North-West Europe

[Adlertag]

@Craig:

But I think that they see it under the law of diminishing returns- “Get it pretty good and go with it.  The extra time spent fine-tuning it won’t make it that much better and in the meantime we will be losing money.”

So how do you explain november 18 ?

[Imperious Leader]

So how do you explain november 18 ?

They forgot to market the $100 game and the bean counter who counts the infantry goofed again shorting the obligatory 2 infantry and switching the cruiser colors again. Also the marketing is tied intimately with sales of turkey on Thanksgiving so drunk people who know nothing about the game will buy it out of haste thinking its a festive thing to do?

WOTC motto:

“Don’t buy stuffing, get stuffed with AA50! its only $100 bucks and you don’t need to know anything about it either and its less on the calories”

[Black_Elk]

2. Control- This is probably the more important issue in this discussion.  They don’t want that much input from the outside.

Larry brought in a select group of us to do some preliminary playtesting and Hasbro/WotC wasn’t totally down with that.  In the end it still happened, but then our part was over and the playtesting focus shifted to the people at WotC.

Which means that things were changed by them after we were done.  Some for the better, some not.

It all boils down to control.  They have and they like it that way.

Here’s the problem as I see it: There’s just no way that a small group of playtesters, even an expert group of highly informed and experienced playtesters, is going to be able to tease out all the flaws in a set up. The reason has everything to do with the fact that players mimic each others strategies, and piggy back on each other’s games. This is especially during the preliminary phases of playtesting.

I’m fairly sure I can imagine what the process is like: Larry probably has certain notions about the way the game should be played and ties to design the set up accordingly, but then the players spot a weakness in the set up, and start doing something different, that he didn’t anticipate. Eventually someone breaks the set up (ie discovers the optimal opening/counter opening) but before there’s time to fix it, the game is already slated to be shipped out.

That’s the problem with conducting all this playtesting Face to Face: its just inefficient and takes way too long. Even PBEM testing would be faster, but I feel like we could do so much more if we had a official computer translation of the board. You could still keep the control at the highest levels, but at least do a serious public Beta test, before you send it to the presses. I gaurantee you, in like 3 weeks after its release, someone out there will on a strategy to break the set up. Then we’ll have to institute a standard bid (like we always do) and try and correct for the imbalance. We could do all this before the game is even released though, if the suits would just get behind us on this one. I’m really surprised that there hasn’t been more emphasis on the PC end of things, especially since half of the people buying the new stuff next month, probably only learned about A&A via the Hasbro CD game. I mean, if it wasn’t for that thing, we probably wouldn’t even have a Revised game to play.

The future is online. A&A needs to snap to it, and start making the most of the new format.

[Nuclear]

I think the best type of playtesting really is just to get a bunch of people who have never played Axis and Allies before, or are just regular people who might only play once or twice a year.  It is easy to understand a game and to play it in weird ways if you are already fimilar with how it works and functions to a high degree.  But to have nobodies play it would do the following:
1. Make it so that the rules are easy to understand and comprhend, not like Battle of the Buldge which I do not know of anyone who truly understands how to play it.
2. Will make the set up more balanced and correct, as nobodies would pretty much be playing the game in a way that common sense seems to dictate as the best strategy, or the strategy that seems to be the best from having to think things out for a few mintues.

But that is just my experience with things.  Give it to the least experienced and least knowledgable on the topic or area, and if they cannot understand it or use it in a way that shows there to be something wrong or confusing, then you need to correct it.

As for the new format of having a CD game.  It would be nice and great, but there is also still the nice aspect of being able to play a game in front of live people face to face, and getting those nice little plastic units.

[Imperious Leader]

Personally, I think the games should include a CD for a computer version of the game or at least a demo of it where WOTC has a complete software version of every AA game to sell you.

also they should have custom piece sets and rules for additional pieces so you can keep adding all sorts of unique cool pieces. These would be sold in boxes of say 10-12 new pieces for each side and some neat new scenarios for the game.

[Nuclear]

I agree there could be more pieces for the game, espically other units.  Perhaps optional units and rules.  I could easily see AH make more money off selling extra optional packages or add ons to the game, then from profit just from game sales.

The map comes in 3 pieces so the following is possible:
1. Extra Optional Map pieces.  Perhaps to even allow for a WW1 set up of the game.  Just use 2 sections of the map, or something.
2. Different section maps for different start up times.

Plus having extra units could allow for more game flexability and replay value.

[Black_Elk]

Well why don’t we just draft a proposal to Larry, and then have everyone sign it?
At least that way he’d have something to show the guys at Hasbro, and be able to say “OK this is what my hard core fans say they want.” At least it would be a start.

:)

I agree to a certain extent with Nuclear, that the game is best played with the raw recruits. But from a design standpoint, you want to keep the base players happy first and foremost. Revised Out of the Box is only broken among those of us who know what we’re doing. I’m sure the newbies will be perfectly happy buying Factories in France, rolling for Tech, or building a Russian navy. Thats all fine, but those are not the people you want “playtesting” the game. For playtesting you need experts; people who will understand how to break the game.

That’s the only way you’re going to catch these problems before the box hits the shelves, and the best possible way for us to get the job done is to play online in real time. Its considerably faster and easier to do than with any other method of play. Hell, I played 3 games tonight already, against 3 different people. You just can’t do that face to face. Maybe in a tournament you could pull it off, but those are hard to organize, less consistent, and also there’s also no guarantee that the best players are even going to show up. Right now, the best players in the world are playing online, in PBEM games, or in Real Time, with the assistance of the computer. All that marketing stuff you guys want to do - selling the individual pieces and game packs etc. - all that will be 10 times easier to organize, once you have all those people gaming together in one central location.

The PC/Console game is the first step, then you do the board. Doing it the other way around, you reap none of the benefits and inherit all of the problems. Its also more expensive and confusing, requiring you have to put out amendments to the rules, or institute a bid, or put some other kind of band aid on the problem. Better to deal with all these issues before you start handing the board out to a gang of total neophytes…

That’s not playtesting, or playbalancing, that’s just playing the game. You might be able to lull some useful information out of it from a market survey perspective, but its not going to help you shore up problems with the basic game mechanics. For that you need people on the team who actually know what they’re doing.

[italiansarecoming]

@Black_Elk:

Well why don’t we just draft a proposal to Larry, and then have everyone sign it?
At least that way he’d have something to show the guys at Hasbro, and be able to say “OK this is what my hard core fans say they want.” At least it would be a start.

Funny!

But really, novmeber 18th this is like super duper bad they must have gone rong somewere.

Anyways northwest europe will show how long it took to get from france to berlin

[Guest]

@Craig:

BE- I agree with you concerning the amount of playtesting needed.

Even with what we did get done, there was still more that needed to be done.  And I already foresee some of the problems that you talk about.

But what can you do?  :? :cry:

We did what we could and will have to see how it all falls out.

Unfortunately the power that be don’t think like we do.  They have other priorities and other things going on at the same time.  We just live in our small A&A world.

Craig

Well there is always the next version.

[italiansarecoming]

I hope the next title is a&ae better version because a&ae is shorter and my friend will not p[lay with me no more because he says there is no strategy i think that spicing it up anotch would really help….

Anyways next to titles A&ae and A&C(ww1)

[Flashman]

If I can return to the topic a little further back regarding income from captured territory.

Collecting income at the start of a turn should be the FIRST rule in any self-respecting House Rule tome.

I go further:
Firstly I don’t allow any use of captured ICs. I still haven’t found a single notable historical example which could justify this.
I would even suggest not being able to use liberated ICs after a certain time; for example the French forces after D-Day until the end of the war used American uniforms and equipment as their own production base was either obsolete or put beyond use by the Germans.
Yes, the Germans used Czech factories but these were captured without a fight. Using captured Soviet industry was hardly viable, indeed occuying so much of the Soviet industrial base was worth far less to the Germans than then trade agreement they had with Russia before the war.

It is even possible to argue that NO income should be drawn from occupied territory; that any such benefit is always likley to be offset by the cost of the occupation.
In other words the point of occupying enemy territory is essentially to deny that income to him, as well as destroying enemy units in the field.
The obvious exception to this is the capture of oil fields, i.e. access to raw materials rather than “industrial” income.
Some maps have been produced with separate “industrial” and “oil production” values on the territories; I would suggest that the industrial income should be drawn by the home nation only.

Territory values actually make more sense this way, for example Borneo would be only 1 or even 0 for industry, but 3 or 4 for raw materials.

[italiansarecoming]

Ya that would work.  Ig i understand what you mean when you make an ipc there it can only produce this much even though ipc on territory says diff.
But its worth moore?

[TG Moses VI]

Flashman,

Collecting income at the start of a turn should be the FIRST rule in any self-respecting House Rule tome.

Interesting.  A pretty fundamental game to the game if you ask me.  What were the results?  Were both sides making significantly less money each turn?  Did games last longer than usual?  How did you rebalance the game?  I assume the Axis (with a small starting IPC) would need a booster shot somehow.

[Imperious Leader]

it leads to quicker play and more meaningful play. No unnecessary flimsy battles just to grab money. Also less is produced so less pieces means less die rolling. also, if you also allow defender retreats you model a back and forth ongoing thing but with more pieces which eats up the plastic leading to shorter games.

[Flashman]

@Imperious:

it leads to quicker play and more meaningful play. No unnecessary flimsy battles just to grab money. Also less is produced so less pieces means less die rolling. also, if you also allow defender retreats you model a back and forth ongoing thing but with more pieces which eats up the plastic leading to shorter games.

Yes, these two rules lead to a more historically correct strategic pattern, i.e. a power tends to make 1 or 2 BIG attacks per turn, rather than 4 or 5 smaller actions.
Reasons:
If you only collect money for holding a territory an entire turn, you need to attack it with a large enough force. If you make several piecemeal attacks you risk losing all of the gains and therefore losing many units for no financial gain.
With defender retreats, the same tactic is needed.  Make 4 attacks with a marginal material advantage in each and the defender will retreat out his expensive units with few losses, and then likely regain the territories next time with no cash gain to you.
But again, one BIG attack and you force the defender to either abandon the territory with considerable losses and little chance of regaining it, or stand and fight with crippling casualties.

This will of course tend to make each player turn pass more quickly.  Some people, however, will dislike the build and counter-build nature of the strategy rather than the grab-what-you-can-now tactics of the familiar game.
Another preference of mine is to allow units to be built only in home territories, which again leads to a more historical build up of forces.  Probably needs some kind of non-combat rail movement rules to bring units to the front more quickly.

[Imperious Leader]

If you combine this with my other concept of performing the turns together ( axis/allies) you then make something that is very quick… like 2-3 hours.

But of course other house rules come into effect to stop all the immediate things running in peoples minds about how it wont work or cant work. It does work.

[Bluestroke]

@Imperious:

If you combine this with my other concept of performing the turns together ( axis/allies) you then make something that is very quick… like 2-3 hours.

But of course other house rules come into effect to stop all the immediate things running in peoples minds about how it wont work or cant work. It does work.

All Axis/all Allies, this how we play all our 4 player games.
Who wants to wait almost an hour in between move/turns.

The problem unfolding, a new abstraction is required for capturing a territory.  Operational tempo gain, not production, how do we translate this into, something tangible?  Extra logistic–free moves to resupply?  Extra placements?  Extra combat move next turn? any or all of these could replace IPC for taken territories.  Deploy a tactical tempo attribute for captured territories, a territory which may have a mere 1 or 2 ipc value, for its tactical position on the map, but the real gain is operational tempo and extra move next turn or what, any ideas?

[toblerone77]

Personally I think adding NWE and other territories was a great idea. You’re always going to have trading unless you change the core fundamentals of the game. After too many changes the game isn’t really A&A, at least to me. I also think a good number of A&A players are far more casual than some who play and post here or play in tourneys. A&A kind of tries to go for mass appeal but the beauty of the game is that it can adapt to house rules. I’m an “advanced” casual player myself. I’m very farmiliar with the game, but I don’t play as often as alot of players here.

You could try say, putting some gray or white chips under a national marker and remove one chip for every turn played. After so many turns you capture it. Or something like that. Say regular one chip for regular territory, two for VCs, and three for capitals.

[Guest]

@Flashman:

If I can return to the topic a little further back regarding income from captured territory.

Collecting income at the start of a turn should be the FIRST rule in any self-respecting House Rule tome.

I go further:
Firstly I don’t allow any use of captured ICs. I still haven’t found a single notable historical example which could justify this.
I would even suggest not being able to use liberated ICs after a certain time; for example the French forces after D-Day until the end of the war used American uniforms and equipment as their own production base was either obsolete or put beyond use by the Germans.
Yes, the Germans used Czech factories but these were captured without a fight. Using captured Soviet industry was hardly viable, indeed occuying so much of the Soviet industrial base was worth far less to the Germans than then trade agreement they had with Russia before the war.

I really like these ideas.  Question though… what about building ICs in captured territory?  As in, if Japan captures India, building an IC there?  And likewise, when the British recapture India, should the IC be considered Japanese and thus ineligible for use?  I really like the idea of no using enemy ICs, I just see these loopholes.  Unless you plan on playing where ICs can not be built.

[toblerone77]

One thing to take into consideration is that ICs aren’t just production facilities they are also deployment Army/Navy Bases/HQs/ Ports/Shipyards. Like the ICs in EUSA also represent Westpoint, Quantico,VMI, etc. How you could somehow incorporate that into the game otherwise I’m not sure.