Thanks! Having a great time, and learning, so…
Was this game play tested AT ALL?
-
I’m not sure how long AA50 was tested or how many different testers there were, but we’ve been playing competitive games (tourney-league) here for 7 months and one thing I’ve noticed is it is incredibly hard to duplicate results to test long term playouts. I’ve seen lots of similar attacks but very rarely have I seen games with the exact same dice rolls for G1, R1, and J1.
Now that could be one line of thinking, more variety in rds 1-3 over how will things look if we get to rds 6+.
Afterall, it is a boardgame designed to be played FTF with up to 6 players on a weekend with your buddies, on-line play is 1-1 for the most part. One player working 3 countries is much more effiicient then 3 different players.So, on-line is much more competitive in that “funness” may be sacrificed at the higher levels of play so that you can win the tourney, win the league, have the best record, etc. I’m not saying the game isn’t fun for a person that wins a tourney or goes 16-0, what I’m saying is at some point winning becomes more important over things like the historical nature of the game, playing muli-player, or if KGF is better than KJF, etc.
Testers have a limited time, we have years if needed to find all the bugs. :-D
-
But, surely, Subotai, you don’t expect people to bid for units in the Pacific theater if they are allowed to place units in Europe which are much more cost-effective IPC per IPC? :?
You’re right, but I personally prefer open bids, b/c for me it’s about winning the game. But for players who want more action in the pacific, and mainland Asia, force bids can be a good solution.
It will be more like a “house rule” for bidding rules, in contrast to the TripleA lobby environment, TripleA warclub ladder and here on A&A.org (PBF games). Historically, players have been using open bids, with some regulations.I won’t change the rules, but many people play with one or more house rules, and if a playgroup is unhappy with some aspects/theaters of the game, then this force bids option can be a good solution.
As the game designers say, there’s no problem in using house rules if all players agree, and if it makes the game more interesting.
For AA50 or AA42 to be less 100%-KGF-like, there has to be much more radical changes then we see from Revised to AA50. -
There is no benefit to taking these islands, either for japan or for the usa. even National Objectives do not solve this because Japan is going to want to take the Philippines, East Indies, Borneo, and Kwangtung anyway just for the money. The NOs should have skipped these and only dealt with the non-moneyed islands.
But USA has NO for Midway, Wake, Hawaii, and Solomons (any 3). A Japanese NO includes Solomons (no IPC value) so the game design does give more incentive than ever for the 0 IPC islands. Not enough to sucker the USA into fighting a losing battle in the Pacific, but more than before nonetheless.
I agree too much value given to Borneo and East Indies. They were 1’s in “classic”. Boosted to 4 to give some extra income to Japan since all countries were beefed up a bit for revised, but now Japan is too powerful in AA50. In this thread, we have as a group determined that Japan is too powerful with 9 fighters and 3 carriers, about 4 transports, and no enemy complexes anywhere closer than Moscow or San Francisco. Recipe for domination. Let me put it this way. I run out of Japanese control markers, so I went to get my classic set and took ALL of the Japanese control markers from it. I still don’t have enough. I’m playing solo, so the playing ability of Japan and her enemies is roughly equal. In all my 1941 games Japan gets to about 60 IPCs income plus NO’s and completely takes the US out of the war by continuously threatining and attacking California, and trading Western Canada. All this while easily taking over all of China, Northern Russia, some of Africa, all of Southern Asia, with absolutely no retaliation from anyone. There’s nothing to do but help topple Russia faster or tie up the Americans. The Americans are closer (remember 3 carriers, 9 planes and a lot of transports) and easier to attack quickly with big forces, so that’s how my games go.
I understand that in 1941 Japan had a lot of fighters and carriers and everything. I guess you could say the Japs got majorly “diced” at Midway, which evened things up in actual history. In the '41 scenario, that hasn’t happened.
I guess I’m looking at the game a bit differently than when I originally posted this topic. If you set up a game based on the actual military positions in the world in 1941 and ignore actual historical events, and one country moves at a time, the Axis are in a position to take over the world. Russian winter is not a factor. Midway - didn’t happen. Biggest successful decoy of all time in 1944 in UK in preparations for D-Day - nonfactor. The fact that after a few rounds (of game time) almost all experienced Japanese pilots had been killed - makes no difference. The fact that Japanese tanks were not equal in any way to German and American tanks - not accounted for. I’ve learned to just appreciate the game for what it is - a fun wargame to play. It’s almost best to throw history out the window and forget about it, and start rolling those dice.
-
@Subotai:
For me it’s like a complex chess game, 1vs1, who can move the pieces/units better than the opponent. But it is also a WW2 theme, and it is better with a little more realism, both for warfare matters and specific WW2 factors. We got improvements from the Revised version, but not enough, imo.
Maybe having Japan attacking Russia is a lesser evil, for the real WW2, what the hell was the Japanese thinking before they attacked the US in 1941 :roll: :-)
One “slight” difference between A&A and chess. When I attack your queen with my pawn in chess, the queen is dead. The A&A version of chess would have you roll dice first. If I roll a one, i get a hit, if your queen rolls a 5 or less than you get a hit. :lol:
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor pre-emptively to prevent the entire US fleet from eventually coming after them and crushing them. They attacked Pearl Harbor to get an easy kill of a bunch of battleships, so in their mind they would have some kind of chance of surviving their own imperialism. The American carriers, however, which turned out to be the real “kings of the sea”, were all mysteriously absent from Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. This is one of the main reasons some believe the higher ups in the USA (like the President) knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and allowed it to stir up the public support for the war which simply was not there with no attack on the US. I think the Japanese naval codes had already been cracked at this point too, so some conspiracy theorists believe US command knew the attack was coming.
But anyway, I agree with you that it was not a good move for Japan to sucker punch the most powerful industrial nation (and most innovative) in the world which was trying hard to stay out of the war altogether. Admiral Yamamoto recognized this immediately (he was probably against the attack in the first place) when he famously said that “I fear all we have accomplished is to awaken a sleeping giant”.
-
Back to the topic!! I think the NOs do something to encourage a Pacific conflict, what’s wrong is the set-up which is skewed towards the Japanese. They just have so many units compared to the Allies that it’s often not worth to try and fight them. AA50 did strengthen the US fleet somewhat, but they gave the Japanese 9 fighters and 5 transports which is too much.
So, back to the idea of bids being placed in China or on TTs or sz:s bordering Japanese at-start units. Would a bid of say 4 inf in Yunnan and 1 Destroyer at the West coast make the game more like it was meant to be from the start?
An extra DD at WUSA will deter nothing. I would still throw 2 fighters at it and a DD and 2 fighters at Pearl Harbor. The outcome is the same.
I think for history sake the PH attack must happen. The Japanese did not attack any US warships just off the western coast. That is why I would be for a DD at PH and a Cruiser at WUSA. A DD at PH changes nothing except it makes the Japanese attack it with more than 2 fighters and a DD. This eliminates the WUSA attack. I am for historical accuracy in the 1st round after that though it’s anyones game and anyones stategy.
I seriously cannot believe the playtesters allowed the Japanese to sink both fleets at PH and WUSA. It’s a no brainer with the setup as is. Pathetic actually.
Let’s refresh…With my setup the Japanese will have to throw 4 fighters and the DD at PH, losing the DD . If they try to throw 2 fighters and a DD at it they may lose. Maybe they throw 3 fighters at it and win but then what do they do with the 4th fighter? Attack a DD and a Cruiser? I don’t think so.
-
Why not simply replace the sz56 transport with a cruiser?
That is somewhat historical in that the US was not militarily ready at the time to start amphibiously assaulting islands. This also makes it harder for Japan to attack sz56, and it actually takes away some of Japan’s incentive to attack it since there is no free transport there to destroy.
-
You must be very careful though as to weakening Japan, as if you do it too much the Japan war machine can be gutted very quickly (IPC wise). An India IC + US pacific builds + R1 bomber in caucaus and reinforcements into India can stop Japan’s income. Granted Russia will be pressed but that happens, and just holding moscow for a few rounds is not difficult.
-
You must be very careful though as to weakening Japan, as if you do it too much the Japan war machine can be gutted very quickly (IPC wise). An India IC + US pacific builds + R1 bomber in caucaus and reinforcements into India can stop Japan’s income. Granted Russia will be pressed but that happens, and just holding moscow for a few rounds is not difficult.
well, i was implying that if you added a cruiser and/or DD to western USA, that you would not need ANY other bids at all.
-
I find its easier to play as the allies, even against compotent opponents right here at AA org.
Its all about using the units you start with effectively.
There are alot of holes in every J1 that can be exploited.
this is just a case of modern stratgies needing to catch up with the awesomeness of the game we’ve been provided. :)
-
When we judge the (un)balance, we look at a # of games, not only 2-3 games. Dice is very important in AA50, much more than in Revised. While in a no bid Revised game you will only have extreme luck, enough to win w/o a bid maybe 1% of all games, the dice in AA50 41 rnd 1 is more like yahtzee, although with LL it will favor the attacker, I have seen so many 70%-95% battles go wrong in ADS games.
For more than 60% of all games axis are favored imo, but the balance in AA50 41 is as much about the dice as a unit bid is in Revised. You only need bids in AA50 41 if axis does not have bad luck rnd 1.
While it is very hard to win a single game in Revised w/o bids as axis, (against decent players), this is different in AA50 b/c of the extreme effect of the rnd 1 dice. So even if axis should win maybe 60% of all games, or even more, it is not so difficult to win a single no bid game in AA50 as allies. As it is not so difficult to win a single game, it is also easier to win several no bid games as allies in AA50. -
An extra DD at WUSA will deter nothing. I would still throw 2 fighters at it and a DD and 2 fighters at Pearl Harbor. The outcome is the same.
I think for history sake the PH attack must happen. The Japanese did not attack any US warships just off the western coast. That is why I would be for a DD at PH and a Cruiser at WUSA. A DD at PH changes nothing except it makes the Japanese attack it with more than 2 fighters and a DD. This eliminates the WUSA attack. I am for historical accuracy in the 1st round after that though it’s anyones game and anyones stategy.
Yes, flying tiger, you’re right that a DD at PH works better than a DD at WCO. Do you want to try a game with a 20 IPC bid for Allies, bound to the Pacific theater? You would put 12 IPC on a cruiser, and I would put on 4 inf in YUN, and we would both put a DD in PH. We could play two parallell games, with both sides!
-
People have rightly pointed out that the IJN was the most powerful navy in the Pacific at the outbreak of the Pacific war. This is reflected in the A&A initial set up.
The problem is that the Japanese simply were not able to quadruple their pre-war industrial power the way they almost effortlessly do in this game. Neither were they in practice able to reduce US industrial production by 20% simply by invading the Solomons, Phillipines and Wake Island! Maybe to reflect the absolutely massive industrial response of the US they should drop the US NO for wake etc. and increase the mainland (E USA, C USA, W USA) NO to 10 IPCs. Leave the Phillipines NO because it really was a US priority (Well a McArthurite priority anyway!).
Then, instead of the E Indies NO for Japan, give the Japanese the (currently US) Wake/Midway/Hawaii/Solomons NO. Force them to fight the Americans on unfavourable terms if they want that extra 5 IPCs. Because in the end that was what the Japanese never managed - they over stretched their defensive perimeter in the Pacific and the US were able to puncture and eventually collapse it.
Does this mean the Japanese will ahistorically ignore the E.Indies and Borneo? Well both the islands are worth 8 IPCs between them, 10 with the easily conquered Phillipines thrown in. So no of course they won’t.
But it will mean that if they want to play with fire and get within US air force/navy range for 5 IPCs extra then they’d better make sure they know what they’re doing…
-
To me, the Philippines NO seems totally redundant. Things have gone very wrong for Japan if the US has a chance at it…
Germany’s NOs are the best designed - they are very interactive. I wish the NOs for the other countries were as well implemented (they are either too hard to get until you’ve won, or are so easy you can assume them).
-
To me, the Philippines NO seems totally redundant. Things have gone very wrong for Japan if the US has a chance at it…
Germany’s NOs are the best designed - they are very interactive. I wish the NOs for the other countries were as well implemented (they are either too hard to get until you’ve won, or are so easy you can assume them).
Half of the NOs are good, the other half are redundant.
I think Germany’s, Italy’s, and Russia’s NOs are very good. They are interactive and encourage people to play the game slightly differently and a bit more historically accurately.
UK’s, USA’s, and Japan’s NOs I believe are terrible.
Japan is going to get all of her NOs by playing the same way as she would normally play if there were not NOs, and the allies are NEVER, never going to take them away from her until they have already won the game (ie: berlin and italy have fallen).
USA’s NOs are the same way, the USA is going to get the first one no matter how they play, and the one in france does not encourage any behavior that the USA does not already do without NOs. The NO for the philippines will never be taken until Japan is essentially defeated. The only interactive NO they have is the one about the solomon islands and hawaii.
UKs NOs are again, usually pretty redundant. Slightly more interactive than Japan and the USA, they still suffer from the problem of UK not really being able to do much. UK is going to take France when they take France, and that doesn’t change much whether you have NOs or not. The NO about controlling terr like Gibralter, Egypt, South Africa, and Australia, does not really come into play much because the Axis are going to take and hold Egypt for the same number of turns whether there are NOs or not. It really only comes into play when the Axis do something odd like take Gibralter or Australia. And their NO about Japanese pacific Islands is dumb since the UK can’t do shit about it anyway, therefore it is not really very interactive. -
I think the suggestion of replacing the transport in W.USA with a cruiser might just do it, and at a net of $5! Coupled with my suggestion that the game starts with China then moves to the regular sequence (with China going after USA) Japan would then have to make hard choices from amongst their options.
The problem with adding US navy is many will simply send it through Panama (especiall if it is an offshore capable unit).
I like the Idea of split USA production ala Pacific (Auss/India) with an additional central cash pool that can be divied up as preferred for which ever strat the US player desires. This keeps USA in both theatres but allows individualized strats as well. I think the income would have to be higher though. -
Last few posts are very good.
If the game is going to be re-released then I hope WOTC, Larry Harris and the original playtesters realize the errors in the Pacific and fix them.
Europe looks fine to me.
-
I think the suggestion of replacing the transport in W.USA with a cruiser might just do it, and at a net of $5! Coupled with my suggestion that the game starts with China then moves to the regular sequence (with China going after USA) Japan would then have to make hard choices from amongst their options.
The problem with adding US navy is many will simply send it through Panama (especiall if it is an offshore capable unit).Yes, that is the reason I suggest a very high NO value(15) for Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway. This makes America stay and fight.
-
Yes, that is the reason I suggest a very high NO value(15) for Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway. This makes America stay and fight.
Or give them 3 NO’s based upon island pairs and the “homeland” NO including Alaska. This keeps the big payoff from being all or nothing and allows for strategic island hopping from both powers (Japan’s NO cash should also be based away from the mainland primarily)
-
Or give them 3 NO’s based upon island pairs and the “homeland” NO including Alaska. This keeps the big payoff from being all or nothing and allows for strategic island hopping from both powers (Japan’s NO cash should also be based away from the mainland primarily)
How about 10ipcs for homeland, EUSA, CUSA, WUSA, Hawaii, Alaska
10ipcs for 2 of the 3 Wake, Midway, Solomans
5 ipcs for Philippines
I realize that is 25 ipcs in NOs but America had a huge economy compared to others and the game does not reflect that. Like others said if USA has Philippines the game is likely over anyway.
-
I tend to agree Flying Tiger. And after all - it’s a steep struggle for the US to support both theatres in AA50. If Japan is doing well with NOs then she’s soon getting 60+ IPCs herself anyway.
Though I’d rather see a half way solution - make the US a bit stronger AND Japan a bit weaker. That you don’t risk the US choosing tho through 70 IPCs odd across the Atlantic at europe!