striker While I now understand what you mean, I guess that’s not a big deal. Players can take part in the games they want, and forfeiting is their right (it counts as a loss).
Forfeiting is a right, but I fear poor community experiences could turn into a bigger deal to the point of endangering the health of the game.
Put yourself in the shoes of, for example, a player choosing USA. One night he joins a game. He waits patiently for his turn over the course of a day as other players go first, he expects his turn the next night. Some slightly bad rolls happen on the axis side, and axis forfeits before US gets a turn. The US player has now wasted a day, how likely is he to recommend this game to his friends after this experience?
I’ve noticed a small trend of standard setup games in the lobby with axis positions filled, waiting for allied players. I worry that as more players discover the axis bias in the out of the box setup we are going to see larger lists of games clogging the lobby that has axis positions filled waiting for some allied fodder to begin.
Some sort of reputation/karma system might encourage better behavior.(Though being able to filter setup types may help problem 2 as well.)
@Striker What fun do you mean?
Maybe I’ll rephrase that as “calling out bad sportsmanship”:
Certainly a general chatroom or equivalent would be nice. Would be nice to poke fun at those who forfeit just because dice didn’t favor them in risky attacks on their opening turn. I didn’t know how to feel about “winning” before I took my UK1. Have people noticed a lot of that happening?
Also I feel obliged to poke fun at people who do this
I don’t think it’s “hardcoded” as you say it is. Look at other games that start with Japan in their 1941 setup. Both pacifics, global,AA50 41…in each one Japan goes before Britain.
Both A&A1941 and zombies have this awkward situation where japan has a 1941 setup, before pearl harbor, yet…britain goes first? Japan doesn’t have the money islands yet to offset the alpha strikes.
I feel like it would be beneficial to the game to tweak the turn order first and adjust starting setup in response. As even with zombies there has been a feeling that “it takes too long” with some groups I’ve played with(meanwhile many of these same people liked how in D-Day both allied players move and collaborate together.) I like A&A and want it to succeed, but I feel we need to examine some of these “hard coded” aspects that may be outdated.
The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”
Those little battles matter, especially if you need them to block an assault on Moscow.
That justification can apply to zombie aggroing too?
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I find it equally eyerolling whether it’s one infantry halting the blitz of the entire opposing tank force or a single sacrificial lamb whipping the zombies into a frenzy against the territory owners. It’s very subjective to say one is fine and the other isn’t.