Well done!
We need an allied playbook.
-
@crockett36 Building factories too early can be dangerous as Japan. You can’t power the factories and build what you need to confront a full USA press. I’m a big fan of subs (in many versions) for USA, Japan, and Germany especially.
-
@crockett36 said in We need an allied playbook.:
In one video, I proposed a negative bid: the loss of units. Japanese planes specifically.
@taamvan said in We need an allied playbook.:
@crockett36 Sure, splotch 1 SB and the 1 TB that can reach Yunnan on turn 1. I’m in.
Interesting idea, but I absolutely positively would not use an IPC based negative bid to reduce Japanese planes. My order would be:
Kwangsi art
SZ6 TT
Kwangsi inf
Siam inf.
SZ19 TT - perhaps this should be after the other TT - not sure.Just removing the Kwangsi art should save the Prince of Wales (SZ37 BB) in a J1 DOW. Or make the Yunnan attack really dodgy.
-
Itd blow the timing of taking the spice islands. if its negative bidding wouldnt the opposing player choose whats lost? why would it be based on a predetermined list?
was reading the BM mod notes and it says that the BM guerilla rule and china survival isnt game changer it leads japan to crush india even faster (tho japan gets an extra bonus NO in thar version)
changing japan isnt why russia dies so were fixing what isnt broken…give germany 1 sb and sea lion is much harder to pull off
-
The way I read it, the player playing the allies would decide what’s removed from the Axis. It is a really interesting idea actually. I think bids could be much smaller that way because you could remove the units which punch above their weight. Which would certainly be the Japanese land units on Asia, and the transports which help to get more Japanese land units on Asia (as well as the islands).
Moscow doesn’t die in the top level games, at least not usually very early. So I challenge the suggestion that the bid needs to fix that.
BTW, I disagree that losing 2 out of 21 Japanese planes would make a significant difference to taking the spice islands. What are you talking about? Losing transports would certainly make a difference though.
-
i meant his suggestion would mess up the japanese money, not mine
japan has so many planes we just call it the sprinkle…choose where the few ground units go first then sprinkle planes as needed
-
I think that we are turning the wrong screws to make Vanilla work optimal for everybody.
The idea of an Allied Playbook is to give access to every Player to play as accordingly as possible to stand a chance against the Axis player.
This can only be achieved when we make sure that the “Allied player” understands the mechanics of the board and knows the crucial Spots on it and also gets a true feeling of what to purchase when.
We can take Axis pieces from the board as much as we want to and still loose!
A List of Spots were we have, no must! lay an eye on should make a good start together with a correctly adressed explanation of why this Spot is so important.
Best regards
AetV -
this convo is just a digression from that original goal. I dont think there can be an allied playbook without it being an endlessly complex series of if thens. crockett brought it up so maybe he has a different view.
there are plenty of ideas like middle earth and allied dark skies, yunnan stack, russia mobile stacking… that are good rough plans. I wanted to try out the gibraltar stack but youve got to see whats happening before you pick your response so i had to keep it in my pocket for a few games.
the game is nice and mature and weve blabbed out every good idea i can think up which is why sirebloods, yg and mark movels efforts are all welcome
and its good to chat with the crew the discussion has pretty much died off…
-
@simon33 that is very well thought out.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas what would those spots be for you, a et v? The perimeter vcs in the Pac must be on your list? Moscow, Egypt, London. 91?
-
@taamvan still scheming for OOB . I think flat tops for uncle Joe was close to a sure thing except against top tier players. It was working against a top tier when I lost to pac vcs. Those rules I despise.
I’m experimenting with a neutral Grab t3. Fun, lucrative. I think desperation could drive me to invest 10 per turn on tech as America, GB, maybe Rus before ger pushes in. Why despise it? Its in the rule book. Also trying a slow navy build in the Indian and pac Ocean. Playing the axis right now. And thinking about war room.
-
@crockett36 thats all crazy talk. there are many variations out there to enjoy
-
I appreciate those variations. I still have an itch that needs scratching. Grasshopper s is fantastic for a one day tabletop event. Don’t know the details of the others. I want to get to yours. But the OOB intrigues me. I once thought the middle east and Africa were a loss. Now I have no problem with keeping those areas. I will say that it’s closer to balance than is thought.
-
@crockett36 did you read my allied playbook post forgot to flag u
-
@oysteilo said in We need an allied playbook.:
I am just throwing in my two cents here. I think i am one of the few that actually have tried the tamvan mode.
I think it adresses the problem with the oob version differently than bm3. It changes the stup by giving soviet a fighter and a tank. This doesnt affect anything but changing the setup is so so. What it does good is, it takes money away from Germany as opposed to bm3 where the solution always is to throw out more money. This is infact a HUGE weaknes with bm because the games last forever.
Because of the nov/moscow/vol/cauc objective is changed to 3 it also becomes more evident to go after Norway as the allies i think. Maybe this becomes too predictable in the long term
In the end. an easy and elegant fix, but it is probably not enough
i think this the point. exactely! :)
-
I have played the mode a few times and it is quite good
-
@taamvan yes i did. excellent.
-
thank you bros,
I write from Indianapolis, former site of Gencon. I’m not optimistic that there will be a convention this year either…but look forward to it resuming. This is my 6th trip here in 5 years–the big difference is I have 2 sets of friends now to stay with, to enjoy along with the many friends I’ve made at Gencon.
I continue to stay in contact with my former opponents and other enthusiasts of the game. It does feel very long-in-the-tooth, an old, unsupported game with a few followers left–a game that was perhaps ruined (or elevated ) by too many playthroughs, computerization, and beating the setups to death. My buddy Gary interviewed Larry Harris recently, and one thing that came across is that larry prefers making games to playing or testing them…leaving that to others. He, like an artiste, is not incredibly concerned with the ultimate balance or perfection of any given game, but remains vested in his creation and like Gary Gygax–an ambivalent DM by modern standards of storytelling, at best–was a pioneer who was as excited about the fans as the game, and more excited about the next game, than the last one.
In that spirit, the games continue–though our live club hasn’t played in months. I’ve played the computer versions, and something is definitely lost in translation there. I continue to look forward to making new friends, and finding new common ground in each version to play, as well as staying in contact with Young Grasshopper, Dave Jensen, and the others…
As for the mod concept, I think the most important part is denying Germany the money flop while still making certain zones worth fighting for. If Leningrad is only worth 3, it may never be worth a concerted defensive effort. However, 5 for spice and Norway bonus are appropriate because the NO should make the teams want to fight for these objectives really badly. The problem with the core Alpha+3 setup is that it wants to make some fringe strategies viable, in doing so, it makes the critical path too easy. This leads to too many extra Axis planes (“the sprinkle”) and too much extra Axis money (“the Flop”)
The problem with bidding is that players will create a new Allied Critical Path by concentrating the IPC where it hurts the axis the most, rather than where it helps the allies in the most flavorful, historical, and non-opener modding way possible. That’s why fixed bidding (modding starting setup) seems a rich area for a new Alpha+4, reshuffling all the opening moves and forcing us to come up with all new ways to exploit that. However, I’ve tried to create my own starting setups with this map ( a masterpiece), and keeping the tension of do-this-if/unless is really difficult. Any modders who can create new dynamic setups as good as the existing ones deserve our support and congratulations.
-
@simon33 said in We need an allied playbook.:
Building a Persia factory UK2 is normally advised
Great posts, @simon33!
I’m not so sure about the early mIC in Persia though.
-
I’ve historically had a strong preference of getting a mIC in place in Persia already during UK2, but against strong opposition it seems to always fall rather early into the hands of the nazis. It can also come under pressure from J.
-
The obvious exception is a G2DOW, with the idea of getting as many figs as possible into Moscow. G should also be relatively weaker in the advance, so the mIC should be more secure. Especially in connection with a mIC in Iraq, setting up a nice factory-complex.
-
A mIC in Iraq is more central and can connect better with a mIC in Cairo as well, but air there do need an ab in order to reach Moscow. Usually you’d rather want an ab in Syria, helping to control z99.
-
Never build 3 mICs in the ME, since UK can’t really support the production. And if they can, they still have better use for their resources. A great alternative to a mIC is to use the one in SA, building primarily fast-movers, but also fleet (then mainly subs, but eventually also tr or des if need be).
-
-
A minor in Persia is never advised in my opinion. If you really want this, it is much better to attack Iraq, British 1. It accomplish the same and is order of magnitudes bettee than Persia. I really don’t se the need for the Persia complex
-
@trulpen said in We need an allied playbook.:
- The obvious exception is a G2DOW,
Typo. Of course meant G1DOW.
Suggested Topics
