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.
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).
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
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
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.
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
Well said.
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.
Thanks, Timerover, but I’m not taking this personally. There are some folks here who are very passionate about the game, and that has helped to make A&A what it is today. As I’ve said before, being one of the only things even close to an official source of information at this point tends to make me a lightning rod for criticism. I’ll gladly accept that in order to help clear up misconceptions about the game.
The LHTR committee (myself included, though a late-comer) has every right to be concerned about fixes to AAR that were discarded in AA50. But, while understandable, the concern is premature at this point. I can assure everyone that, while some changes didn’t carry over, a lot of LHTR went into the making of AA50, and it’s a better game for it.
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.
Thanks for saying this more eloquently than I did. You’ve apparently got more knowledge of the business end of making games than I do!
@Craig:
As one of the lucky few who was able to be part of the early playtesting, I felt good about being able to right many of the wrongs that were part of the OOB Revised game.
As I was also someone who a part of the LHTR work from version 1.1 on, I was happy to see that it was used as the basis for the Anniversary game.
And I felt good to be a part of a group of experienced players who helped mold many of the new ideas that were being put forth in the new game.
In the end, I didn’t like all that was included in the game, but I felt comfortable that all the parts were workable within the context of the whole. We worked as a group to come up with what we felt was the best possible combination of rules that would work for ALL levels of gamers. And that the rules didn’t have any holes, or any that we could see at the time.
This whole thing isn’t specifically about HBs- it is about changes that were made after the game was taken out of our hands and given over to the people at WotC. We handed over what we thought was a good product.
I only feel bad in that there are now issues that are going to come forth that we clearly saw ahead on time and took the time to fix so that they wouldn’t be a problem. Now they show back up! :? :-o :? :-o :? :-o :? :-o
I can live with new problems that come about from things that we (a small group of playtesters) couldn’t foresee, but I can’t stand the utter stupidity that comes from disregarding our experience! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
That is why I b**** about this. I know that they can’t now change the product since it is already been produced. I would like them to be a bit more proactive in either their acceptance of the mistakes or in officially coming up with changes to fix the problem.
Their track record doesn’t bode well for me in getting such action. Unfortunately, I was mistaken in thinking that the inclusion of people like myself would help to fix such ineptitude.
And no Krieghund, I can’t go on any longer trying to play the nice guy just because I was “in the know”. I respect you immensely and know that you are a better man than I when it comes to dealing with the bureaucratic bullshit. As such, you know that I don’t hold it against you when you continue to be nice and try to do the right thing. Everyone deals with this in their own way.
You know how I feel about all of this and how I feared this very thing happening. I can accept being attacked for those things that are of my creation and my responsibility. What I can not and will not accept is being badgered about things that are the responsibility of others.
There was nothing wrong with what we had come up with. To change them, they way they have is ridiculous and without proper merit. It is even without explanation, event though I know that it will be a cold day in hell that they will ever explain why they do what they do.
I will buy my copy (or copies) of the game. I will play it and I will continue to be an advocate for the A&A game series. I will continue to GM an A&A tournament and play in others A&A tournaments. I will continue to be a vocal presence on the various A&A message boards. I will do all these things and more as a true fan of the game and the people who play it.
BUT, I will continue to rail against the continued mismanagement of the game by the company that produces it.
They are lucky that I am not allowed into the same room with these idiots! Unbelievable.:roll:
Craig
Well, I do appreciate both your position, and Krieghund’s, and any one else’s. We all do love this game.
And nothing else “bothered” me as much, or stood out to me. Even with the map changes, and the lack of “JTDTM” making it harder for the axis, balanced by the focus on the pacific war (which I have vocally supported for years), plus the pacific VC (also a huge fan), I felt all of these, while perhaps making it harder on the axis, made for a more historical, and better game.
I was glad to see “new” rules, such as the carrier rule, survive. Happy to see many LHTR “fixes” survive.
The ONE thing, the absolute one thing I did NOT want to see, was a return to the OOB HB insta-tech auto-win system which LHTR fixed.
The “bomb to zero” strategy was IMPOSSIBLE for the allies. Despite heavy allied bombing, NEVER was Germany reduced to zero (or -10 :roll:) production capacity. For a game to make HUGE positive strides in making the game historically accurate, only to bring back this travesty, is a big disappointment.
Yope, and anyone else, has a right to be upset. Especially since we all saw this coming…
I do have to say… does anybody ACTUALLY consider heavy bombers a game seller? I can almost guarantee that nobody would buy the game just because you have the opportunity to get heavy bombers and bomb someone to oblivion. When newcomers read the back of the box, it doesn’t say something like:
-Exciting realistic WWII strategy!
-600 plastic miniatures!
-Bomb your opponents into submission using technologies!
In order for them to include something broken in order to improve sales, it would have to be something that the public would be excited by. I can’t imagine any potential buyer would even consider looking at the technologies and examining whether or not heavy bombers was powerful enough for them, and letting that influence their decision… unless they were loyal fans of the series, in which case they clearly want the LHTR solution for heavy bombers!
Also, techs aren’t “optional rules” as some have been saying. Yes, you can agree not to use them, but that’s using house rules. Techs are a standard part of the game, as optional as playing without non-combat movement. :-)
No, no, no!!!
The damage never affects the amount of IPCs that you collect. It only affects your ability to produce.
On the next turn, no matter what (barring any loss of territories), you would still collect 35 IPCs. You just wouldn’t be able to produce anything since you hadn’t fixed your IC.
Craig
Craig i got it. you quoted an old post. I know it reduces the CAPACITY… but that was not fleshed out in the first examples of how it works. I know what it is now because of how it works relating to its effect on placement at factories.
@Rakeman:
I do have to say… does anybody ACTUALLY consider heavy bombers a game seller? I can almost guarantee that nobody would buy the game just because you have the opportunity to get heavy bombers and bomb someone to oblivion. When newcomers read the back of the box, it doesn’t say something like:
-Exciting realistic WWII strategy!
-600 plastic miniatures!
-Bomb your opponents into submission using technologies!In order for them to include something broken in order to improve sales, it would have to be something that the public would be excited by. I can’t imagine any potential buyer would even consider looking at the technologies and examining whether or not heavy bombers was powerful enough for them, and letting that influence their decision… unless they were loyal fans of the series, in which case they clearly want the LHTR solution for heavy bombers!
(Sigh) I proposed earlier that the idea of including something in the game to “jazz it up” might conceivably be the thought of someone (most likely in marketing) with the intention of increasing sales. This was my opinion. No one knows what drives the decisions that AH actually makes. I’m sorry I ever brought it up!
As I’ve said before, whether or not Heavy Bombers are “broken” in AA50 isn’t a conclusion that can be made at this point. It depends both on how the game plays and your definition of “broken”, only one of which can be determined right now.
Can we please end this discussion???
@Rakeman:
Also, techs aren’t “optional rules” as some have been saying. Yes, you can agree not to use them, but that’s using house rules. Techs are a standard part of the game, as optional as playing without non-combat movement. :-)
In Anniversary, they are optional.
@Rakeman:
I do have to say… does anybody ACTUALLY consider heavy bombers a game seller? I can almost guarantee that nobody would buy the game just because you have the opportunity to get heavy bombers and bomb someone to oblivion. When newcomers read the back of the box, it doesn’t say something like:
-Exciting realistic WWII strategy!
-600 plastic miniatures!
-Bomb your opponents into submission using technologies!In order for them to include something broken in order to improve sales, it would have to be something that the public would be excited by. I can’t imagine any potential buyer would even consider looking at the technologies and examining whether or not heavy bombers was powerful enough for them, and letting that influence their decision… unless they were loyal fans of the series, in which case they clearly want the LHTR solution for heavy bombers!
(Sigh) I proposed earlier that the idea of including something in the game to “jazz it up” might conceivably be the thought of someone (most likely in marketing) with the intention of increasing sales. This was my opinion. No one knows what drives the decisions that AH actually makes. I’m sorry I ever brought it up!
As I’ve said before, whether or not Heavy Bombers are “broken” in AA50 isn’t a conclusion that can be made at this point. It depends both on how the game plays and your definition of “broken”, only one of which can be determined right now.
Can we please end this discussion???
@Rakeman:
Also, techs aren’t “optional rules” as some have been saying. Yes, you can agree not to use them, but that’s using house rules. Techs are a standard part of the game, as optional as playing without non-combat movement. :-)
In Anniversary, they are optional.
Ok ok, sorry for beating a dead horse apparently.
Sorry, Rakeman. I didn’t mean to take my frustration out on you. I apologize.
And to everyone else, as well.
Well if technology is optional, then the Heavy Bomber thing has no impact as a ‘game breaker’
but also remember the thread is about technology for AA50 and thats it.
Personally Mechanized infantry technology is a joke. That should have been a new unit included in the game. To motorize your infantry is a matter of economics rather than technology. Trucks and armored cars were invented in WW1. It should be a new unit built at the choice of any player
Also, the artillery technology is like a contrived ‘filler’ technology. Where does the idea that your Artillery got better, so they boost 2 Infantry rather than one? What/Where was this pulled out from?
I have a bad feeling about this Anniversary Edition… in some way AH is managing to ruine what could have been a milestone in A&A series.
This disappoint me. I believe that Craig A Yope and Kreighund are even more disappointed than me.
I am wondering how Larry Harris felt all this, I suppose that also him is disappointed.
