@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.
That is one reason I want to see what can happen with a 1942.2 map set up in 1941.
The way we increase action in PTO can it becomes relevant or needs also VCs to set victory conditions? Does diverging resources from UK to periphery is an illusion of efficiency instead of just abandoning them to Japan while taking care of Germany?
Besides hypothesis, I still have the same questions on map as you, including zero IPC TTs.
I wonder if we ever get an answer.
Sometimes, I tell myself that Larry have not enough time when he got a contract for a revised A&A version so he started from previous game and tweak a few things here and there knowing that a complete overhaul will too easily be unbalanced but also very difficult to balanced right without extended playtests (so not being too far from previous versions allows to use older results).
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.
Did you check on earlier pages in the thread? When your post does show up, it will be stamped with the date and time you actually entered it.
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.
This applies only to each new user’s first post. Once you’re verified to be not a spammer, your subsequent posts will not be delayed.
@Baron:
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.
These changes are not intended only for tournament play, but “normal” play as well.
Yes, I checked all of the pages, including the first one, and my polite but gently critical post is still not there. Taamvan’s week-old post is also still not there. I do see several posts by Larry himself asking for readers to tell him he’s on the right track, and a couple of posts from major Larry Harris fans telling him that, as always, he’s totally right.
Since I can’t sign up on Larry’s site, I’d have to say that I’m a bit disappointed that this does nothing to change the massive swing from the 44/56 SZ37 battle, assuming Egypt survives.
With these changes, I’d expect the USSR to hit Ukraine (probably should anyway) to take out the bomber. If the bomber goes then Egypt can probably survive G1.
I’ll ask Larry to look into the signup issue.
I forgot my password and emailed Larry like 3 months ago, no answer
Cant log in
I guess another problem with the proposed setup is that (as krunft has posted) taking out the only German bomber is gravy for the USSR. A solution to that might be to make the Ukraine bomber an additional bomber and compensate with an added USSR bomber. It does tend to script the USSR first turn a bit more though - you’d have to be mad to avoid the Ukraine battle with that setup.
USSR can use some more attack power in the starting positions on this board.
Actually, if the Germans have a bomber G1 there needs to be another inf in Egypt, unless it is acceptable to have a probable loss of Egypt G1, which I don’t think it is. Perhaps reduce India to 4 inf and increase Egypt to 2 inf? India is somewhat difficult to defend with 3 inf but could be reasonable with 4.
Hi,
Do any of you know if there are any possibility to play with this setup in Triple A?
KW
It’s already been incorporated! You might need to remove and install the v5 map if you don’t get the update option.
Downloading the map again worked for me, thanks Simon!
