Why dont you use triplea for these games? much easier to use than aabattlemap
-
@Craig:
Personally, I’d rather things get fixed. So if a new LHTR is needed, so be it.
Besides, with all due respect, playtest groups were not going to find/fix everything. Once the game got out to the public, there would be tweaks needed based upon things playtesters never saw. There was always going to be a need for LHTR AAAv. It just will be “bigger” now. :-D
But what makes me mad are the areas where we did catch things, fix them, and now they have been undone!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
That is what I am talking about. We fixed these issues- these rules issues- and things were working fine.
Yes, there were going to be things that the general playing public were going to find that no amount of playtesting by a small group was going to uncover, BUT I understood and accepted that.
Those things were going to be typos and/or small mistakes. Or it was going to be a strategy based on the new setup/map/units combo that only a large amount of game play was going to uncover.
Unfortunately, it will probably degenerate into the need for some form of unofficial change or clarification. Something that didn’t need to happen if they hadn’t screwed up in the first place. And this will have to happen because they will not change there stance.
Craig
Some things in LHTR were undone, but others were not. There were a lot of LHTR clarifications that did make it into Anniversary, so progress was made. IMHO, it was unrealistic to expect the process of this game to go much differently than Revised. The fact that LHTR was never accepted by AH as official was an indicator of that.
However, the fact that some of the LHTR changes remain is an indicator that our voices are being heard, at least to an extent. The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site. There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance. Larry really does listen.
-
The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site. There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance. Larry really does listen.
Thanks Larry, I mean Krieghund…… :)
-
The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site. There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance. Larry really does listen.
Thanks Larry, I mean Krieghund…… :)
The problem is that Larry Harris listen but AH does not listen Harris, for what I have understood.
:-( -
The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site. There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance. Larry really does listen.
Thanks Larry, I mean Krieghund…… :)
The problem is that Larry Harris listen but AH does not listen Harris, for what I have understood.
:-(There are things beyond Larry’s control. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t have at least some influence on the process. Is your glass half empty, or half full?
-
@Craig:
The whole point of doing what we did was to realistically expect the process to go differently. What is the point of doing anything if they are just going to repeat the mistakes that they made before.
The process did go differently, just not as differently as we would have liked. I’ll take a little bit over nothing any day.
-
@Craig:
Some things in LHTR were undone, but others were not. There were a lot of LHTR clarifications that did make it into Anniversary, so progress was made. IMHO, it was unrealistic to expect the process of this game to go much differently than Revised. The fact that LHTR was never accepted by AH as official was an indicator of that.
However, the fact that some of the LHTR changes remain is an indicator that our voices are being heard, at least to an extent. The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site. There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance. Larry really does listen.
As I have said, there was no good reason to change something like HBs, after we had come to a good fix.
The whole point of doing what we did was to realistically expect the process to go differently. What is the point of doing anything if they are just going to repeat the mistakes that they made before.
It would be one thing if the problems that might arise are a product of a new version of a game and the associated issues that come from it being a new set of ideas. But when the problems that arise are actually just a continuation of old issues from the last version that they chose to ignore, that is just blind foolishness! :-o :roll: :-P
As for acceptance of the LHTR by AH- you know better than to make that statement. :wink:
Craig
Yope is right.
Larry, admittedly, has no idea how to play his game competitively. He can design it, but he would be destroyed in any tournament. He admits this himself.
So, when experienced gamers, who clearly know something about game balance, tell AH about this, and it’s something ALREADY FIXED previously, you would correctly figure any reasonable company wont go back to the “old way”.
-
Damage inflicted upon the IC is just that- damage on the IC. No IPCs are lost at the time of the attack.
So, after any attack, you still have the same amount of IPCs in your hand as you had before the SBR.Yes i got it.
If Germany got SBR for 10 points and had a 35 IPC total… they still spend 35
If they repair for 5, they have left 30… so the more you repair the less you have to buy stuff with.If they got 35 with 10 SBR and they don’t repair a thing… they still got 35 to buy junk
and the next turn they only got 25…so your statement is only true on the first turn. Thats what was bugging me in the first place, because originally i was thinking “gee if i never repair then it never effects me”, but it DOES count for its full effect the second turn after you get hit with SBR.I don’t see the reason why it was done like this. Its like saying “i got bombed back in the stone age…lets not do anything now to fix it, so our tank production can continue without interruption for at least 4-6 months before the EFFECTS of allied bombing is felt”
not good modeling IMO. I think its just a cute math formula to create some decisions on repair or not repair, when realistically repair/damage cant ever be suspended if you want to maintain production capacity.
-
Yope is right.
Larry, admittedly, has no idea how to play his game competitively. He can design it, but he would be destroyed in any tournament. He admits this himself.
So, when experienced gamers, who clearly know something about game balance, tell AH about this, and it’s something ALREADY FIXED previously, you would correctly figure any reasonable company wont go back to the “old way”.
That assumes that competitive gamers are the primary audience of A&A. I would suspect that they are not. In fact, I would suspect that they are but a small percentage of the total audience. AH’s primary concern is sales. Getting Heavy Bombers and blowing the crap out of your enemies is fun. The average player doesn’t sit for hours and figure out how to maximize every advantage, so it’s not necessarily a game-breaker for them.
The reality of the situation is that AH is producing a game for the masses. There are always going to be tweaks necessary to level the field for competitive play.
-
@Imperious:
Damage inflicted upon the IC is just that- damage on the IC. No IPCs are lost at the time of the attack.
So, after any attack, you still have the same amount of IPCs in your hand as you had before the SBR.Yes i got it.
If Germany got SBR for 10 points and had a 35 IPC total… they still spend 35
If they repair for 5, they have left 30… so the more you repair the less you have to buy stuff with.If they got 35 with 10 SBR and they don’t repair a thing… they still got 35 to buy junk
and the next turn they only got 25…so your statement is only true on the first turn. Thats what was bugging me in the first place, because originally i was thinking “gee if i never repair then it never effects me”, but it DOES count for its full effect the second turn after you get hit with SBR.I still don’t think you quite have it. IC damage does not reduce income. It only reduces your capacity to mobilize units, and it does so immediately. If the IC in Germany has 4 damage points, it can only produce 6 units. If it has 10 or more damage points, it can’t produce any units. Repairing the damage simply allows you to mobilize more units. The IPC drain is the cost of repairs.
-
OMFG>>> ok now i got it….finally!!!
too funny. The way the rule was scripted by everybody threw me off, because to me at least it WAS about IPC.
I am now clear.
-
Repairing the damage simply allows you to mobilize more units. The IPC drain is the cost of repairs.
Then by extrapolation its good to then buy a few more Factories so you can actually spend the IPC you have and force the allies to spread the bombers around which makes odds less in bombers favor.
But if you do this it raises the bottom line by which the total that you can get bombed goes up and if it reaches a point in excess of your total IPC output… you cant build a thing unless the allies stop bombing you which allows you to incrementally rebuild the capacity by repairing. I dont think the Allies are gonna stop once they get those bombers.
Its a double edged sword and the sword is sharper ( worse) for concentrated IPC nations like Germany/Italy and even USA
-
When it comes to the change to how SBR works, I can think of two reasons for this:
- You won’t lose IPCs if you get hit at an IC you won’t use, so Russia can get hit at Leningrad and choose not to repair and build in other ICs. For Germany this will normally not be possible, since swinging out 10 inf or tanks is pretty much what you need to survive at all.
- To allow for the IC repair tech. This could have been done by just cutting SBR damage in half, but this is a more elegant way of doing it.
Radar and IC repair has been added to counter HBMBs, and playing the game will show if they are worth the cost to acquire. The general sentiment on this thread right now seems to be a clear ‘NO’, for me it seems unclear. And we haven’t discussed larger strategic issues: Perhaps the US player HAS to put all their IPCs for several turns vs. Japan to even stop their advances towards a VC win. Perhaps Germany gets such a nice boost by the National objectives, reaching up to 50 IPCs by taking those five Soviet areas, that they can afford a lot of research. Perhaps UK alone can’t cope with Italy with half their income being tied up defending India and the US must send fleet units to their aid to stop the italians from gobbling up all of Africa and threatening the Atlantic. I’m sure there are more such possible scenarios!
-
That assumes that competitive gamers are the primary audience of A&A. I would suspect that they are not. In fact, I would suspect that they are but a small percentage of the total audience. AH’s primary concern is sales. Getting Heavy Bombers and blowing the crap out of your enemies is fun. The average player doesn’t sit for hours and figure out how to maximize every advantage, so it’s not necessarily a game-breaker for them.
The reality of the situation is that AH is producing a game for the masses. There are always going to be tweaks necessary to level the field for competitive play.
Your kidding, right? Either that, or you are totally missing the point.
First, even non-competitive gamers want a competitive game. No one wants to play a game where the outcome is already decided. “Here, you be the loser this game.” Wow, what fun.
Second, competitive gamers correctly know what RUINS a game (i.e. HB “strategy”), which still ruins it for non-competitive gamers. While it takes strategy to play and win at a high level, if the game is broken, it takes no skill, just abuse of the broken system.
Third, HB may be fun…for the person bombing the other guy. But I guarantee you his opponent is not having fun. And secondly, after using the same HB boring strategy, it will no longer become fun, just a way to auto-win. In which case, no one plays, and the game dies.
I cant believe, after all the arguing back on the AH forum, arguing over the carrier rule, and HB, and game balance, that you would be arguing for this incredibly bone-headed decision.
Games in which one side always uses the same overpowered boring strategy is not fun.
-
The best way to make those voices heard remains speaking to Larry at his site. There’s no guarantee that the wishes expressed there will be granted, but at least there’s a chance. Larry really does listen.
Thanks Larry, I mean Krieghund…… :)
The problem is that Larry Harris listen but AH does not listen Harris, for what I have understood.
:-(There are things beyond Larry’s control. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t have at least some influence on the process. Is your glass half empty, or half full?
Half glass is plentifully empty and the other half is filled with emptiness… :(
It is discouraging that marketing, or other kind of reasoning of the publishing company, may influence the features of a game more than the work of a designer that is fully committed to create quality products and is also open minded to discuss rules and other particulars with the game-users.
The problem is that “a posteriori” rules as LHTR, if not accepted by AH appears to many like a collection of home rules. Several A&A Players uses the OOB because they do no know of LHTR, or because they think they are not official.
The product delivered to the Market as Anniversary Edition could have been really a jewel but it risk of being not so memorable.
I do not know the percentage of competitive player, less competitive players and casual players that are supposed to buy anniversary edition, but I suppose that being a celebrative edition and being a high cost games it will be not a mass sold game: it should be more like a Tiger than a Sherman to stay in A&A territory.
I can not speak for all the A&A players, but I am member of the only Italian forum dedicated to A&A and I may assure you that A&A Anniversary in Italy will be bought (or pre-ordered) by peoples that had played A&A or other wargames. They are all people that know the difference between a wargame and Risiko! (the italian version of Risk), they are aware of the history of WWII having read books. They buy the game for the historical background, they know the difference between the Bismark and the Littorio, they are aware that italian armed forces have nothing to do with brown. This two last points are not listed for being polemic but for informing that are thinks noted by the potential buyer of the game.
Furhtermore, for what I see on this forum there are few casual players that buy A&A also in the USA and in the rest of the world. Have AH done correctly the market analysis?If AH wants to sell tons of boxes had selected the wrong type of game, should have made an eurogame like Settlers of Catan. Furthermore, messing up with history and with game rules to make the game more appealing is not the right way. A wargame have to be made with awareness of history and on the other hand with rigorous attention to ruleset. Ruleset is fundamental in a wargame.
LHTR are the result of a process involving users of the game, competitive players and the designer of the game, which have been able to fix the problem creating a rule set that is a real improvement over the OOB and AH can use it without spending a cent more. Why they did not use it? This is presumptuous and also shows that AH look at players with despise and superficiality! They are only cow to milk!Citing signature of one member (Emperor Mollari) of this forum: Ah! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package! How efficient of you!
P.S. the problem I see are not the HBMB alone, the SBR rule itself leave me puzzled, becasue is potentially possible to force a nation to produce almost nothing even if it is gaining a lot of IPC. HBMB are only a quicker way. The fact that the solution is in researching “anti-HBMB tech” is not a good thing, IMHO. What if I not get them? I am with squirecam here. It is like a bug or cheat in a videogame. Look how I can win all the games bombing the hell out of Germany capitol! Getting heavy bomber is only the cherry on top of an already yummy sundae!
-
That assumes that competitive gamers are the primary audience of A&A. I would suspect that they are not. In fact, I would suspect that they are but a small percentage of the total audience. AH’s primary concern is sales. Getting Heavy Bombers and blowing the crap out of your enemies is fun. The average player doesn’t sit for hours and figure out how to maximize every advantage, so it’s not necessarily a game-breaker for them.
The reality of the situation is that AH is producing a game for the masses. There are always going to be tweaks necessary to level the field for competitive play.
Your kidding, right? Either that, or you are totally missing the point.
First, even non-competitive gamers want a competitive game. No one wants to play a game where the outcome is already decided. “Here, you be the loser this game.” Wow, what fun.
Second, competitive gamers correctly know what RUINS a game (i.e. HB “strategy”), which still ruins it for non-competitive gamers. While it takes strategy to play and win at a high level, if the game is broken, it takes no skill, just abuse of the broken system.
Third, HB may be fun…for the person bombing the other guy. But I guarantee you his opponent is not having fun. And secondly, after using the same HB boring strategy, it will no longer become fun, just a way to auto-win. In which case, no one plays, and the game dies.
I think you are missing my point. There are plenty of people out there playing Revised by the box rules, despite the fact that Heavy Bombers are broken. The majority of complaints that I’ve heard about Heavy Bombers in Revised concerns their combination with Superfortresses. This indicates to me that the “average” gamer doesn’t consider Heavy Bombers alone to be an “auto-win”. Of course, my experience may only be with a non-representative sample.
My point is that the “beer and pretzels” gamer doesn’t figure every angle and optimize every option. Under those circumstances, something like this isn’t necessarily an “auto-win”. If it is for them, they make a house rule, or they just agree not to play that way.
I cant believe, after all the arguing back on the AH forum, arguing over the carrier rule, and HB, and game balance, that you would be arguing for this incredibly bone-headed decision.
I’m not arguing for it, merely offering a possible explanation for it.
-
There are plenty of people out there playing Revised by the box rules, despite the fact that Heavy Bombers are broken. The majority of complaints that I’ve heard about Heavy Bombers in Revised concerns their combination with Superfortresses. This indicates to me that the “average” gamer doesn’t consider Heavy Bombers alone to be an “auto-win”.
I play OOB rules with 3 pals face to face since 2 years and never anyone used HB SR strategy. Never. I must agree here. We never even used bids. Never. And axis gets 50 % of wins (at begining, even more than 50%).
Also agreed with HB + superfortress. We never played this NA (but NAs are optional, so…)
-
Thank you, Funcioneta.
-
I play OOB rules with 3 pals face to face since 2 years and never anyone used HB SR strategy. Never. I must agree here. We never even used bids. Never. And axis gets 50 % of wins (at begining, even more than 50%).
Also agreed with HB + superfortress. We never played this NA (but NAs are optional, so…)
Did you not play it because….
1 - You did not think of it; or,
2 - You saw it was overpowered, ruined your fun, and agreed not to use it. -
I think you are missing my point. There are plenty of people out there playing Revised by the box rules, despite the fact that Heavy Bombers are broken. The majority of complaints that I’ve heard about Heavy Bombers in Revised concerns their combination with Superfortresses. This indicates to me that the “average” gamer doesn’t consider Heavy Bombers alone to be an “auto-win”. Of course, my experience may only be with a non-representative sample.
My point is that the “beer and pretzels” gamer doesn’t figure every angle and optimize every option. Under those circumstances, something like this isn’t necessarily an “auto-win”. If it is for them, they make a house rule, or they just agree not to play that way.
But I bet most of them have house ruled HB away, so that the game is still “fun”. I cant understand how bombing one side into oblivion can be “fun”…
As to those players, though, I cant do anything to help them. I CAN help tournament players, online gamers, club members, and forum visitors though. Something LHTR members thought important enough to do the first time.
Regardless of how many play OOB or not, the AAAv rules, as they stand, create problems. We will need to fix them.
-
As to those players, though, I cant do anything to help them. I CAN help tournament players, online gamers, club members, and forum visitors though. Something LHTR members thought important enough to do the first time.
It was important, and greatly appreciated.
Regardless of how many play OOB or not, the AAAv rules, as they stand, create problems. We will need to fix them.
This should be a much less extensive project than LHTR was.
Suggested Topics
