Starting IPC values?

[Romulus]

Usually I do not complain about low IPC for allies. Allies are able to win the game even with an Axis bid, in Revised. It is a question of using them effectively. Having more IPCs with USA is worthless if they are spent in useless way. Spendig wisely what USA have is sufficient if the USA player have a soundly plan.

I am with Krieghund here: National Objectives add to these initial values. Moreover do not forget the relative strategic and geographic position of the nations involved in the war. Allies had won the war also for Strategic and Geographic factors that are present also in A&A map.

Furthermore UK was already at war by September 1939 while USA were still out of the war. Sure they had a great industrial capacity but the efficiency of a weapon is not only in the weapon itself. The hand that holds it is very important. (If I gotten a Ferrari Formula One car it was quite impossible for me to win the Championship.)

After operation Torch the USA Army advancing in Tunisia had difficult at Kasserine pass against experienced Axis units. They were well equipped but they lack the experience.

So the value is acceptable for USA. The IPC and the units in revised are not strictly related to the quantity but they have to represent also the qulity of the units. In 1941 UK units were more experienced than USA units.
I am supposing that this value had been playtested and are part of the great picture for balancing the game.

Instead, the problem could be for 1942 set up. Given the fact that the IPC value are the same and the Axis starts with more territories, Allies should have a less IPC than in 1941. I am wondering if the national objectives are different for 1942 setup… ???

[Krieghund]

@timerover51:

I view this reduction in US production as unsupportable in a game that is supposed to more closely follow history.

I believe that the introduction of China will more than make up for this.  However, does it really need to be stated that if the income values were anywhere near accurate the Axis wouldn’t stand a chance?

@Romulus:

Instead, the problem could be for 1942 set up. Given the fact that the IPC value are the same and the Axis starts with more territories, Allies should have a less IPC than in 1941. I am wondering if the national objectives are different for 1942 setup… ???

No, they are the same.

It’s interesting that people started out talking about how the Axis wouldn’t stand a chance with Italy being split out of Germany, and now they’re talking about the Allies not having a chance with the income values as they are.  I would suspect that all these changes together will change the dynamics of the game so much that there will be no real comparison to Revised.  As Romulus said, I’m sure it’s been playtested.

[squirecam]

@Romulus:

Instead, the problem could be for 1942 set up. Given the fact that the IPC value are the same and the Axis starts with more territories, Allies should have a less IPC than in 1941. I am wondering if the national objectives are different for 1942 setup… ???

Japan will go from 17 to 30 (+13), and USSR will drop from 30 to 24. UK from 43 to 32, and USA to 38.

Still, though, Allies have an IPC advantage, plus the China barrier.

I dont think anyone can realistically cry about AAAv favoring the axis…

[Imperious Leader]

cry about AAAv favoring the axis…

what the heck is AAAAAAv?

Larry calls his own game AA50 and so does everybody else. Lets just stick to one name that’s commonly accepted.

I saw this AAAAv thing somewhere else and i was thinking its another variant but now i see its not.

[03321]

I challenge you to a game of AAAv, IL.

[shermantank]

@03321:

I challenge you to a game of AAAv, IL.

Do not disturb the mighty…

[Guest]

@Krieghund:

Bear in mind that National Objectives will add to these numbers.

US National Objectives give the US zip until virtually the end of the game, and you know that Krieghund, so quit claiming that as a balance.  Between butchering the US and UK fleets and this, the only Allied option is getting Heavy Bombers fast.

[Imperious Leader]

I challenge anybody to a game of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAv

[axis_roll]

@Imperious:

I challenge anybody to a game of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAv

was that 50 "A"s?

THEN that name makes sense  :roll:

[Krieghund]

@timerover51:

@Krieghund:

Bear in mind that National Objectives will add to these numbers.

US National Objectives give the US zip until virtually the end of the game, and you know that Krieghund, so quit claiming that as a balance.  Between butchering the US and UK fleets and this, the only Allied option is getting Heavy Bombers fast.

Ah, but you’re assuming that all the US NOs are known, and that they’re correct.

[Romulus]

@Krieghund:

…
@Romulus:

Instead, the problem could be for 1942 set up. Given the fact that the IPC value are the same and the Axis starts with more territories, Allies should have a less IPC than in 1941. I am wondering if the national objectives are different for 1942 setup… ???

No, they are the same.

It’s interesting that people started out talking about how the Axis wouldn’t stand a chance with Italy being split out of Germany, and now they’re talking about the Allies not having a chance with the income values as they are.  I would suspect that all these changes together will change the dynamics of the game so much that there will be no real comparison to Revised.  As Romulus said, I’m sure it’s been playtested.

But I am quite happy with the AA-50/41 starting IPC.

I am also quite happy with AA-50/42.
Only wondering about what allows for the game to be balanced, because I am assuming it is balanced.

IMHO, there is a fundamental thing to consider: A&A units are abstract and they are not in any scale. They model quality other than quantity.

[Romulus]

@timerover51:

@Krieghund:

@timerover51:

@Krieghund:

Bear in mind that National Objectives will add to these numbers.

US National Objectives give the US zip until virtually the end of the game, and you know that Krieghund, so quit claiming that as a balance.  Between butchering the US and UK fleets and this, the only Allied option is getting Heavy Bombers fast.

Ah, but you’re assuming that all the US NOs are known, and that they’re correct.

I am getting very tired of your game playing, Krieghund.  Either give us the full information OR SHUT UP!!!

I do not believe that Krieghund may reveal more information about the game than the few he had revealed up to now.
We should be grateful for the information he already provided to us.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes stop pestering him. He can do only what he is allowed to do and allowed to tell. Be grateful at what you got.

[Flying Tiger]

Compared to AAR China is a big help but it still weak. There seems to be more income on Asian mainland than in revised so there is more income for Japan to conquer. America HAS to fight a 2 front war now. With that info I would give USA 45 starting IPCs(+5 on USA mainland).
Don’t rip me, I understand I have to play it first to critique it. I’m just saying this as an observation. This will still be the best game Larry has put out.

[Romulus]

Best games for players that enjoy playing A&A.

Anniversary edition has a lot of intersting features and even if there are some imperfections it has the potential to be the best A&A game made until now.

After the fist news and pictures about the game I was disappointed by the imperfections but knowing more about other games features had increased my convinction that the overall quality of the game will be really high.

Krieghund had concurred to this. So I gladly tank him. He can not post all the info he know abou the game. Not a problem, having piece of sure information is still useful. It is better to know something than to know nothing.

Back on topic I am almost satisfied with the starting IPCs. IMHO they take in account also units experience, quality and tactics of employment. A tank in A&A is not a real tank. So a ship is not a real ship. They model the potentiality for conducting military operation with such kind of units. So having units count and IPC value different form mere production numbers it is normal.

[Greand Stone]

I generally hope that the bonus IPC favors the axis. Cuz as it is now the IPC advantage of the Allies is HUGE in the 41 senario.

Axis: Japan 17, Germany 31, Italy 10 =  58
Allies: UK: 43, US: 40, Russia:30      = 113
In addition the allies gets FREE infanteri in china every single turn.

I now that the setup and position of start pieces is very important, but from the pictures russia starts preaty strong in the 41 senario. Japan starts with a huge navy with 3 Carriers but lone carriers are now extremly wounderable to subs. Thats a great boost to the game however balance wise it means that Japan needs to build escorts for their carriers. Having only 17IPC to start with, that might be kind of tricy. Russia starts of with mostly infanteri, which means they might have a hard time hiting back 1st turn. However if russia builds artellery/tanks 1st turn I geuss that russia will very soon (round 2) start to kick Germany out of Russia.

The starting IPC difference are simply to huge. The only thing that can balance the game is the national bonus IPC.

I hope they have playtested the game, but so far I actually fear the worst.

[squirecam]

@timerover51:

@Krieghund:

Bear in mind that National Objectives will add to these numbers.

US National Objectives give the US zip until virtually the end of the game, and you know that Krieghund, so quit claiming that as a balance.  Between butchering the US and UK fleets and this, the only Allied option is getting Heavy Bombers fast.

@timerover51:

Given the starting IPC, best game for the Axis maybe.  As for Krieghund, he is probably laughing his head off at us.  Since he has provided information about the game, he has NOT SIGNED ANY FORM OF A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, which is customary for individuals who assisted in developing a game to sign if a company wishes information to be kept confidential.  He can tell us anything that he likes, but is simply holding out and letting the rest of us dangle in the wind while he gets his jollies.

You have no idea what he has signed or not signed, nor any idea of what the victory bonuses are. Moreover, even if the USA got bonuses, you are already on record as wanting the axis to have no shot at winning, so any bonus is already not enough for you.

You should lay off him, expecially when your views have been pretty insulting to IL and others already.

And AAAv is clearly A&A Aniv. Which is what I will continue to use.  :-D

That said, IIRC, USA gets bonuses for just holding onto East West and Central USA. So they get a “cheese” bonus right from the start that they are likely never to lose. How is that for allied help…

[Lynxes]

/squirecam

Thanks for the update on Nat objectives! If you have more you remember then please contribute to that thread, I will update my original post as more info comes in.

[squirecam]

@Lynxes:

/squirecam

Thanks for the update on Nat objectives! If you have more you remember then please contribute to that thread, I will update my original post as more info comes in.

Yeah, you put up some good guesses.

As to the list, I took a quick look. USA will not get a bonus for Italy. Italy gets a bonus for Italy, but I dont think any other country does. USA does get a bonus for France, as you have stated.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok thats enough… offending posts have been eliminated. If threads turn into sidetracks they will be closed.