We played a couple, then moved onto a week-long game of Global. I like “Revised” quite a bit, but my usual opponent is none-too-happy with the ability of transports to shoot back.
; )
Was it worth adding ART to the game?
-
Yea, I like the idea of the AA Guns firing once per combat round and the defenders shot down getting a chance to shoot like normal casualties. After all, do you honestly want me to believe that the AA Gun crews leave their positions after firing once and pick up their grease-guns to continue shooting at the planes? I think not! Likewise, why should 4 attacking fighters have the chance to all be shot down before they can fire? What’s that AA Gun made out of!?!? I didn’t think they had the phalanx system in World War II. :P
I appreciate the comments on the artillery bombardments. Not completely my idea, just a new application of it. Some have talked about Artillery functioning from outside the territory, I just expanded it to act like bombarding battleships, made it harder to kill (after all, artillery was usually dug into the high ground when possible, not like you could sneak up and put a grenade under it. :P) but weaker on attack (since it’s a free hit removing the defender from play without a return shot possible, just like getting hit by a battleship or destroyer bombarding you.)
Still thinking about the technologies. Not uber happy with them yet, but I think they’re better then what’s in the box. Maybe the Combined Arms should make Destroyers have the AA Gun ability not battleships…but then, while that’s more historically accurate, it makes destroyers a little too powerful. Battleships with it isn’t so bad, you don’t exactly buy 5 battleships in a game.
As for the 50/50 split with America (could be 0/100 Germany/Japan too, mind you) I just like the idea of forcing America to actually attack Japan. This alone should end the need for a bid in this game. If you need one, it’s probably 2 IPC to Japan so they can build 3 submarines and a destroyer on round 1. :P
-
@_@ I’m really too lazy to discuss potential changes, it tires me out because of the possibilities. I’ll just let Larry do his thing and let you guys discuss since I really don’t know much about WW2 and how much realism should make it into the game without making it more complicated than it already is (and it is probably already too complicated if you look at the steep learning curve).
-
What thread is this again? Seriously, you guys are so far off topic, you’re not even in the same zip code as this topic . . . :roll:
-
It’s not so much about historical accuracy as just rebalancing the game so bids are not needed.
-
Larry’s been hinting at massive changes, it is very difficult to speculate on that those are or how they will work until he releases the details.
-
Whoa, what’s this, is there a plan for a “revised revised” version?
-
Yup, the next ladder on the rung. A&A classic –> A&A revised --> A&A deluxe or something like that. Go to his site and read some posts in the forums! :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
@Ender:
Whoa, what’s this, is there a plan for a “revised revised” version?
Axis and Allies Revised++
Revised/Revised just sounds too redundant.
-
@Cmdr:
Some plays on IL’s ideas.
1) Change the Technologies too:
Heavy Bombers = 2d6 damage can kill two units or 1d6+1 SBR damage (I still hate SBR, but you’ll see why I allow this later.)
Super Submarines = Submarines now do SBR damage to convoys. 1 IPC per submarine within 2 spaces of enemy industrial complexes (maximum of land value and that’s including rockets and SBR damage.) Submarines attack at 3, defend at 2.
Rockets = No Change.
Combined Arms = Same as LHTR 1.3 except Battleships also act as AA Guns
Jets = Same as LHTR 1.3
Mechanized Infantry = Infantry may move two spaces and blitz as tanks do. (Think America’s Mechanized Infantry advantage.)
I don’t play with tech, imo it’s not serious to play with tech, but probably it
can be improved somehow.- AA Guns should fire each round of combat. Max 1 shot per gun, per round hits are applied to fighters, then bombers.
This change is too radical, and how will it affect the game?
- SBR changed so bombers may remain over their target until shot down by AA Fire or maximum damage has been done.
Too radical, how to calculate if it’s worth doing sbr?
- Japan may not attack Russia and Russia may not attack Japan until America or Germany falls.
I agree only with that Jap cannot attack Russia, becuase Jap attacked
Russia in WW2, but they were severely beaten- America MUST use at least 50% of their income on units to attack Japan. (Yes, that means you have to have 50% of your units attacking Japan. No it does not have to be 1 battleship in the Pacific and 1 in the Atlantic. But you cannot have 200 IPC army in Europe and 100 IPC fleet in the Pacific.) FDR was under a lot of pressure back home to attack Japan and a lot of pressure abroad to help with Hitler. Not to mention, this helps balance out that Germany can expect no help from Japan with Russia!
I totally disagree! I must not do anything that will not help me win the game.
FDR was in a completely different situation than A&A players who play US!
The reason why KJF fails, but is still debated…is what makes the game exciting.
I was stupid for Japan to attack US, but in theory they could contain US out of pac for a few years, but that
wouldn’t help Jap, because Jap didn’t have enough production compared with US.
So in a war of resources, u will lose the war if u fail to gain the income and advantage that is needed.
If Germany succeded on the eastern front, they would dominate the Eurasian continent, and the rest of
the world except for South and north America.
This is because Russia had ND still has a lot of resources that Germany didnt have.
Same as for Japan.
If unbalanced, and not “finished” A&A perfectly resembles the fact that if u go to war, u better win, and if u don’t have the
production u need, u have to get it, or u loose.- Neutrals should be attackable for 1 IPC at the cost of 5 IPC. (ie, if you attack Mongolia and pay the $5 charge, you get $1 for every round it is not liberated. Liberating a Neutral does not get you the $1. You would have to attack it after liberation and pay the $5 charge.)
I would rather have the neutral rules from classic.
- Artillery hits on a 1, still costs 4, but does not move into the territory being attacked, it attacks from an adjacent territory in the opening fire step of the game. Infantry are no longer supported by artillery and all infantry attack at 1 and defend at 2. Artillery defends at 3. If used for combat in opening fire, it may NOT move. Just like if an AA Gun fires a rocket it cannot move that round.
Too radical, again…
8.) Fighters not used in combat may fly patrols against enemy bombers. If you attack an industrial complex, the defending fighters may attack your bombers at 3 or less. Bombers may return fire at 4 or less. (This is assumed to be your fighter escorts attacking the enemy fighters.) This combat is limited to one round. Any surviving bombers may engage after any AA Fire is rolled.
Tactical management, and makes game more complicated.
-
Each combat costs $2. If you attack 3 territories, you pay $6 to be paid out of your collect income phase.
-
For each successful defense you are paid $1. This is in recovered plunder and salvage.
This is just stupid, what u lose in combat is units, and units cost money.
if something like this were implemented, I would not like to play that game.
This is already handled, by if u move 10 tanks adjecant to enemy TT, and opponent strikes u with inf, ftrs, art, tanks,
u will lose more then the oppononet. He made a good tuv trade, at least if strafing.How old are you Jennifer, 20?
“if you are not radical when you are 20, you have no heart, but if you are not conservative when you are 40, then
you have no brain”.Winston Churchill.
-
Lucifer, it’s not nice to ask a lady her age. But I’m 30 if you must know.
Anyway, anyone who does not play with tech in the game is playing a juvenile version of Axis and Allies. Juveniles have a hard time following too many variants of the rules so they have to be dumbed down to be understood.
Anyway, AA Guns would get 1 shot at 1 against air power each round. That means if you attack with 5 fighters and take the territory in one round, only one of your planes gets shot at. This seems to be a bit more powered for the attacker and less for the defender if you ask me. However, likewise, if you attack Russia and it takes 10 rounds, then you run the risk of losing 10 aircraft over the course of the battle.
Likewise, determining the value of SBR runs is in question. It’s no longer a static average of 3 IPC lost per round and an average of 3.5 IPC in damage done. Now it’s a potential to do 10 IPC in damage to Germany without loss by a single bomber, or the potential of that AA Gun hitting in Round 1 of the bombing run, Round 2 of the bombing run, round 3 of the bombing run, etc. So you do more damage, but you run more risk as well. (Not to mention you could have 3 guns protecting Germany and each one would get a shot!)
I, for one, like the idea of deterrence to SBR runs myself. Many American and British pilots lost their lives bombing Germany because Germany was canvassed with AA Guns!
The 50% or more of America’s assets going against Japan is to give Germany some aid as well as make the game a little more fun in the long run. 21 IPC in equipment going to Europe every round from America is still a significant source of funds. This is not going to kill any KGF or SGF strategies, but it will force you to develop your long term, mature and sophisticated gaming strategies and rely less on the infantry push mechanic. (Since you’ll be stacking infantry slower, which means the Germans could amass more armor/fighters to over whelm you faster.)
As mentioned before, the whole idea of the artillery change is because I do not remember too many Large Howitzers plowing into close combat with the enemy. Tanks mingled, infantry mingled, fighters mingled, bombers mingled. Artillery sat safe behind the lines when their infantry were attacking. However, because they have the effect of +3 attacking punch if coupled with an infantry unit in Revised, I thought it too powerful to let them hang back. Thus, I reduced them to only hitting on a 1 and having no effect on attacking infantry. A significant nerf for the added benefit of letting them hang back. (Not to mention since they do not physically enter the territory they also cannot takes possession of the territory. Just like a Battleship cannot.) And since they only attack once on attack (every combat round on defense) this is hardly “radical.”
I dunno Lucy, maybe you need to go back and re-read the definition of “radical.” Those changes are relatively moderate and benign but rather force the game out of the stagnant rut it has found itself in and force people to make some tactical and strategic decisions. People have begun to default to standard things they have seen others do and we’re heading right back into the infantry push mechanic more and more each day. Artillery has become almost a rare event in a battle. Too expensive to lose for Russia/England/Germany, too weak to be of much use in small battles (90% or more of the game.) Armor is still a good flavor, but 3 armor < 5 infantry on defense, so infantry still win out.
Not to mention, under the proposed changes, artillery will now become a viable anchor for infantry freeing up tanks and planes for other events.
-
Anyone who thinks the rules need to be any more complicated should try programming a combat simulator first…
Back on topic: in my current game, I have just built 7 Art over the last 2 rounds with the UK, because I could’nt afford armor to fill my production quota.
-
Speaking of Which, Ender, you ever come up with that portable, stripped down version of your calculator?
I need a dice roller for my laptop with the busted wireless card to play a game on Monday.
-
Another observation is that if u play OOB rules, then the game is still flawed.
OOB means tech. And the cost of research is 5 ipc. Generally, G will have long range every game if all is spend on
tech.
G now have 49%-50% for sealion G1 with LL, with reg dice is 50%-51%.
This is not good enough.
I have no problems with a G trans in sz5 as bid, that means 33% for sealion G1, reg dice. Stats about the same with LL.
In LHTR any tech discovered will take effect after all combat moves, but not in OOB rules.
This matter will be fixed I suppose, in the 5th.ed. rules. -
Yes, and if you make the simple change that tech only comes into play after you place your units on the board, it’s no longer unbalanced.
Tech is part of the game. It was obviously intended to stay because it was included in revised and, without checking, probably in the other flavors as well. It’s what balances the game! Bids are nice to add flavor, but really only needed because of certain clubs basically banning technology.
-
@Cmdr:
Tech is part of the game. It was obviously intended to stay because it was included in revised and, without checking, probably in the other flavors as well. It’s what balances the game! Bids are nice to add flavor, but really only needed because of certain clubs basically banning technology.
Well, with OOB if the G player spend all money on long range, and go for sealion G1 every single game, then,
according to my estimates, axis victories should be about 50%-51%…… :roll:
And, OOB means no bid!Your statement is correct Jen, but still it’s easy to understand why I disagree?
-
Someone should start a wish list thread for 5th.ed. revised :-)
As for artillery, this unit was a good addition to tanks and inf.
Artillery should not change, neither price or other values.
Some units need to change, exactly what change is hard to say.DD, reduced price to 10, or 8 ipc, with att.def. 2-2.
BB, reducing cost to 18 or 20 ipc.
AC, need 2 hits.
Bmr, reduce price to 12, or atleast 14, but one ipc less wouldn’t matter.
Subs get to choose their targets.
AA gun, my suggestion is that AA guns fire one shot each unit. And AA should be destroyed, not captured.Other rule changes must not be a gamble with the current revised, which is good, although some changes should be made.
No capital attacks rnd 1, tech is activated after placing new units.
Better balancing. Axis needs bid that are too high as it is. This is not a big problem, but there should not be any need for
more than one German or Jap inf somewhere, as a pre-placement bid.
Ports could be nice. This means u have to take Italy to kill the med fleet, and Berlin for the baltic navy,
or maybe naval units could be captured in ports?Units that should not change at all are ftrs, tanks, inf, art, trans.
-
@Cmdr:
Speaking of Which, Ender, you ever come up with that portable, stripped down version of your calculator?
I need a dice roller for my laptop with the busted wireless card to play a game on Monday.
Don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten.
-
@Ender:
@Cmdr:
Speaking of Which, Ender, you ever come up with that portable, stripped down version of your calculator?
I need a dice roller for my laptop with the busted wireless card to play a game on Monday.
Don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten.
That mean you havn’t made it yet, or that you havn’t forgotten I want it or …… :| hehe. Sorry. I don’t wanna be a pest, just not relishing the thought of carring 48d6 to school on Monday to play this egotistical, Machiavellian, homicidal maniac of a math department chair. hehe. Dang fool isn’t even gunna let it count for extra credit on my capstone either. :(
-
maybe naval units could be captured in ports?
Typically they are displaced and naval combat occurs in these SZ if you also have ships. Otherwise only air units can get at ships in port and no naval. Also, the port does not cost MP to leave so your counting from SZ to SZ. Its that simple.
Also, your naval build go directly in ports and usually a damaged BB or CV must touch the port to repair, rather than the old way of “fix at sea”
-
Play it with real dice…
Just make sure you have plenty of colors…
“8 INF are black dice for 1’s, 5 ARM are red dice for 3’s, 1 BOM is white die for 4”
:-D
Suggested Topics
