Techs

[Krieghund]

@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.

[squirecam]

@Craig:

@Krieghund:

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”.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[Krieghund]

@squirecam:

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.

[Krieghund]

@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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[Imperious Leader]

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

[Lynxes]

When it comes to the change to how SBR works, I can think of two reasons for this:

1. 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.
2. 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!

[squirecam]

@Krieghund:

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.

[Romulus]

@Krieghund:

@Romulus:

@axis_roll:

@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.
:-(

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!

[Krieghund]

@squirecam:

@Krieghund:

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.

@squirecam:

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.

[Funcioneta]

@Krieghund:

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…)

[Krieghund]

Thank you, Funcioneta.

[squirecam]

@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.

[squirecam]

@Krieghund:

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.

[Krieghund]

@squirecam:

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.

@squirecam:

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.

[Funcioneta]

@squirecam:

@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.

About 1:

I think it could not work, and even if work, yes, can ruin the fun (as KGF also ruins the fun if played 99/100 times  :-P ). My pals did not play it because they think it doesn’t work.

About 2:

No, HB were allowed, and even instant tech. (Otherwise, it would be not OOB rules).

[axis_roll]

@Funcioneta:

@squirecam:

@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.

About 1:

I think it could not work, and even if work, yes, can ruin the fun (as KGF also ruins the fun if played 99/100 times  :-P ). My pals did not play it because they think it doesn’t work.

About 2:

No, HB were allowed, and even instant tech. (Otherwise, it would be not OOB rules).

No time like the present to try it and show them how effective that strategy can be to break the game.  Then you’ll agree with Squirecam

[U-505]

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!

For the most part I agree with this. This is a niche market. Either you are a strategic boardgamer or you are not. And if you are, then you are a competetive gamer. I suspect that for every person here who registers and plays or joins the forum discussion that there are 5 or 10 more who never register, scrounge around the forum for what they need to know, and don’t come back until they need more info. And this isn’t the only site that can be mined.

No time like the present to try it and show them how effective that strategy can be to break the game.  Then you’ll agree with Squirecam

I agree with the assesment that OOB HB in Revised is a gamebreaker. But, what I disagree with is that, since Revised HB is broken, someone can infer that HB in Anniversary Ed. is broken.

Perhaps there are one or more non-tech strategies that make normal SBR’s unproductive and that HB is needed simply to make it a worthwhile avenue to pursue. The techs are random again, the board setup is different, there are more territories, and there are National Objectives. Not to mention the possible techs to mitigate the effects of HB’s. All of these affect the game in ways not yet fully explored.

Now I’m not saying that you guys are wrong. HB very well could be broken in Anniversary Edition. What I AM saying is that I don’t care how good a player a person thinks they are, if they’ve managed to network themselves into Larry’s “circle of trust”, or even if they were able to actually touch the display game at GenCon. I am just as good a player as anyone who plays A&A and I simply can’t make anything more than assuptions and educated guesses until I’ve played the game multiple times as well as witnessed games being played by people who’s skills I respect. And neither can anyone else.

After that we can declare the game broken.  :-D

[Guest]

@Krieghund:

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.

First, guys, you might want to quit hammering at Krieghund, he did not write the rules, nor is he the one responsible for the changes in techologies available.  That is the responsibility of Wizards/AH and Hasbro.  They are in the business to sell games and make a profit.  Toy companies normally look for a 30% return on investment in the first year of a product.  If they get that, or better than that, they are very happy.  If they get a lot less than that, that product line might be axed, like a lot of the old AH board games have been.  They are looking at a product that will appeal to the mass audience, and I suspect that their playtesters decided that bombing someone back to the Stone Age was fun, and therefore acted accordingly with the rules.  It is not like you are going to get any tech automatically, at least as far as is known now, you are rolling dice, and very odd things can happen.  You have no guarantee that you will roll a 6 for a techonology success in the entire game.  The odds say you will, but there is no guarantee.  And for those of you who think that one game of blasting the German and Japanese player to rubble will result in a stop in playing, more than likely, the players will switch sides, and the former German player will then take great glee to blasting the new German player to pieces.

Wizards/AH knows that the competitive and tournament players are going to change the rules, regardless of what the rules are.  So they make a game that will sell the most possible units, at the lowest possible cost, i.e. recycled Italian pieces, to the largest number of people, and the guys running the AH division make their bosses happy, get their bonuses, and we get a game to play.  If you do not like the rules, CHANGE THEM.  I look at rules as a starting point, same with starting positions, and scenario criteria, and unit combat value.  You want to have the game closer to LHTR, do it.  But do not scream that Wizards/AH is not doing what you want.  Wizards is doing what it thinks will make them the most money.  That is what any company is going to do.  I have worked with game companies off and on now since 1985, and the normal rule is make the game attractive enough for the new gamer, and flexible enough to be customized by the diehard gamer.  I would say that Wizards has done just that.

And no, I am not and never have been in the employ of Wizards/AH or Hasbro.  I am more apt to be competing with them.