That would be nice, but hes my tourney partner :-)
We do have a lot of people to play against but unfortunately they’re all good.
Larry Harris Semi-Official Tournament Game Patch
-
Please delete this thread and make all comments on Larry’s site. Creating threads like this will detract from the effort by fragmenting the conversation. Thanks.
-
I cannot delete posts, and LH has not posted my on-topic replies to his moderated board in any event, so how can I be “fragmenting the conversation” when no “conversation” is occurring?
-
He was probably referring the ongoing conversation on Larry’s website about this very subject.
-
Indeed I am. I can assure you that even if Larry isn’t responding, he is reading every report and comment posted on his site. He is not, however, checking this one (or any other). Posting comments on sites other than his just encourages conversation on the subject that he will never see, which robs him of valuable feedback.
Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
-
If he’s reading our comments on his site, and he values our feedback, then he could take five seconds to click the button to make our comments show up on his website, so that our comments can be included in the conversation.
If he doesn’t value our feedback, or if he can’t even be bothered to click a button, then I see little reason to accommodate Mr. Harris by limiting where we discuss the issue. Courtesy is a two-way street!
-
Hmmmm.
There is no reason to delete this thread. The opening post advising of the Tournament set up is of value here. And we are at liberty to discuss that topic.
But in doing so we now know that we are merely entertaining ourselves rather than having any influence, much as we might wish it otherwise. Thanks to Kreighund for making that clear so that those who wish to be heard can post on Larry’s website. Argothair’s argument that it only takes a click (or two) cuts both ways.
-
Is the sign up on the harrisgamedesign.com website broken? I still haven’t gotten the email and it isn’t in junk. I’ve tried getting it resent too.
-
I would have posted there, but have logged myself out, without realising,
and cannot remember my name or password.
No rude comments about senility, please! -
:roll:
-
If he’s reading our comments on his site, and he values our feedback, then he could take five seconds to click the button to make our comments show up on his website, so that our comments can be included in the conversation.
If he doesn’t value our feedback, or if he can’t even be bothered to click a button, then I see little reason to accommodate Mr. Harris by limiting where we discuss the issue. Courtesy is a two-way street!
Larry simply doesn’t have the time to search this site and the several other A&A sites (and other general sites such as Facebook) where people may or may not be posting comments. He’s been kind enough to take on this project, so you can play by his rules (no pun intended) and be a part of the official conversation, or not. It’s totally up to you. I don’t mean to be rude, but that’s just the reality of the situation.
@Private:
There is no reason to delete this thread. The opening post advising of the Tournament set up is of value here. And we are at liberty to discuss that topic.
That’s a good point. This thread should serve as a beacon to draw attention to the official discussion, which can be found here. Everyone is welcome!
@Private:
But in doing so we now know that we are merely entertaining ourselves rather than having any influence, much as we might wish it otherwise. Thanks to Kreighund for making that clear so that those who wish to be heard can post on Larry’s website. Argothair’s argument that it only takes a click (or two) cuts both ways.
You’re welcome.
Is the sign up on the harrisgamedesign.com website broken? I still haven’t gotten the email and it isn’t in junk. I’ve tried getting it resent too.
Unfortunately, the anti-spammer measures at Larry’s site can cause a delay of up to a couple of days when you’re signing up and making your first post. Please be patient.
-
For those that are interested I have been playing this against wittmann.
I was axis.
Although I started out thinking Larry had overdone it, and continually felt like I was losing, G did take Moscow just as the UK and US got established in France.
A close run thing. Perhaps these changes are about right!? :-D
-
@Private:
I was axis.
I always knew you would turn against England when given the chance… :wink:
-
I Let you win or you would have cried.
-
That was my strategy Witt. You fall for it it every time!😛
-
You clever Private, you!
-
Is the sign up on the harrisgamedesign.com website broken? I still haven’t gotten the email and it isn’t in junk. I’ve tried getting it resent too.
Unfortunately, the anti-spammer measures at Larry’s site can cause a delay of up to a couple of days when you’re signing up and making your first post. Please be patient.
Well it’s now been a week. I think it is fair to say that it is broken.
-
It’s not that surprising that the 1942.3 setup would be roughly balanced…it’s adding 14 points of units to the Allies, and subtracting 6 points from the Axis, for a total of a 20 point swing, which is comparable to the bids being offered in competitive 1942.2 play.
What I dislike about the new setup is that beyond securing a rough balance between the factions, the new setup does very little to address what I see as 1942.2’s major weaknesses:
() the irrelevance of the periphery, e.g. Norway, Anzac, Brazil, South Africa, Urals
() the direct pipeline from Tokyo through China to Moscow
() an un-thematic, un-imaginative repeat of Pearl Harbor that leaves the US without any good reasons to fight near Midway, the Solomons, New Guinea, or any of the other 1942-era Pacific flashpoints.
() the near-total absence of counterplay for the UK, US, and China in the first three rounds. The Allies need at least that much time to stockpile infantry and rebuild their fleets, which can be slow and boring work. Adding extra infantry to India doesn’t exactly scream “fear my clever counter-attack.” I get that the Axis start the game on offense in 1942, but it shouldn’t be a 100%-0% split. The Allies should have some options somewhere on the board in at least some openings for a plausible early counterattack, and I just don’t see it.Also, for what it’s worth, I have now been waiting for over ten days for Larry Harris to approve my comment on his website.
-
It’s not that surprising that the 1942.3 setup would be roughly balanced…it’s adding 14 points of units to the Allies, and subtracting 6 points from the Axis, for a total of a 20 point swing, which is comparable to the bids being offered in competitive 1942.2 play.
What I dislike about the new setup is that beyond securing a rough balance between the factions, the new setup does very little to address what I see as 1942.2’s major weaknesses:
() the irrelevance of the periphery, e.g. Norway, Anzac, Brazil, South Africa, Urals
() the direct pipeline from Tokyo through China to Moscow
() an un-thematic, un-imaginative repeat of Pearl Harbor that leaves the US without any good reasons to fight near Midway, the Solomons, New Guinea, or any of the other 1942-era Pacific flashpoints.
() the near-total absence of counterplay for the UK, US, and China in the first three rounds. The Allies need at least that much time to stockpile infantry and rebuild their fleets, which can be slow and boring work. Adding extra infantry to India doesn’t exactly scream “fear my clever counter-attack.” I get that the Axis start the game on offense in 1942, but it shouldn’t be a 100%-0% split. The Allies should have some options somewhere on the board in at least some openings for a plausible early counterattack, and I just don’t see it.Also, for what it’s worth, I have now been waiting for over ten days for Larry Harris to approve my comment on his website.
I get the impression that in their games Greg and others from the tournament community are going breakneck KJF with large bids for sz 37, so maybe they are seeing the Pacific somewhat differently because of that? The cap at 7 rounds is pretty major. That’s looking for a VC resolution in a lot less time than I would typically be playing for this map. Every time the Allies came out ahead in my games, it was usually after like 10+ rounds and a good deal of luck. I agree that having Pearl script in 42 is not ideal, and that China works more like a superhighway for Japan than as a chokepoint for the Russians. My hope is that more discussion might yield some tweaks in those areas as well, or at least some kind of offset that deals with them indirectly, like by strengthening Russia to be more effective vs Japan. Right now the focus seems to mainly be on the UK, which is fine since they clearly need a leg up. But I’d also like to see some more options for the US/Russia to make their openers feel a bit more like 1942.
It’s unfortunate about the anti-spam thing or whatever is causing the delays for posts, since Larry is unlikely to see comments here. Hopefully that gets fixed soon. If not I could probably just quote some of the feedback stuff mentioned here so it’s not lost.
-
It is for a tournament. I believe time is a major factor and they don’t want so much even game at the end of time either.
Probably another reason why periphery is mostly ignored as irrelevant and a waste of time and resource to work in.
Either UK and US build as much as possible a UK SZ fleet for KGF.
Or go for KJF and UK invest as much as possible in India and Russia survival until US destroy IJN fleet.
Which is centred around SZ37 opening and bid.Probably Chinese 4 TTs highway to Moscow was seen as a way to increase the pace and resolution of game.
Frankly, many of A&A game I played since classic involved between 5 to 8 hours game.
And most of them were by concession, after either side admit it became hopeless.To reach a more reasonable length around 3 to 5 hours seems an underlying mobile, IMO.
At the expense of other interest/goals: accuracy, more variety in strategy and tactics (like giving StB to Russia), more World War theme, etc. -
I have nothing against a shorter game – that’s an important design goal – but if you’re going to shorten the game by making half the map irrelevant, why not just delete that half of the map and save $20 on materials while making the game simpler to understand? I would play a tournament game built along the lines of A&A:Europe, where the entire Western Hemisphere is represented simply as two territories named “USA” and “Canada.” Similarly, you could condense southeast Asia down to three territories called “India,” “China,” and “Pacific Islands.” If you don’t have time for a complex theater, simplify the theater! No problem. I would still play that map as long as it had sufficient complexity in, e.g., Eastern Europe.
But for the love of six-sided dice, don’t print an extra 20 territories and an extra 40 sea zones and then say, “Oh, well, we don’t really use those, because there’s not enough time.” Either figure out how to run a faster game that includes combat in territories like Norway and Australia, or take Norway and Australia off the map.
Suggested Topics
