@Imperious-Leader https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/34909/1942-second-edition-house-rules-for-a-more-interesting-game/44
Here is my latest file I know that it was seen before but anyone looking at this post for rules may be interested.
House Rules: Master List
-
The best part is that it was right under my nose, in a link that I linked earlier, but I just blew right past it while searching around lol. Totally how I would opperate, wasting time with google, when I could have just followed the bread crumbs haha. For now I don’t mind some reduplication. Any links are good. This thread is helping me to necro some of the oldies, and get my head back in the game. One way or another, we’ll get this info to read at glance at some point.
:-D -
This post is about Defenseless Transport and ways to give some escorting defense value point.
Some simply want to get back to Classic Transport (TP A0 D1 C8, 1 hit), or a weaker variant by keeping the taken last mechanic.EXECUTIVE ORDER: if you add 1 rule you have to remove 2 other rules
January 30, 2017, 12:05:49 pm to still active…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39270.msg1625963#msg1625963In this thread Black Elk and Baron had some input on TP as discussing 1942.2 ways to balance it.
Game unbalanced?
January 07, 2015, 09:15:18 pm to Reply #61 on: April 01, 2015, 09:26:09 am
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35097.msg1364418#msg1364418New Transport Defense
September 13, 2017, 07:30:03 am to Reply #74 on: Today at 05:10:22 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40520.msg1693864#msg1693864Der Kuenstler famous thread OP which contains many, many possible variants
The aberration of the defenseless transport
March 29, 2013, 10:24:39 am to Reply #433 on: July 16, 2016, 08:59:50 pm
@Der:Let me start this off first with a quote:
“All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward” - Glasgow
For six editions and the first 24 years of AA history, the transport has cost 8 IPCs and defended @1. Starting with AA Guadalcanal, transports became defenseless (the unit pricing scheme was all different). In the 50th Ann edition, transports became defenseless and cheaper, costing 7 IPCs.
I understand new rules create sales, so from a business standpoint, changing things is good. But IMO changing the transport rules hurt the overall game and here’s why:
1. The “auto-destroy” rule violates the spirit of the game.
Everything in this game involves decisions and risk, and has since the beginning. That’s what makes it so much fun. As Alexander Smith said “Everything is sweetened by risk.” Now we have a rule introduced where there is no risk - only auto-destruction. It is an exception to every other rule and every other unit in the game. All excitement in dice rolling to see what happens is removed. What happens is already decided with no variants at all - no anticipation. Lone transports just get swept off the board. yawn.
2. The 7 IPC rule makes amphibious assaults easier and cheaper.
Honestly, this rule seems to have been added only because transorts were made weaker by the first rule. To me this is going in the opposite direction of the way it should. It’s already too easy to take islands like Okinawa and such with bombardment. Amphibious assults ought to be hard and EXPENSIVE - that’s why it took the allies so long to achieve one in Europe.
OBJECTION: Transports defending @1 is unrealistic!
ANSWER: how often in WWII were transports left completely alone? To me this defense value reflects smaller DD escorts, PT boats, AA batteries and such that would normally be in the vicinity of transports. Plus some transport vessels were lightly armed.VERDICT: I say they should have left transports the way they were!
-
This post contains link to threads aiming at simplify aircrafts, Submarines, Destroyer and Transport interactions. Mainly, no need to bring DD to allow aircraft to hit Subs.
This one works with OOB cost and includes related OOB rules from rulebook with visible changes from original rules.
Introductory steps to use TPs, Subs, Destroyers and planes: simpler interactions
July 01, 2016, 04:14:43 pm to Reply #4 on July 04, 2016, 09:26:14 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38180.msg1557369#msg1557369Inside this thread there is also many try at different cost structures.
Simplifying units interactions of Transports, Submarines, Destroyers & planes
September 14, 2014, 11:38:21 am to Reply #156 on: March 31, 2015, 10:52:53 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34290.msg1320853#msg1320853This Der Kuenstler’s thread is about a balance issue on Destroyer blocking abilty against Submarine.
Reality wrecking destroyer rules need a revamp…
August 28, 2014, 03:06:53 pm to Reply #91 on: February 05, 2015, 08:54:33 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34169.msg1314701#msg1314701This thread explore which ratio should be better than 1 DD block all Subs.
Also, contains a long list of all threads on Submarines in various forums.
Alternative to OOB aircrafts, destroyers and submarine warfare in G40 and 1942
March 31, 2014, 07:25:59 am to Reply #9 on: April 02, 2014, 06:03:21 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33290.msg1266767#msg1266767Contains the many variations on Submarine’s rules. Main focus is on planes need DD or not to hit Sub.
History of the introduction of the actual G40 OOB Subs rules
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33260.msg1264458#msg1264458
March 24, 2014, 05:29:19 pm to Reply #13 on: April 01, 2014, 09:18:58 amEarlier draft of Baron’s Submarine houserules to solve Sub padding fleet issue.
Lasts posts contain many links to Youtube Documentaries on ATO DDs attacking Subs and Wolfpack.
Sub vs planes w/w out DD: HR to limit subs-fodder and to keep equity
January 16, 2014, 10:56:24 pm to Reply #36 on: July 08, 2014, 06:11:15 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32780.msg1237882#msg1237882Basic principles of a new Sub Warfare House Rule (nSWHR), for review
October 29, 2013, 09:23:32 pm to Reply #14 on: January 09, 2014, 12:29:47 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32248.msg1208515#msg1208515 -
I found this one, not exclusively on Cruiser.
Maybe you were looking for it?
You can place it with corresponding posts theme.
Not enough time to seek into it but don’t want to loose either.Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
@Black_Elk:I’d like to start a general thread discussing this relationship in Axis and Allies: how blitz units can be used to exploit the turn order.
Having explored various concepts on the G40 map, such as a variable turn order, and a totally collapsed turn order by side, and “same time” G40 where all nations move at once… it has become abundantly clear to me that the only way to come up with a workable system to vary turn order, or collapse the turn order, is to first come up with a way for players to make their own can-openers, rather than relying on their Allies to do so. What do you think about the way can openers are used in A&A? And what do you think about how it effects the aesthetics, creating that checkerboard map? You know, where say Italy moves into a territory, then Germany moves to hold this space with infantry and fighters, while blitzing on through to the next space with their armor and mech… Gray, Brown, Gray, Brown etc. It seems to me that this is a huge part of Axis and Allies. Basically the rules about landing aircraft in newly conquered territories (prohibiting it), and the rules that describe the abilities of blitz units, combine to create this feature of the game. I think this is a metagame exploit that the turn order and the blitz rules encourage, but which is so foundational to the game going back to Classic, that everyone accepts it as just built in.
What if the blitz rules were changed? So that turn order didn’t matter for game balance?
Then you could actually explore different ways to approach turn order generally, like variable turn, or collapsed turn, or same time. Think about how Italian ground units can-open for Germany OOB. Or how German air can-open for Japan on the water. Or how America or China can-open for the UK. The turn order exploit is all over the place right now, and is built into the overall balance. To ever get beyond this, step one would be to eliminate the “ally can-opener”, and replace it with a “self can-opener” that you can run on your own combat turn, using your own armor. So for example, right now OOB, Italy takes Baltic States and then Germany blitzes through to take Leningrad, but what we need is for a way for Germany to blitz both by itself. Basically there is enough special stuff going on in G40, that I think you could justify having an entire phase or battle phase round called “Special Combat.” Then put Blitzing into that, in something similar to “sub surprise strike, or scramble, or sbr/intercept” some way for tanks and mech to “advance” out of the combat, and into an adjacent territory.The Blitz move would then feel more like a true blitz, and it would better capture the blitz concept, of rushing units forward in a kind of double combat, rather than having the action separated by a round of gameplay, and interjecting an ally into the equation. What do you think of the idea of allowing for “self can-openers” with Tanks? Also if you like the idea of the self can-opening Tank, what do you think about adding additional Blitz units?
For example, it might be possible to allow such a blitz play with 1 unit type from each category: Land, Air, and Sea…
Land: Armor = Land Blitz
Air: Tactical Bomber = Air Blitz
Sea: Cruiser = Naval BlitzIn this final case with the cruiser, the naval blitz ability could make up for its cost relative to the destroyer, and would give it more of a reason to exist in the unit roster. The self can-opening blitz unit. If this could be done, then A&A could function under other turn order conditions, such as variable sequence of nations, or collapsed turn order by side, or same time play for all nations. These are all possible if new ways can be thought of to handle the Blitz/can opener. Right now I am curious to hear any general thoughts about how the can opener effects your G40 game/experience.
-
Now there’s a blast from the past, I hadn’t thought of in a while! Haha nice one.
:-DGuess I should put this link in here as well, since the blitz topic above mentions it.
This idea was a total conversion of A&A to create “Same Time” combat conditions.http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35590.0
In it we discussed the differences between Same Time, and a similar type of total conversion which has been proposed at various times (by Imperius Leader and others) for 2 turn game, All Axis vs All Allies. Same Time is rather more involved than All Axis vs All Alies, but some may find the idea worth exploring.
At some point when I have a bit more time, I will organize all the turn order HRs into a single section. Right now I can think of 4 broad categories, based on how extreme the proposed HR change is to the concept of the normal game “turn.”
1. Adjusted standard Turn order sequence, with otherwise OOB rules. Example: China First for G40, or American Zero Turn for 1942.2.
2. Randomized start to the standard Turn order sequence. This would be all those HRs I’ve mentioned at various times, where the turn order for a given game is unique and determined by an initial roll. Not sure how much time I’d want to dedicate on this one, since so far the only one interested in the concept seems to be me haha.
3. Collapsed turn order by sides, All Axis vs All Allies. This has been proposed a few times, so probably worth formalizing.
4. And finally Same Time, ie no turn order, players conduct each phase simultaneously.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34581.msg1335539#msg1335539I’ll edit in links when I find them, and try to summarize those rules for anyone who might be interested. Other Total Conversion ideas, not totally unrelated to the first idea of an adjusted turn order would include things like YG’s UK Pacific economy or Halifax ruleset. Or any mods which take a ground up approach to redesign, introducing changes to both the rules and the proposed unit set up for a given board. Some of these have introduced a new standard turn order in the process. But I think the category there should probably be broader, like HRs for “creating new player nations” on a given board. Commonwealth or Vichy or Minor Axis etc could come under that umbrella
-
Factory destruction:
1942.2Rule: when an IC is taken by the enemy it is automatically destroyed.
Purpose: prevents the quick turn-around of production from a captured enemy territory. Now the conqueror must build the factory anew if they want to exploit it. Slows down the Axis, since it means that territories like Karelia, Caucasus, and Moscow don’t provide an immediate production boon when conquered.
Requires more money from the Axis if they want to hold the center. Similarly it opens up alternative territories as candidates for new production, with less fear that they will be used by the enemy. Rules like this one in a game such as 1942.2 would seem to recommend a cheaper factory unit at 12, but that could just be me. Again something like this might work in G40 as well. I’m sure its been discussed endlessly somewhere.
:-)Those are a bit long winded. Still trying to summarize, since the og post is eluding me, but we can trim it down later with internal links.
@Young:
What about…
When a territory with a major industrial complex is captured, it is redused to a minor IC, and if a territory with a minor IC is captured, it is removed from the board.
This was in Redesign thread.
-
Nice! All this re-reading of HRs lately just makes me want to play more.
:-DI’m trying to think of a more general way to state the zero turn idea. The way it works, a nation is jumped to the head of the turn sequence and given a restricted opening. Non Combat, Purchase/Placement to kick off the game (skips combat phase.) From there the match proceeds as usual, otherwise following the standard sequence for the rest of the nations.
I like an American Zero turn A0 for 1942.2
For 1940, I think it would be more interesting and balanced with a minor Nation getting the zero turn. I like China, although an Anzac zero turn might be kind of cool there as well. An American Zero turn is not inconceivable for G40, though you’d have to make a close read on the DoW (I think in that case it would make sense that the zero turn not count towards US entry, so still 4 full rounds.) In both games 1942.2 or G40 the zero turn would act as a bid alternative for Allies, one which puts more of a spotlight on the Pacific side of the board. The nation that receives the zero turn has fewer units to move overall, so the non com itself is quick, but it gives a major leg up to the chosen nation, especially with an extra round of purchase/placement.
This method can be used either to bring the game into a rough balance by sides, or to invert the balance, without altering the starting units. Still leaves open the option of a bid on top if desired.
Here is another HR regarding China…
No movement between Chinese and Russian starting territories.
for 1942.2Rule: The border separating Chinese and Soviet starting territories is now considered impassable for all units.
Szechwan no longer connects to Kazakh.
Sinkiang no longer connects to Kazakh, Novosibirsk, and Evenki.Purpose: to represent the vast distances and unforgiving terrain of Western China, by preventing gamey movements across this border as Japan or the Allies. Closes off the central route of the Axis center crush, and gives the Japanese campaign in China a more singular focus.
This rule is much like the option to close sz 16, except here it applies to land territories and restricts movement for all units (including aircraft.) Likely requires a bid, additional Chinese starting units, or other HRs to keep China in play.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39104.165
-
Here are a few more one-off rules proposed at various points.
War Bonds for All:
for GlobalRule: Each player nation is granted the War Bonds tech advance for free.
Purpose: to increase the overall cash and purchasing variety. Potential substitute for the Allied bid.
It is possible to put a similar rule in place for 1942.2. Basically each nation rolls 1d6 to determine their bonds for that turn.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1452322#msg1452322Island Movement Bonus:
for 1942.2Rule: If an island is completely contained by a single sea zone, and under friendly control, then aircraft movement into or out of that sea zone from the island is not counted towards the total.
In other words, the owner treats the island like a stationary or permanent aircraft carrier inside the sea zone, for the purposes of movement. On defense however (if attacked by the enemy), the island aircraft is still considered to be parked “on the island,” so not hovering in the sea zone at all times, only when moving on the player’s own turn.
purpose: to simulate the air base idea, but in 1942.2, and make otherwise zero ipc island territories more valuable for staging.
I’m struggling to find that one, if anyone comes across it, link me up.
Another rule very similar to the above, but with a different application…
Island Scrambling
for 1942.2Rule: If an island is completely contained by a single sea zone, and under friendly control, then aircraft stationed on this island may scramble to defend the sea zone.
purpose: again to give zero ipc islands some gameplay interest.
I believe the idea was for a nerfed scramble (compared to G40) with a limit of 1 or 2 fighters. Fairly sure both these were discussed in the same thread, though I can’t seem to hunt it down at the moment. Will update with discussion links when I find them.
Oh also, this idea of a house rule master thread, it was first proposed here…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1535806#msg1535806That was a while back. Clearly taken me some time to muster up the motivation haha. Consider this the draft thread. Its mainly trying to pair things down and put them in a list format. For a proper list, once I have enough material in one place. I will use the locked thread idea that YG suggested. But to do that first need to get the list and the links.
Still hoping some others will help me bang it out here. Even if you can’t recall exactly where the rule first arose, or point to a discussion, if you can describe the HR in a few words, hit me with it. Because that stuff is helpful too.
:-D -
I think this is definitely worth including in the list…
Income & Progress Credit
for all gamesConcept: the acronym “IPC” is now understood to stand for “Income & Progress Credit,” rather than Industrial Production Certificate or Industrial Production Capacity.
Purpose: to make this basic element of the game’s internal economy more abstract and flexible. Grants players the ability to adjust IPC values in their HRs with greater freedom and conceptual consistency.
This is not exactly a rule in and of itself, but rather a way to support or justify house rules that make adjustments to the boxed IPC values. These could be anything really, from starting cash, to objective or territory bonuses, to direct adjustment of values on the game map. It separates the IPC from any strict connection to industrial development or resources, so it can function more like a more generic game point and gameplay driver/reward.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38721.msg1596006#msg1596006
-
Income & Production Credit
for all gamesConcept: the acronym “IPC” is now understood to stand for “Income & Production Credit,”
Shouldn’t that be “Income and Progress Credit”, which was the formulation (and the underlying concept) in the other thread?
-
@CWO:
Income & Production Credit
for all gamesConcept: the acronym “IPC” is now understood to stand for “Income & Production Credit,”
Shouldn’t that be “Income and Progress Credit”, which was the formulation (and the underlying concept) in the other thread?
Lazy typing from phone haha. Yes, and thank you! Corrected now, in all threads where I just posted.
And thank you for the acronym. I think it’s brilliant!IPC = “Income & Progress Credit”
-
Alternative capital capture and liberation rules. These have been discussed in various places, so if you have links by all means, but here are another half dozen rules I’ve used before with varying degrees of success. Some of these are compatible, others mutually exclusive. For all games.
Capitals can only be looted once.
Rule: capturing an enemy capital only awards the vanquished player’s purse to the conqueror the first time the capital is taken. If a liberated capital is captured a second time that nation’s purse is returned to the bank.
Purpose: to discourage the situation where a team declines to liberate a fallen capital for fear that it will simply be looted again and again and again.
:-DCapitals can only be looted for half the cash.
Rule: when a capital is captured only half of the vanquished nation’s purse is awarded to the conqueror (round down).Option A. The rest of the cash is returned to the bank.
Option B: if the vanquished player still controls a territory with a production value, they get to keep the other half of the cash.
Capitals can no longer be looted.
Rule: the capital capture looting rules are removed from play.
Option A. When a capital falls all their cash is returned to the bank.
Option B. If a nation still has a territory with a production value, they keep all their cash.
Purpose: to limit the capital capture dynamic’s overwhelming influence as a gameplay driver. Prolongs the endgame.
Secondary Capital
Rule: When a nation’s original capital is captured, a new capital is established. The nation may continue to collect income and conduct their phases as normal, so long as they still control the secondary capital.Option A. The secondary capital is established at the start of the match.
Option B. The secondary capital is declared as soon as the original capital falls.Possible restrictions: Only a victory city may serve as a secondary capital. Or…
Only a territory with an existing industrial complex may serve as a secondary capital. Or both.Control of original territories is not immediately restored when a capital is liberated.
Rule: Only the capital itself is liberated. All other territories under friendly control must first be occupied by a ground unit of the restored nation, in order to be reclaimed for production/income collection.Purpose: to encourage liberation during the endgame, without immediately sacrificing overall production and income parity in the process, for the liberating side.
A vanquished nation’s territory may be claimed by the first friendly nation to occupy it.
Rule: when a nation loses control of their capital, the rules for original ownership of all other territories still under their control no longer apply. Any nation on their team may claim such a territory (for production/income) simply by occupying it with a ground unit.Option: remaining units in such territories are treated as pro-side neutrals, and can be claimed by the occupier.
Gold Reserve
This idea was not fully articulated, but also seemed interesting. Related to the looting dynamic.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1449117#msg1449117If anyone has other such rules they want to introduce, or variations on the above, hit us with em and we’ll edit them into the final HR list.
-
Another one just mentioned, but which has been kicked around before.
Team Coordination Rules:
Unit co-location restrictions
For G40 and 1942.2Rule: Basic formulation = (Nation’s) units cannot end their turn in (Teammate’s) “starting” territories, if those territories were still under friendly control at the start of the turn.*
The following restrictions are in effect, until the relevant capital is conquered. After the capital falls, team coordination rules for starting territories of the vanquished Nation no longer apply.
Japanese units cannot end their turn in European Axis starting territories.
European Axis units cannot end their turn in Japanese starting territories.
Western Allies units cannot end their turn in Soviet starting territories.
Soviet Units cannot end their turn in Western Allies starting territories. **
*If the territory in question was under enemy control at the start of the turn, then it may be liberated by a teammate, but the liberator must leave the following turn or be in violation of the rule. If the units are unable to leave a liberated territory on the following turn they will be automatically removed.
**1942.2 Option: US supported starting Chinese territories are not considered “Western” for the rule as stated above. Soviet units may end their turn in Chinese territories, but American units (including those in China) still cannot end their turn in starting Russian territories. So the movement across the border of Western China is one way, from Russia to US supported China, but not the other way around.
Purpose: To prevent gamey and ahistorical unit movements by teammates. For example, by the US/British in Soviet starting territories, by the Soviets in British starting territories, by the Japanese in European Axis starting Territories etc. Restricts aircraft transits in particular, to prevent the worst abuses. Likely creates some balance issues by sides.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39465.0 -
About changing PTO islands, NAP and Victory conditions to create more action in PTO
First time I produce an alternate VC condition based on 6 IPCs bonus NAP for Japan:How Can We Incentivize the US to Split its Effort Between Atlantic and Pacific?
July 14, 2016, 06:17:40 pm to reply #18 on: July 20, 2016, 04:44:41 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38240.msg1562052#msg1562052I also found that one:
Mariana Islands: Winning Strategy, the Zero IPC Island Crush
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34839.msg1348932#msg1348932If its an acceptable HR to solve this issue for G40, do you have some ideas for 1942.2?
I’ve just found an old Thread based on one of your old post on Harris Game Design.
Maybe it can be a start up to think about it?Increasing action in PTO: The Case against 0 ipc territories (Pacific Islands)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32221.msg1207041#msg1207041We already discuss this issue here:
Production Mod for 1942.2
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33302.msg1267351#msg1267351Here is the Opening post:
@Black_Elk:This mod makes no changes to the map divisions, or the starting unit placement. Only to the production values on the board. See map overview
I have tried to gather all my thoughts surrounding production and present them in the simplest way I could think of, with a direct mod to the OOB game. At a glance it feels very similar to the OOB set up, but substantive changes to the value of key territories allow for a more expansive game. With new purchasing options and new strategies.
On the physical board the modification can be done with those little round stickers you can get at any office supply store. Only the production numbers change, nothing else, so you can use the same set up cards.
Basically the idea is this… If you give Russia more money (esp. in the East), not only do you balance the Russian game against the most crushing tank drives, but you also give Japan a viable route into North America. The start is 90 to 130, but this levels out to around 110-115 for both sides from the second into the third round, and could go either way after that. Can you see how the production builds? Basically this kind of distribution gives Japan more directions to go, instead of the straight push towards Moscow. At the same time, it gives Germany, UK and USA more options and potential attack routes. The idea is to put the money into the contested territories, so that rather than folding back to the core, all players are encouraged to fight out, and drive, developing production along the way.
Take a look at the Eastern Front, Karelia in particular, then the Soviet Far East, the Pacific and China, North Africa, the governing principle is - more money, but always and only where it can trade hands. Along the way, all zero ipc territories are given a value.
I’m curious to know if anyone likes this sort of direction for a mod?
My thought was to keep the alterations focused on only a single aspect of the game, production, that way it is easier to adopt. So no messing with the map divisions, or the starting units, just modifications to the territory values. I’d like to hear any thoughts you might have on the way I distributed production, if you like it, or if not what you would adjust.
Many people like to customize the game with a bid or unit adjustments to balance, or special rules. My chief interest is in how production might be used to accomplish similar things, without requiring additional rules, units etc.
-
Rules relating to Victory…
Quick Victory for 1942.2
Rule: Axis win at 8 VCs, Allies win at 9 VCs.
Purpose: to make for a more intense early game, that resolves in sudden death. Likely requires some balance adjustment to prevent rapid Axis victory. This is the Victory option provided in TripleA, as an alternative to the 9/10 conditions stated in the Manual, or the 13 VC total domination game.
Victory Objectives & Victory Tokens for Global
Rules: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39467.0
Purpose: Provides a ready way to determine the Victor and track game progress through the use of tokens. Under this system, players achieve Victory not simply by capturing VC territories, but rather by completing themed objectives. The gameplay incentive towards Victory, is encouraged by capturing tokens which can then be used for research and development breakthroughs. The tokens can be tallied for a final count at the end of the night, or with an option for sudden death at the end of the game round, to determine who won and who lost.
Victory Objectives & Victory Tokens
Once a victory objective is achieved, a victory token will be awarded, the side with the most victory tokens at the end of the day wins the game. Victory tokens are awarded immediately upon completion regardless of when, or how the objective was achieved. Also, a token can never be taken away once earned, and they may never be awarded twice for the same objective. It doesn’t matter which round the game ends, however, a win or a tie can only be declared at the end of a full game round.
New Research & Development Rule:
Research rolls are no longer used to develop breakthroughs, instead, nations are awarded development rolls when victory objectives have been achieved. Once a victory token is gained, the nation with the corresponding (*) instructions listed with each objective will choose a breakthrough chart, and make a free development roll with the resulting breakthrough taking effect immediately (may not effect units already in battle during the turn in which the breakthrough was rolled). Any breakthroughs gained by the UK regardless of which side of the map a token was achieved will effect all UK purchases and all UK units on the board.
Here is a list of all victory objectives for each side…
-
I stumbled into two posts of yours about increasing 1941 economy and introducing units.
May that help when Redesigning 1941 on TripleA.Has anyone tried tweaking IPC values or implementing artillery, AA guns, or strategic bombing for this edition?
Yes on all counts. :)
I will depart a bit from the others who responded so far and suggest that you adapt your 1941 game.
1941 is an ideal mapboard to tweak. I favor it for its simplicity and ease of instruction. Basically its the only board out right now, that I think I could confidently teach a complete newb how to play in one evening.Something about is just charming to me, even for all its flaws. First off, it’d be good to adapt because you already own it and are familiar with it, but also because, without tweaking, the game can get boring rather quickly. The upside of 41 is that its quick to set up and fast to play. The downside is that it emulates the experience of the original Classic grind, with slow infantry pushes and limited options on broader strategy.
My IPC tweak and correction for this board was very simple, add +1 ipc for each territory controlled. This money was added to the total at the collect income phase for each nation, but did not count towards the production value. So basically an influx of cash, but retaining the same production spread. The effect was to up the total money in play by about a third and to re-balance the game Axis vs Allies (since Allies begin with more territories under their control.) This was tested under both the vanilla Boxed set up, and also with the modifications by Krieghund. The proposal to give extra infantry in Russia, China, and an extra destroyer for America. While I found that I enjoyed both, it was definitely more fun with the extra infantry and destroyer than it was OOB, since this allowed for a stronger Allied start, and a more even game overall. However, even then, I found that the lack of artillery made the overall game length more drawn out than I had become accustomed to on other boards. For all its simplifications, the game just still felt like it was dragging. That is when I tried with Artillery, and since then I haven’t gone back.
Artillery is the key, if you can find some units from other boards or online, I say go for it. The traditional cost at 4 works fine, and the infantry boost ability provides a major shift in the overall attack defense dynamics. The inclusion of Artillery alone fixes most of my gripes with this map.
1941 can be fun if you are willing to play around with it a bit.
I consider it the most shuck-crazy Axis and Allies map of all time! You’re shuck-shucking all over the place on this map!Unlike 1942.2 which eliminated shucks wherever it could, this board did the exact opposite. That creates a kind of wild logistical situation where it is much easier (at least in terms of the mapboard itself) to reverse direction in the middle of the game. Aircraft especially can be bounced around with a quickness.
There is an exploit on this map, that is unavoidable, I call it fighter camping. Basically it is a result of the fact that Berlin and Moscow are only 3 moves apart. This means that fighters from either side can defend one capital while simultaneously threatening the other. At first I didn’t like this aspect of the game. I thought it was exceedingly silly, especially as regards the Japanese push on Moscow (being able to camp fighters in Berlin and still use them in attacks against Moscow.) But now I am starting to see the novelty of the design. Its basically like a ticking time bomb. The first player who removes his fighters from “capital defense” to send them for “capital attack” sets off a round of cascading attacks from everyone. In practical terms, what this means is that you have to be ready to attack Berlin as soon as Moscow is attacked (immediately) or vice versa. I find that with the proper tweaks in place, this fact of the map’s territory division, has the potential to resolve games more quickly.
So yeah I would say give it go. I have played this board using pretty much all the units of 1942.2. The only units that gave me pause were the AAgun and the SBR of the bomber. At one point I was playing with no bombers at all. The only problem I found with AA and SBR, is there was not enough income/production on the board to properly implement it. I think if you want to try those abilities and units, its essential to introduce more money. Otherwise the effect of a single run can be so game changing (either on SBR, or if it gets shot down) that its hard to predict the overall effect on game balance. Or at least that is what I have found. I mean, the decision to strat bomb or attack with air against an AA gun is just so major. I would say, if you do want to include the anti aircraft artillery unit, then its best to just let players buy them, rather than including them in the starting unit set up. They can be very deadly on a lucky roll, since there are less aircraft overall with the starting units, and these are expensive and difficult to replace.
My suggestion is to just start by adding artillery, and see if you enjoy the effect on the gameplay. I find it much improved
Yeah there are actually several different methods to introduce money with this board.
You can do it by individual territories controlled, or, even more simply, with a generic bonus. For example:
+3, +5 or +10 ipcs for each VC controlled. Conveniently there are only 5 VCs in 1941 and all of these also happen to be capitals. So it is possible to introduce extra money with an even distribution to each player Nation. Or you can add the bonus based on Factories controlled +X ipcs per factory. Or, if you want it to be variable, you could also try +1d6 ipcs for each VC, on a roll every round for each player nation. Things like that can provide an easy way to break stalemates or slow crawls in 41.The overall OOB money is so low in 1941, that even a tiny change in cash can be major. So long as you don’t adjust the production values, the extra money tends to encourage the purchase of more powerful units, such as artillery, tanks, ships and aircraft. This also makes the replacement cost of the starting units easier to absorb, should they die in the first round, which could be helpful if you plan to introduce SBR or AAfire. Consider that a territory like UK or Germany could get bombed up to a total of 6 production in the very first round, which is half of the entire war chest OOB! Extra money can make these things like SBR easier to balance for. Taking the chance against an AA gun with a bomber would take some serious brass on this board! but the effects could likewise be decisive. Similarly, bombardment can also be introduced on this board. It just depends how much you want to add, and which sculpts you can acquire. But the map itself is pretty simple to modify, since it starts from a simple base.
You may wish to experiment with different ways of adding money, I just find the capital bonus or the territory count methods to be the simplest.
I suggest a bid between 15-20 ipcs for Allies for the vanilla unit set up. That covers the spread on Russia at least, which gets crushed by G otherwise. 3 inf for Russia, 1 inf in China, and 1 Destroyer in sz 11 = 20 ipcs total, the suggested modification… though that doesn’t consider the inclusion of artillery. Alternatively you can just bid out Allies and open around 20. Whatever suits your style. I find that artillery makes for a tighter game.
Have fun!
-
This one talk about map reshaping in Europe, making Berlin a land TTy only with no access to Baltic Sea.
Amphibious invasion of Berlin: A recurring issue
June 24, 2014, 01:55:30 pm to reply #17 on: June 30, 2014, 01:42:16 am
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33755.msg1293376#msg1293376Another map reshaping for 1942.2, this is opening post:
@Argothair:Background
So, for those of you just tuning in, there’s a reasonably broad consensus about A&A 1942: 2nd Edition that it’s a fabulous game but that (a) it’s slightly unbalanced in favor of the Axis, and (b) it fails to break out of the increasingly tired rut where Russia immediately evacuates all of its Asian troops, China is a speed bump at best, and the optimal strategy is for the Axis to race for Moscow while the Allies race for Berlin.
We’ve talked about many potential solutions for these issues, most of which have involved adding additional units and/or changing the price of units. We’ve steered clear of changing the map, though, mostly because map changes disrupt game balance in ways that are hard to predict, and tend to damage the graphics – you don’t want to go around leaving permanent marks on your snazzy $60 game boards with a $2 sharpie.
A Modest Proposal
Keeping those risks in mind, I have a proposal for a very small set of changes to the 1942.2 map that could yield big payoffs in terms of creating additional game balance and strategic variety without ruining the aesthetic appeal of the game. It’s just a proposal, though, so I strongly recommend using a pencil…
-
Draw a vertical line from the northeast corner of Afghanistan to the center of the southern border of Sianking, dividing Szechuan into two territories: Qinghai (west) and Henan (east). Qinghai is worth 1 IPC and contains a new Victory City named Chongqing. Qinghai starts the game with 1 American infantry. Qinghai borders Kazakh, Sinkiang, and Henan. Henan is worth 2 IPC and starts the game with 2 American infantry, 1 American anti-aircraft gun, 1 American fighter, and 1 factory. Henan borders Sinkiang, Henan, Anhwei, Kwangtung, and Yunnan.
-
Draw a vertical line from the northwest corner of the Caspian Sea to the center of the southern border of West Russia, dividing the Caucasus into two territories: Armenia (west) and Volgograd (east). Armenia is worth 4 IPCs and starts the game with 3 infantry and 1 artillery. Armenia borders Ukraine, West Russia, Volgograd, Persia, and the Black Sea. Volgograd is worth 2 IPCs and starts the game with 1 tank, 1 anti-aircraft gun, and 1 factory. Volgograd contains a new Victory City named Stalingrad, and borders Armenia, West Russia, Russia, and Kazakh.
-
Draw a diagonal line that runs across the narrowest portion of Vologda, starting from the southeastern border of Archangel and finishing at the northwestern border of Novosibirsk. The line will split Vologda into two territories: Omsk (west) and Chelayabinsk (east). Omsk is worth 1 IPC and starts the game with 1 infantry. Omsk borders Russia, Archangel, Chelayabinsk, and Novosibirsk. Chelayabinsk is worth 2 IPCs and starts the game with 1 factory. Chelayabinsk borders Omsk, Archangel, Evenki, and Novosibirsk.
-
Draw a vertical line splitting Libya into two territories: Tunisia (west) and Cyrenaica (east). Tunisia is worth 2 IPCs and borders Algeria, Cyrenaica, and the Italian sea zone. Tunisia contains a new victory city named Tunis. Tunisia starts with 2 German infantry at setup. Cyrenaica is worth 1 IPC and borders Tunisia, Egypt, and the Italian sea zone. Cyrenaica starts with 1 German tank at setup.
-
Eastern Australia is now worth 2 IPCs instead of 1 IPC, and contains a victory city (Sydney).
New Starting IPCs:
USSR: 24 -> 27 IPCs (+3)
Germany: 40 -> 42 IPCs (+2)
Britain: 31 -> 32 IPCs (+1)
Japan: 30 -> 30 IPCs (no change)
USA: 42 -> 44 IPCs (+2)New Victory City List:
Allies (10): Washington, London, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Calcutta, Chongqing, Honolulu, Sydney, San Francisco
Axis (7): Paris, Berlin, Rome, Tunis, Shanghai, Tokyo, ManilaThere are 17 total victory cities. If either the Allies or the Axis control 11 or more Victory Cities at the end of the USA’s turn, then that team immediately wins.
New Russian Starting Factory List:
Karelia (2 units/turn), Volgograd (2 units/turn), Russia (8 units/turn), Chelayabinsk (2 units/turn).Strategy Discussion
The point of these changes is to encourage the Russians to vigorously defend their Asian territories, to encourage Germany to vigorously defend north Africa, to allow the Americans to pump major resources into China if they so choose, to force the Allies to defend at least part of the Pacific, and to give both sides even chances at victory even without a bid.
The Russians now have a starting factory in the Ural mountains (Chelayabinsk). Holding that factory and the immediately adjacent territories is worth 6 IPCs, meaning that you can drop two infantry a turn into the Ural factory and have them pay for themselves. Russia may not have a good reason to defend Buryatia, Yakutsk, and the Soviet Far East, but now at least there is a Russian rallying point somewhere along the 3,000 miles between Vladivostok and Moscow. If the Japanese conquer Chelayabinsk, it will seriously improve the Japanese income and logistical situation, but it is not necessarily an immediate game over for Moscow, which is still two spaces away.
The Russians now have some room to trade in the south – Germany wants to capture Armenia because of the valuable oil worth 4 IPCs, and can do so relatively easily by swinging the Italian navy over to the northeast, but because Armenia does not come with a free factory, and because the USSR can still produce units in Volgograd, it is not necessarily worthwhile for the Axis to pull extreme stunts like flying the Japanese air force over to defend a captured Armenia.
The Americans now have a starting factory in China (Qinghai) that is guaranteed a chance to produce 2 units before the Japanese can even attack it. Because the Americans start with an extra infantry and extra AAA gun in the region, if the Americans use both builds and also consolidate all forces in Qinghai, they have some hope of holding it against the Japanese on turn 2 even if Japan sends all available forces and the Russians/British do not help reinforce it. With a coordinated Allied effort, China can now hold against a mid-strength Japanese attack until turn 5 or 6 without the need to strip Russia or India bare.
In north Africa, the Germans no longer have an attractive option to blow open Egypt on turn 1, because the ex-Libyan infantry is now out of position in Tunis. On the other hand, the Americans no longer have the option of defending all of Africa by ferrying troops to Morocco – once the Germans do crack Egypt on turn 2 or turn 3, the Allies will have to reinforce sub-Saharan Africa via West Africa and/or India, because Morocco is just too damn far away. On the third hand, if the Americans do choose to land in Morocco, the Germans will be less likely to just abandon north Africa in response, because now they have a 2 IPC territory with a victory city in it to defend. If the Germans let the Americans walk into Tunis, the Americans can build a factory there, and use it to seize Paris and Rome, setting up a European Allied victory even if the Allies never capture Berlin.
Meanwhile, most of the old strategies can still be used if desired – the sea zones are all the same, the navies and air forces are all the same, the capitals are all in the same places, the starting forces distribution is virtually unchanged, and most of the map is encouragingly free of pencil marks.
Let me know what you think!
PS Many thanks to Black_Elk for his thread on moving Russia’s factories to the east, which is what got me thinking about these map changes in the first place, and to everyone for your feedback on earlier articles I’ve posted, which have helped me push the ideas in this piece forward to (what I hope) is their logical conclusion.
-
-
This post is intended to include everything talking about Dark Sky strategy:
Rethinking Strategic Bomber and Tactical Bomber Roles
February 27, 2015, 06:45:33 pm to reply #90 on: May 04, 2015, 11:55:49 am
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35415.msg1380504#msg1380504This thread discuss strategy but within there is also a few HRs suggestions:
German bomber strategy - How to play and How to counter
February 25, 2015, 02:57:11 pm to reply #302 on: October 14, 2015, 05:22:54 am
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35390.msg1379645#msg13796451942.2 Strategic Bombing Raid SBR, Bombers and escorts, Interceptors vs triple A
August 19, 2014, 09:25:18 pm to reply Reply #6 on: April 10, 2015, 12:50:04 pm
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34118.msg1311386#msg1311386@Baron:
@captain:
I’m not if favor of changing the rules, but I do feel some of the rules favor this strategy.
Like the delayed entry and reduced income for the US…by the time the US can get to Gib, Germany could already have enough bombers to take out their fleet.Or that you’re only allowed to scramble three fighters from an airbase…a big stack of fighters doesn’t help much if you can only use three of them to defend against a bomber stack.
They change the “rules” every time we turn around. They change how much units cost all the time why is the latest iteration sacred? If you can win the game most of the time just by building 1 unit then that unit is too powerful and it should be made more expensive or less powerful in values. There has been a continual struggle over decades to keep A&A games balanced and to act like one unit value or one specific rule is unchangeable is silly. The fact is the bomber strategy makes a mockery of the game and I won’t use it even if it works, I would prefer that a strategy to neutralize it would emerge (short of bids going into the 30s) but if it doesn’t the game needs to be adjusted for the enjoyment of those who play. No one wants to play a game where one and only strategy dominates.
Talking about opening the OOBox:
You can increase the cost. (The simplest but not very creative.)
Or develop the other units to be a good response to the overwhelming mobility and projection of power of Strategic Bombers stack.You can add some countermeasures to one neglect unit, such as giving Cruiser an AAA capacity.
Or a combined arms bonus which gives same AAA capacity as OOB land AAA, to two or three warships paired 1:1:1, such as Cruiser, Battleship and Aircraft Carrier.You can increase the combat value of Fighters specifically against planes.
(The simplest is a “1” on any roll hit directly enemy’s planes.
But there is more interesting ways, inspired by 1914 Fighter.)or you could do something with unescorted bombers attacking at lower values which would be much more realistic, I cringe every time I send a stack of unescorted bombers against a factory because in reality any fighter cover would make mincemeat of unescorted bombers (unless its a night raid).
For this specific point, you can modify Strategic Bombing Raids escort and intercept values of Fighter:
Gives escorting Fg: Attack 2 and intercepting Fg: Defense 2.
(The actual OOB G40 SBR rules are very much against the defender which can only use the Fgs from the IC’s territory.
For his part, attacker can bring as much StBs, TcBs and Fgs within range.
Also, Fg having the same defense D1 value as the Bomber attack factor A1 gives an important advantage toward attacking Bombers and is quite unhistorical.)Allows up to three Fighters only on an operational Air Base to scramble in an adjacent territory (not just SZ) which have an Industrial Complex/Naval Base/Air Base under SBR/TBR to be able to act as interceptors.
You can increase the combat value of AAA unit.
Allows each AAA to make up to 1 roll per plane per combat round (instead of 3 initial rolls and no more after), let it works the same as other units but only against planes.
You can even make more powerful this neglect 5 IPCs unit:
Up to three pre-emptive rolls @1 against up to 3 planes, whichever the lesser, and 1 regular roll @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser, for the other rounds.You can lower the price of AAA unit to 4 IPCs or even 3 IPCs, so it becomes easier to provide an Anti-Aircraft cover against StBs umbrellas attack.
You can also allows 1 or 2 Fighters or Tactical Bombers (with enough additional move points) to land in a just conquered territory to protect the remaining ground units, which are usually weaker and more vulnerable to large stack of Bombers.
Naval units can do it by bringing a few Carriers in a SZ, you can at least allows that land territory being able to receive a similar number of planes as if you bring in a single carrier unit.Allows up to one Fighter only per Aircraft Carrier (max 3 Fgs) to scramble from an adjacent SZ into a territory which have an Industrial Complex/Naval Base/Air Base under SBR/TBR to be able to act as interceptors.
About this specific issue:
@captain:Or that you’re only allowed to scramble three fighters from an airbase…a big stack of fighters doesn’t help much if you can only use three of them to defend against a bomber stack.
Allows the building of one additional Air Base in any given territory, maximum: 2 per territories.
That way, up to 6 Fgs or TcBs can be scramble into one SZ.
However, it means that the first 4 damage points are for making both ABs non-operational, but it can rise to 12 damage points, since each AB worth 6 damage points.Allows defenseless transports stack under Airplanes attack only, a single regular defense AA roll @1/per plane per transport, whichever the lesser. Once done, all transports are destroyed, even if all planes were destroyed too.
Thanks for this thread topic.
It provides an opportunity to summarize a lot of other HR discussed in the Forum.
(Without it, I’d never try to put in a single post every HR related to StBs somehow.) :-)Are Bombers broken? HR adjustment explorations continuating the Global tread
June 11, 2013, 07:46:51 am to reply #13 on: June 20, 2013, 07:38:30 am
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31373.msg1151805#msg1151805 -
This a general comment on playtest and Triple A:
@Black_Elk:Why test Halifax using TripleA?
Basically because I don’t trust anecdotal evidence when it comes to Axis and Allies anymore. Especially when the issue concerns overall set-up and game balance. Before making a serious judgment about anything, I would want to see hard data, and the only data that is reliable for me right now is the data gathered during TripleA playtesting. Why?
Well, essentially what it comes down to is a complete lack of confidence, on my part, in the playtesting methods used for the Official A&A Games. Put simply, I am not convinced that the OOB games are being properly playtested before they are released.
I regard pretty much all playtesting evidence from Face to Face games as anecdotal. That’s not to say its irrelevant or that its not useful in other ways, but when it comes to actually breaking the set-up and finding out where it tilts one way or the other on balance, the issue is quantity as much as quality. An FtF game can still be a lot of fun and tell you whether a game can be entertaining, even a hopelessly unbalanced one, but they are also harder to organize. It takes longer to play FtF, and when you are playing everything happens in tunnel vision. You can’t step outside the game to really analyse a specific roll, or see why such and such a buy went wrong, or how exactly a single battle in the second round altered the course of everything. Because then your turn comes up and you have to roll, and who has time for all that analysis when the rolls are up? While you are inside the game, its the play that’s important, and the analysis often falls by the wayside. Even for people who write things down, and who approach it more analytically, while the game is going on its the flow that captures all the attention. That’s cool when you’re playing the game, but not as much for trying to parse it out and scrutinize it for balance. Here’s the hitch with FtF…
Not only is there no way to confirm that a game was actually played (unless you witness it firsthand), but there is also no strong way to verify or track what actually happened in that game, after the fact. Even with a really dedicated group of playtesters, taking diligent notes, with video or photographs, even then, the best FtF playtesters still can’t give us the level of detail that tripleA testing can, not at anything like the same speed at any rate. In tripleA each phase, of each turn, of each game round is tracked, and recorded in the game history.
This makes it possible to review each test game, to go back and look at what actually happened in exacting detail. So for example, if I tell you “The Axis are unstoppable for reasons X, Y, or Z!” or “The Allies always do A, B, and C!” you don’t have to take my word for it. You can actually go back and look at the gamesave, check the history and see for yourself. It would be impossible to overstate how valuable this is from a playtesting perspective. Not only can you track everything and review it after the fact, but you can also view critical statistics at a glance for every round of gameplay. You can check the odds on every first round battle, both under normal Dice and Low Luck conditions, and you can verify whether the game is actually being played at a high level of skill, (e.g. whether the buys and battles are expert, or middling, or beginner.) What’s more, you can test how any potential future set up change will effect the first round odds on any given battle or strat. And on top of all this, you can dramatically increase the number of games playtested in a given amount of time.
I have been trying since 2004 to persuade Larry and others of the merits of going digital for playtesting, using a platform like tripleA, for all the reasons listed above. To my knowledge this approach has not been adopted, and the result, so far as I can see, is a series of OOB games (rather poorly balanced by sides= bids or HRS necessary for balance) being released for sale to the general public before they are fully cooked.
I think if we are serious about creating a G40 mod that is “balanced”, then playtesting on the tripleA platform is the obvious way forward. Now that we have a gamefile for our set-up, it is time to invite our best players to try and break it against each other! If imbalances are discovered, and changes are made, at least we will have evidence to back them up. Make sense?
-
@Baron:
This a general comment on playtest and Triple A:
@Black_Elk:Why test Halifax using TripleA?
Basically because I don’t trust anecdotal evidence when it comes to Axis and Allies anymore. Especially when the issue concerns overall set-up and game balance. Before making a serious judgment about anything, I would want to see hard data, and the only data that is reliable for me right now is the data gathered during TripleA playtesting. Why?
Well, essentially what it comes down to is a complete lack of confidence, on my part, in the playtesting methods used for the Official A&A Games. Put simply, I am not convinced that the OOB games are being properly playtested before they are released.
I regard pretty much all playtesting evidence from Face to Face games as anecdotal. That’s not to say its irrelevant or that its not useful in other ways, but when it comes to actually breaking the set-up and finding out where it tilts one way or the other on balance, the issue is quantity as much as quality. An FtF game can still be a lot of fun and tell you whether a game can be entertaining, even a hopelessly unbalanced one, but they are also harder to organize. It takes longer to play FtF, and when you are playing everything happens in tunnel vision. You can’t step outside the game to really analyse a specific roll, or see why such and such a buy went wrong, or how exactly a single battle in the second round altered the course of everything. Because then your turn comes up and you have to roll, and who has time for all that analysis when the rolls are up? While you are inside the game, its the play that’s important, and the analysis often falls by the wayside. Even for people who write things down, and who approach it more analytically, while the game is going on its the flow that captures all the attention. That’s cool when you’re playing the game, but not as much for trying to parse it out and scrutinize it for balance. Here’s the hitch with FtF…
Not only is there no way to confirm that a game was actually played (unless you witness it firsthand), but there is also no strong way to verify or track what actually happened in that game, after the fact. Even with a really dedicated group of playtesters, taking diligent notes, with video or photographs, even then, the best FtF playtesters still can’t give us the level of detail that tripleA testing can, not at anything like the same speed at any rate. In tripleA each phase, of each turn, of each game round is tracked, and recorded in the game history.
This makes it possible to review each test game, to go back and look at what actually happened in exacting detail. So for example, if I tell you “The Axis are unstoppable for reasons X, Y, or Z!” or “The Allies always do A, B, and C!” you don’t have to take my word for it. You can actually go back and look at the gamesave, check the history and see for yourself. It would be impossible to overstate how valuable this is from a playtesting perspective. Not only can you track everything and review it after the fact, but you can also view critical statistics at a glance for every round of gameplay. You can check the odds on every first round battle, both under normal Dice and Low Luck conditions, and you can verify whether the game is actually being played at a high level of skill, (e.g. whether the buys and battles are expert, or middling, or beginner.) What’s more, you can test how any potential future set up change will effect the first round odds on any given battle or strat. And on top of all this, you can dramatically increase the number of games playtested in a given amount of time.
I have been trying since 2004 to persuade Larry and others of the merits of going digital for playtesting, using a platform like tripleA, for all the reasons listed above. To my knowledge this approach has not been adopted, and the result, so far as I can see, is a series of OOB games (rather poorly balanced by sides= bids or HRS necessary for balance) being released for sale to the general public before they are fully cooked.
I think if we are serious about creating a G40 mod that is “balanced”, then playtesting on the tripleA platform is the obvious way forward. Now that we have a gamefile for our set-up, it is time to invite our best players to try and break it against each other! If imbalances are discovered, and changes are made, at least we will have evidence to back them up. Make sense?
And there you have it folks :-D
Suggested Topics
