North-West Europe

[cousin_joe]

@Imperious:

If you trade some nice TT’s, then you get 5 ipc extra income

And by the same token if a man selling flowers on the street corner makes $100 a day and his money gets stolen…then it can be also stolen a second time by a second crook  in the same day for another $100 dollars? The money he makes is doubled somehow even if only $100 is generated. Thats totally asinine.

Broken

What if said man has a million dollars in his pocket, and every time he gets robbed, he takes another $100 out.  Then in theory, said man could be robbed 6 times a day, by 6 different crooks, and never appear to go broke  :-D

[Lynxes]

If you trade some nice TT’s, then you get 5 ipc extra income    huh

Yes, in theory this is possible. But this game is not a win-win-situation. If your opponent wins IPCs, you lose by it. Take France in AA50 for example. Yes, Germany can allow for invasions and retake the area. But now instead of UK winning 6 IPCs by this move, UK wins 11 IPCs and US 5 IPCs. Hardly a funny situation for the Axis…  :wink:

[italiansarecoming]

that could work that way worth fighting for p.s. i was in a&ae and basically i had 37 inf. in stalingrad germany had 15 tanks?

[Imperious Leader]

What if said man has a million dollars in his pocket, and every time he gets robbed, he takes another $100 out.  Then in theory, said man could be robbed 6 times a day, by 6 different crooks, and never appear to go broke

The problem is the mans net worth/value is fixed per measure of unit or turn and  if it was set up where anybody can rob the fixed income generated up to 6 times in the span of a single turn…it leads to longer games because more income is artificially generated then is possible and this allows more units to be built, which in turns takes more time to destroy.

An addition, the allies didn’t get income for ‘liberation’, while the axis plundered conquered nations. At a minimum the Allies should just reduce the axis nation by the income of what they liberate, rather than take the same money.

Lastly, the territory has gone thru the ringer and the field of battle leaves devastation so getting full value for a nation that was just invaded makes no sence either.

[Adlertag]

I will forward this to Larry

[Admiral T]

My thoughts exactly Imperious Leader!

[Lucifer]

The territory trading issue, I havent really seen it as a problem until IL pointed out the obvious lack of logic, but it is very easy to fix, by collecting income at the start of a turn, did Larry give any explanation for not fixing this flaw?

[Flying Tiger]

With all the territory swapping that goes on in Europe the game would make Japan and USA VERY powerful. Japan doesn’t have quite as much territory changing hands as Germany and Russia.

Maybe you could fix that by reducing all territories by 1 ipc but increasing capital territories by 10 ipcs.

[cousin_joe]

@Imperious:

What if said man has a million dollars in his pocket, and every time he gets robbed, he takes another $100 out.  Then in theory, said man could be robbed 6 times a day, by 6 different crooks, and never appear to go broke

The problem is the mans net worth/value is fixed per measure of unit or turn and  if it was set up where anybody can rob the fixed income generated up to 6 times in the span of a single turn…it leads to longer games because more income is artificially generated then is possible and this allows more units to be built, which in turns takes more time to destroy.

An addition, the allies didn’t get income for ‘liberation’, while the axis plundered conquered nations. At a minimum the Allies should just reduce the axis nation by the income of what they liberate, rather than take the same money.

Lastly, the territory has gone thru the ringer and the field of battle leaves devastation so getting full value for a nation that was just invaded makes no sence either.

Hi Imperious,

I was actually just making a joke  :-)

On a serious note though, as with most things in A&A, the income system is a total abstraction, and because of that, one can almost explain it off any way they wish.

Now, I can’t speak for Larry, but that is why I believe they use the term Industrial Production Certificates (IPCs) rather than just Dollars.  The increased production from taking territories goes beyond just the infrastructure of the territory being taken over.  Taking territories is generally a sign of the war going well, which translates into increased support for the war at home (increased morale, increased productivity, increased purchase of war bonds, etc.)

Is this a perfect explanation?  No, but I certainly think it’s sufficient.  Besides, getting instant benefit from taking territories has been a core dynamic of pretty much every A&A game so far, I wouldn’t think there would be much support for such a drastic change.

[Imperious Leader]

Its not really a drastic change. I have used the rule for like 5 years now and it only changes those kind of battles that are basically bogus attempts at grabbing IPC. They are flimsy attacks looking for the big payoff. Then the other gaff occurs when its possible for Germany to takes Moscow gets the cash, but does not hold it to have it fall to UK ( back to Soviets), then Japan retakes it ( money now to japan), lastly, America joins uk from Karelia and takes Moscow for a 5th time…and everybody has had a nice time collecting—(germany gets 8, Russia gets 8, Japan gets 8) for a total of 24IPC on ONE TURN!

It also happens in France alot with at least 12 IPC generated a turn.

Its a huge deal and it happens not in Moscow, but in France, Southern Europe, Africa, and especially in places like UKraine and western Soviet territories.

If you add up these trading zones, you can easily get like 15-40 IPC in extra plastic being ‘generated’ each turn which takes more time to destroy in combat…more dice rolling, longer turns, more downtime…longer game

Player one goes in with 2 inf and 3 planes, kills 3 inf collects 3 ipc, player two does same nearly every turn with a total of 6 IPC collected from one territory. This is dragging on the game because its artificially generating inflated income from the map and the perfected technique of this type of player can extend the game for more turns. The game should be shorter not longer. Its a huge deal and simple to repair. The other thing that really shortens the game is all axis- all allies turn sequence…but its a further step.

It happens alot in games because its a proven busted trick that does not get fixed. At least AA50 got rid of transport stall and some improvement on sub stall.

North West will be a trading zone making for the reality of a “Dieppe a turn” and turning a decent game into extended cat and mouse antics

[Black_Elk]

Now, I can’t speak for Larry, but that is why I believe they use the term Industrial Production Certificates (IPCs) rather than just Dollars.  The increased production from taking territories goes beyond just the infrastructure of the territory being taken over. Taking territories is generally a sign of the war going well, which translates into increased support for the war at home (increased morale, increased productivity, increased purchase of war bonds, etc.)

If this is true then why can’t we just make Hawaii worth 3 ipcs already?  :-D

Honestly though, I tend to agree with all the sentiments expressed here. The thing I don’t understand is, if IPCs are already such a sketchy concept, why don’t we just ditch the ‘industry’ part altogether, and start treating them like the gameplay abstractions that they really are?

The territory trading issue is just another indication of underlying problems with the current IPC system. I know AA50 is already finished, and we can’t do anything about it now except complain or maybe introduce house rules or something, but I really hope the next game takes the basic resources in a different direction. The analogy to real world industry always falls apart, so why not just make the definition itself more broad ranging? I think its at least as important to consider this possibility, as it is to go altering the unit costs, or introducing new victory conditions and combat rules, or any of the other things that we’ve done to change the gameplay since Classic. We should try to address the IPC thing directly, and not just with a house ruleset either, but with a serious, concensus petition for Larry to fix the problem next time.

Surely if France can produce 12 ipcs in a single round, then the Solomon Islands should be able to produce 2. The disparity between the South Pacific and Europe is so dramatic, I just don’t see the logic from a gameplay standpoint.

[Imperious Leader]

Right Hawaii was our main focal point for our Pacific War. Losing it should be reflected in something more than 1 IPC.

They did get Borneo and Dutch indies correct however.

France should be at a lower IPC value, perhaps two territories with 5 total ( 3 and 2)

[italiansarecoming]

actually thats how i play collect at the start of a turn so that way you are fightings ina  battle field and it keepsswitching sides until somone holds it for your next turn then noone will ever get the income i love those wars!

[Flying Tiger]

I still don’t see how this could be playable with Germany swapping territories constantly and USA not. Germany would be too weak to defend itself by round 3-4.

[Flying Tiger]

As far as the Northwest Europe question…. This is bad news for Germany. Two territories to defend against D-Day with constant Russian pressure could be devestating. We will not know until a few games are played but maybe it was setup that way because 1 landing zone gave the Germans an advantage. When you factor in Italy(Germany can forget about africa and let Italy worry about it freeing up a full Russian assault)
and factoring in National objectives (may give a unfair income advantage to Germany early in the game, this extra income almost a requirement to shore up NWE and France?)
and factoring in that the Allies will surely focus on 1 territory only and that Germany will PROBABLY have a counter attack force in place in the other territory may not make it a Huge deal.

All I know is that it will be interesting.

Anyone know what the playtesters thought?

[Imperious Leader]

Anyone know what the playtesters thought?

What did they think when they played Axis and Allies Europe?  Thye must have liked the idea of Germany buying all tanks and overrunning Moscow and the poor Soviets had not way to counter it.

The playtesters didnt say anything about the really thin national tokens from Revised

They didn’t say anything about miscolored cruisers from Guadalcanal or being short two infantry from Axis and Allies Bulge.

i just figure the allies are gonna land every turn and waste time rolling out pathetic battles that are nagging foot blisters every turn with back and forth trading and using shore shots to kill the defending infantry. Cheap naval units will make it possible for this type of thing.

[Guest]

@Imperious:

Anyone know what the playtesters thought?

What did they think when they played Axis and Allies Europe?  Thye must have liked the idea of Germany buying all tanks and overrunning Moscow and the poor Soviets had not way to counter it.

The playtesters didnt say anything about the really thin national tokens from Revised

They didn’t say anything about miscolored cruisers from Guadalcanal or being short two infantry from Axis and Allies Bulge.

i just figure the allies are gonna land every turn and waste time rolling out pathetic battles that are nagging foot blisters every turn with back and forth trading and using shore shots to kill the defending infantry. Cheap naval units will make it possible for this type of thing.

Agreed, but about Europe, is there really absolutely no counter for the German tank stacks?  No way to exploit the fact that tanks defend on 2?  Because theoretically, the infantry push mechanic should be present in this game.

[Imperious Leader]

Yea the 3-2 tanks still mess up this game. If AAE had 3-3 tanks it would be worse because the Soviets cant really buy them. Germany invades Leningrad plus normal attacks, builds all infantry, then G2-G4 its a bunch of tanks and shuck to Moscow. Try it and see.

The playtesters are never Hardcore AA fans. just goobers from AH fantasy game department.

sad/.

[shermantank]

@Imperious:

Yea the 3-2 tanks still mess up this game. If AAE had 3-3 tanks it would be worse because the Soviets cant really buy them. Germany invades Leningrad plus normal attacks, builds all infantry, then G2-G4 its a bunch of tanks and shuck to Moscow. Try it and see.

The playtesters are never Hardcore AA fans. just goobers from AH fantasy game department.

sad/.

They need hardcore A&A fans. They would play the new game at a higher level than the goobers could

[JohnBarbarossa]

Well, the playtesters from AAE were Don Rae and his playgroup. I can hardly call that goobers.

Apart from who is testing, I think it is difficult to spot things like that. Playtesters get a limited amount of time, and most of the time the rules get changed after that and the game is published without extensive testing of those new rules.

Especially when AAE came out there was only one game to referer to. People were so used to defend two fronts, that noone came up with the idea of throwing everything at the Russians. At least not at playtest time.