@imperious-leader Wonderful! Thanks a ton!!
Play balance in AA50 / Bids
-
Eh, I don’t play so much for the WWII theme as I do the fun in making strategy.
I don’t think Axis and Allies should play like reading a history book… that’s just not fun for a wide audience. I agree that unrealistic strategies, such as Japan crushing Russia from the middle east, should be made weak and nonviable. But there should be many more options available than the “historic” ones… after all, in Axis and Allies, YOU are in command, so you can make the decisions you desire, not what the people at the time did.
-
But talking about bids is much too early!
Sure, it is too early. Then again, when did we ever let that stop us? :-D :mrgreen:
IL WROTE:
yes and considering the Germans or Japanese play first in either scenario it stands to reason that the setup could not withstand any additional pieces because it was configured based on axis going first and if they had like a extra plane it could make a huge difference on play balance down the road.
END, IL WROTEHmmm…that is really interesting. Then, if the game would need a bid for the Axis, then we might need a bid that uses some other logic.
Some thoughts/ideas/wild speculations:
- Bid units are placed in the Unit Placement Phase, not prior to Game-Start. However, area of placement must be declared before Game-Start.
- Bid units may only be added to Capitals, or SZ’s neighbouring Capitals (thus they would only affect play on Round 2-3 and thereafter)
- You may only bid Starting Cash, not units…
- You may bid a number of Off Map Extra Income per turn. So a bid of 5, for example, would add up to 5 “Free” IPCs per turn for one or more named nations (lame, I know)
- You may bid for how many Nazi Godzillas you may place on the board, prior to G1. I think 2-3 Nazi Godzillas placed in Baltic, Central Med and Possibly a Japanese Godzilla in the EJS SZ, would make for a perfectly balanced game :-D :-D :-D :mrgreen: (IL: You should call Hollywood about that idea of yours right away!!)
-
So, have I been assuming wrong that the damage to production capacity of a complex is the new single effect of SBR rather than an addition to the straight loss of IPCs? That’s how I interpreted Greg Smorey’s summary.
Also, does anyone know how many VCs are supposed to be held in order to win? Might want to find that out before making assumptions on whether the game is skewed in favor of Axis/Allies. And balance could be as simple as changing the required VCs by 1.
-
I have a hunch that most of you who are worried about play balance either play very good players online, or play a lot of two player games, one player Axis and one player Allied. We have been using Axis and Allies Classic in our historical gaming class for the past 5 years, and my cohort in crime, Chris Freeman, has been using it a while longer in his War and Diplomacy class. We always have at least 5 players, and more normally 5 two-person teams, so no person or team controls more than one country. During that period, our experience has been that the Allies have a tough time winning. My view is that the Classic and Revised games are more biased in favor of the Axis than the Allies, primarily with respect to limited IPCs for the US and bias in the relative force sizes, particularly with the US and UK navies. In several of the games, we have had to introduce our home rules for Lend-Lease to bail out the Allied players. Looking at Revised, which we have not used as yet, I do not see that much difference in play balance. Based on what I have seen in the pictures of the initial set-ups, and some of the rule discussion, I fail to see any strong bias for the Allies in the Anniversary Edition. The key is playing a true multiplayer game, i.e. 4 to 6 players.
I was working on adding Italy to the game already, since the change in color for the Japanese between A&A Pacific and Revised gave me the necessary units. I am looking forward to seeing what the rules are for the Anniversary Edition, but probably still will go forward with adding Italy to the Classic game.
As for Variant’s comment: “How how about these realistic or historical sensibilities. Great Britain was weak. Germany had it beat into submission and would have been stomped it out of the war completely if it wasn’t for the United States propping it up. What is the 30 IPCs that the U.K. gets? The annual welfare check from the U.S.?”
By 1941, Britain was producing as much military equipment as Germany, and maintained that rate throughout the remainder of the war. In 1944, Britain managed to devote 60% of its Gross National Product to military production, a rate which could not be sustained, and left the British post-war economy in shambles. I am not making those figures up. If you wish, you may consult Klaus Knorr’s War Potential of Nations, which is the source of some of my information. If the aim of the game was to really bias it in favor of the Allies, all they would have to do is give the US its true military production capability in late 1943/early 1944. To do that, you take the sum of the total production of all of the non-US players (Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, and the UK) and give that to the US. In the Revised Game, that would be 124 IPC, not 42. And to that add the US should automatically be producing somewhere between 2 and 4 transports per turn. The US was also feeding a large portion of the world at the same time.
-
From the GEN CON Anniversary Game thread at the swamp:
Also, there are bonuses that are for optional play. These will need to be tested as well. Bonuses such as if Germany holds X amount of territories, they get a bonus of 5 IPC at the end of the turn. All countries have these bonuses but we did not play with them at GEN CON…
http://aaswampform.forumandco.com/gen-con-anniversary-game-f23/gen-con-anniversary-game-t15.htm
That sounds kinda like the same bonuses everyone’s been talking about. So, if they’re optional Italy’s back down to 10 production w/o optional rules, lol?
-
nice :mrgreen:
-
That’s nice b/c if you have newer gamers you arn’t over whelming them with auxilary rules that you can introduce to them later.
LT
-
As for Variant’s comment: “How how about these realistic or historical sensibilities. Great Britain was weak. Germany had it beat into submission and would have been stomped it out of the war completely if it wasn’t for the United States propping it up. What is the 30 IPCs that the U.K. gets? The annual welfare check from the U.S.?”
By 1941, Britain was producing as much military equipment as Germany, and maintained that rate throughout the remainder of the war. In 1944, Britain managed to devote 60% of its Gross National Product to military production, a rate which could not be sustained, and left the British post-war economy in shambles. I am not making those figures up. If you wish, you may consult Klaus Knorr’s War Potential of Nations, which is the source of some of my information. If the aim of the game was to really bias it in favor of the Allies, all they would have to do is give the US its true military production capability in late 1943/early 1944. To do that, you take the sum of the total production of all of the non-US players (Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, and the UK) and give that to the US. In the Revised Game, that would be 124 IPC, not 42. And to that add the US should automatically be producing somewhere between 2 and 4 transports per turn. The US was also feeding a large portion of the world at the same time.
Maybe if you are comparing Germany proper to the UK they might be comparable. The GDP of the UK wasn’t even half of the entirety of German occupied territory. France alone had half of the GDP the UK did and the UK didn’t even reach even with German proper. Even if the UK spent half their GDP on the military, they couldn’t reach the German Reich’s production during 1941 and 42. The UK was being propped up by the American war machine. It didn’t have the capability to compete against Germany without aid.
Why are you even bringing up America’s 1943/44 production? What is the point?
-
Why are you even bringing up America’s 1943/44 production? What is the point?
Because if America were valued as they were historically, there would be no point in playing. No one can defeat a 124 IPC per turn country. Its just sick.
Its a valid point. History vs game balance.
-
I have a hunch that most of you who are worried about play balance either play very good players online, or play a lot of two player games, one player Axis and one player Allied. ….
We always have at least 5 players, and more normally 5 two-person teams, so no person or team controls more than one country. During that period, our experience has been that the Allies have a tough time winning. My view is that the Classic and Revised games are more biased in favor of the Axis than the Allies, primarily with respect to limited IPCs for the US and bias in the relative force sizes, particularly with the US and UK navies. In several of the games, we have had to introduce our home rules for Lend-Lease to bail out the Allied players. Looking at Revised, which we have not used as yet, I do not see that much difference in play balance. Based on what I have seen in the pictures of the initial set-ups, and some of the rule discussion, I fail to see any strong bias for the Allies in the Anniversary Edition. The key is playing a true multiplayer game, i.e. 4 to 6 players.Sure, when playing with novices, the axis should win more often with either classic or revised as they start with the most units on the board and they don’t have to work together.
I am not sure that your experience can be translated into the way most people end up playing A&A. They get addicted, play many many many games and host web site discussions revolving around ultimate strategies.
I am not saying you are wrong, you have just played A&A in a way most players here only played the game initially. Once you learn the game, even 3 total strangers can play the allies very well as they’ve learned to coordinate their moves. Perhaps this is this reason why the game doesn’t get the best game play testing that long time A&A players crave since it’s so new and it takes some time to realize their can be more efficient/ultimate strategies.
-
Perhaps this is this reason why the game doesn’t get the best game play testing that long time A&A players crave since it’s so new and it takes some time to realize their can be more efficient/ultimate strategies.
On this point, blame WOTC. You have a concentrated set of fanatical gamers at large conventions (i.e. Gencon) and you take the game away from them rather than learn feedback. (Or you let them play so late in the game changes cannot be made).
If I were WOTC, I would have brought 5 copies, basically shut down the revised mega, and let everyone play the new game. Massive feedback with new and experienced gamers all at once, and all costing you nothing.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP_-_Gross_domestic_product
Timerovers numbers are way off. Total allied ratio of economic military might was about a consistent 2:1
Germany at 412 USA at 1094 in 1941 so for every German IPC ( lets use 30) multiply 2.65 to get American values= 79 IPC and NOT 124
-
If I were WOTC, I would have brought 5 copies, basically shut down the revised mega, and let everyone play the new game. Massive feedback with new and experienced gamers all at once, and all costing you nothing.
Bravo to this!
If i was there i would be likely yelling at the WOTC freeks using perfect ‘Gordon Ramsey style’ vocabulary. I would have demanded answers and given them the riot act of being such idiots…and probably got tossed out of the convention.
-
@Imperious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP_-_Gross_domestic_product
Timerovers numbers are way off. Total allied ratio of economic military might was about a consistent 2:1
Germany at 412 USA at 1094 in 1941 so for every German IPC ( lets use 30) multiply 2.65 to get American values= 79 IPC and NOT 124
Hmm… so if they set Germany at 30, US at 79, what would UK/Japan/USSR be set to?
-
you just make a ratio based on the values. it cant take too long to figure out.
and BTW the totals do not include conquests. you will have to buy the book or find one of my earlier posts where i typed everything out a few years back on this site.
-
@Imperious:
If I were WOTC, I would have brought 5 copies, basically shut down the revised mega, and let everyone play the new game. Massive feedback with new and experienced gamers all at once, and all costing you nothing.
Bravo to this!
If i was there i would be likely yelling at the WOTC freeks using perfect ‘Gordon Ramsey style’ vocabulary. I would have demanded answers and given them the riot act of being such idiots…and probably got tossed out of the convention.
IL
Let me know when and where the next convention you are going to is. I want to bring a big tub of popcorn and a folding chair and watch. :evil:
LT
-
Imperious Leader, kindly cite your sources. Also, you are citing 1941 data, which means that the US is severely undervalued at the start of the game, thereby biasing it towards the Axis. My 124 is based on US production in late 1943/early 1944. The US economy was still mobilizing in 1941, and to be more historically accurate, should be increasing steadily in military production throughout the game.
Variant, my data reflects all of the German conquests. The British data does not reflect production in Canada, Australia, or India, especially Canada which was producing a fair number of ASW escorts by 1943. Britain was producing 4-engine heavy bombers when Germany had basicallty stopped producing any bombers, and Britain was adding to its surface fleet, ASW forces, and amphibious forces throught the war. How many surface ships did Germany complete after 1941? How many 4-engine bombers did Germany build after 1941? How large an amphibious force did Germany build after 1941? For part of its production, the UK was dependent upon US steel imports. I fail to see why that is a factor in your complaints. By 1943, the US was building merchant ships faster than the U-boats could have sunk them, even it the U-boats had not been defeated in May of 1943.
Based on the US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Division, analysis of the Japanese wartime economy, the Japanese economy was about one-tenth that of the United States. In Kogun, written by a Japanese Army IGHQ staff oficer, “Just before the commencement of the Pacific War [i.e. December, 1941], Japan had developed a productivie capacity which enabled her to manufacture about 3,500 military aircraft and 1,200 tanks per year.”
Based on what has been said elsewhere, Japanese production is nearly half that of the US.
How much more bias in favor of the Axis do you want? -
If I were WOTC, I would have brought 5 copies, basically shut down the revised mega, and let everyone play the new game. Massive feedback with new and experienced gamers all at once, and all costing you nothing.
Exactly!
And I was just certain they would have play tested this one to the max after what happened last time. With Revised the fanbase rewrote the rulebook right after the release. And I just read in a different thread here where Larry said everything was locked in on the Anniversary Ed. by April 08. Crap.
Well of course they do playtest “internally” and, I don’t know what it is that makes the difference but the internal playtesting never seems to bear out quite the same results as what the advanced players here and elsewhere can come up with. It probably comes down to the fact that we try everything.
So no paid playtest group is ever going to be able to touch the amount of time and variability that a forum board or tournament following is able to offer. It’s a shame WOC didn’t approach it that way. 5 sets going full bore at GenCon would have provided such valuable insight and feedback.
Hmm… bomber damage on IC’s seems extremely strong and subs and destroyers seem extremely cheap. Too cheap? Too strong? Too this? Not enough that? Well with or without our feedback we the fanbase will soon know. It’s kinda like 2004 all over again. ~ZP
-
timerover51, this is a strategy game, not a history book. The only bias in game design is when one side is more powerful than the other.
Plus, IPC and IPC cost is abstract and covers many aspects including technology, production cost, etc. A British Mark IV tank doesn’t cost the same to produce as a German Tiger II nor does it have the same performance.
-
timerover51, this is a strategy game, not a history book. The only bias in game design is when one side is more powerful than the other.
Plus, IPC and IPC cost is abstract and covers many aspects including technology, production cost, etc. A British Mark IV tank doesn’t cost the same to produce as a German Tiger II nor does it have the same performance.
Excellent idea. Make the German tanks cost more to produce. And eliminate Japanese tank production completely, because they basically stopped building tanks in any large number shortly after the war started. And if we factor in technology, then every Fletcher-class destroyer would be rated an antiair cruiser, as the British did when one of their older cruisers was given what was essentially a Fletcher’s armament and fire control system. You might want to look up HMS Delhi. As for technology, production costs, and production rates, I have quite a bit of official data on that. I am not sure that you would like it.
As for game bias, the IPC production given the Axis clearly bias the game in the Axis favor. That was done to make the game marketable, not historically accurate.
Suggested Topics
