Maybe they shut it down because they are about to sell a better version themselves?
Hello? Thats exactly what it must mean. They remove the competition so they can maximize the success of their product.
Except for the fact that when they release a new boardgame they do absolutely nothing to support it, so this could be some kind of ‘chimp reaction’ from stale bananas. WOTC chimps often do radical things for no good reason because somebody pulled their chain too hard or a chimp fell out of its tree.
Hasbro did not support the CD-rom from 98, so they probably are not going to support an A&A game if they make it.
It’s easy to make something with better graphics than TripleA, and it’s a question of money, just hire a bunch of coders then the official game will be much better than TripleA. But there is good reason that many of us prefer TripleA before GTO, and that is that imo, the only thing which is better at GTO is better graphics. TripleA has tons of options compared to the GTO version.
And it’s doubtful that Hasbro will manage to shut down TripleA, the only problem at the moment is that the development process is stopped b/c it can’t be hosted at sourceforge until the copyright issue has been solved, or fixed, but it can be hosted elsewhere. This hole thing pisses me off, Hasbro is not interested in making a better product than TripleA, so they use a lawyer and send a letter, instead of hiring coders to make a better game than triplea, I myself and other players will chose whatever game or software platform we think suits our needs most.
We need to get the lobby going again.
they can´t really ban a lobby, even if we only uses a IRC channel it would suffice. then we just set up a normal direct connect game.
@Imperious:
.
Advanced Artillery, Mechanized Infantry and a few others are ‘tricks’ to avoid directly adding these units to the game as new pieces, but ‘invented’ by taking the existing ideas and adding nothing really in terms of a new idea that leads to a new dynamic strategy.
NO reality has these technologies in a game. Both existed in WW1. If you look at the actual major technologies that were important and first used in WW2, both of these would NEVER make the list.
Well maybe they could have done both - had it as tech - and create pieces which could only be used after the tech was acquired. I always thought they should have done that with jet fighters from 2nd Ed. on.
You could have a helicopter tech! (God knows what it would be).
PS: It does suck about triple A. If anything because a lot of people spent a lot of time putting all that together and now it’s been f**ked.
It’s just important to stay informed about where things go from here. Where there’s a will there’s a way. There must be ways for the willing to get around legal restrictions.
We wait and see.
PPS: I doubt an A&A game is going to come out from Hasbro. In reality - whenever I looked at Triple A they had at most a few 100 downloads. It’s hardly a market for a commercial game is it?
That’s why I don’t understand Hasbro - they seem to be being rather petty about it all. It’s not like there’s copies of AA50 not flying off the shelves while triple A downloads are hitting their second million. (I live in London and got my AA50 from NEW ZEALAND for chrissakes).
Hey ho.
It’s fully possible that there will be software version from Hasbro, but I didn’t hear anything yet, so I don’t believe it until I see it.
And if we look at history, Hasbro/wotc did not spend a lot of resources on A&A, even if the boardgames look fine. I have very strong doubts that an official A&A game will be better than TripleA, and that is not b/c TripleA is very good, it’s b/c Wotc/Hasbro don’t care about A&A.
At least they should make GTO as good as TripleA, even if I don’t like the layout. An official software A&A game must have all the options of TripleA, plus the graphics of GTO, and all A&A variants, not only Revised, b/c thats the only thing GTO can offer right now, and it took several months before they implemented bids… :roll:
Dear Wizards Forums Account Holder-
We are contacting you because you have not logged into your forums account in over a year. Due to a change in our accounts system, your account may be deactivated.
You must reactivate your account by 11:59 p.m. PDT, on Tuesday, July 21st in order to protect it.
Please disregard the below email that you received today regarding your forums account. This email mistakenly went out to active members instead of inactive members.
Your account is still active in our system, and you do not need to take any further action.
We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.
In light of the recent actions regarding the removal of Triple A, this chimp action can only make sence in a continuing series of stupid chimp antics and chimp behavior. I post at these forums at least once a week. Its like a chicken with a head cut off.
If it wasn’t for the forthcoming release of AA42 I could suspect that Hasbro/Wotc wanted to kill A&A completely…!
Most of the members on AA.org are mostly, or also playing the boardgame f2f in local playgroups, but many of us prefer the software versions of A&A, be it Abattlemap, GTO or TripleA. The most important things we have in common, is that we love A&A, preferably Revised and AA50. That’s the most important matter here, not if it is boardgame or software.
We agree on some matters IL, and we disagree on other issues, but we both love A&A.
TripleA will not be removed, but the developing process have been halted.
TripleA helps A&A evolving, as does the hundreds or thousands of local f2f playgroups across the world.
Wotc/Hasbro are really into a strategy of sabotaging A&A seriously, imo. Where will it end???
Just pray they don’t release a new version each 3 months as they do with Magic, making the game unplayable for all saving 24/7 players :lol: They are walking in that direction, making random changes to the rules (Nerfed Industry tech) and changing the faqs each month :|
We agree on some matters IL, and we disagree on other issues, but we both love A&A.
we don’t agree on LL. I only really favor it for AA guns firing at multiple planes. Yes AA must be protected and evolve to greater things. Yes we fight for this!
Thanks for the email links Veqryn, sent emails off to all those bastards at WoTC and Hasbro. The amount of apathy on these forums is astonishing; Hasbro threatens a DMCA takedown to a freely hosted fanservice of one of their lesser sold products, and the majority of people just flame it into oblivion and even suggest that the program sucked anyway and deserved to be shut down… When Hasbro comes after your AABattlemap and Mapview programs next, don’t expect much support from me… :cry:
Let’s get everyone on the same page here, dammit! Refuse to buy any Hasbro products and let them know that what they are doing is infuriating their fan base by clamping down on fan-made freeware! If they had made a superior product that was worthy of attention that’d be one thing, but threatening copyright infringement on a freeware game that has a total of 300 users worldwide is ridiculous. Most of you out there apparently don’t even like TripleA, even though somehow it was popular enough to have been shut down.
Definitely NOT buying AA1942 after Hasbro has completely eliminated any chance of me having fun with the Axis and Allies franchise anymore. People in town don’t play the boardgame, they can’t stay around for 12 hours to play one game, plus you can’t save those games anyway to pick up later. TripleA was the easiest way for me to find matches in their online lobby and ran generally flawlessly for me. THEY HAD A WORKING VERSION OF AA50 THAT I WANTED TO USE FOR THE TECH TOURNEY. So F*** you, Hasbro, never buying one of your products again.
Hopefully we’ll get somewhere with this, Veqryn, as we apparently are the only ones who give a rats ass. I just can’t understand the total lack of support from the Axis and Allies Community, as they apparently will use ANY thread to pointlessly debate about Technology rules while Hasbro gleefully pulls the rug out from under them.
This is interesting because Hasbro sold the ELECTRONIC rights of all the Avolon Hill games to Atari several years ago. This is why there never was an electronic version of Squad Leader released and why Atari put out the atrocious RTS version of Axis and Allies a year or so ago. So if I am correct Hasbro dose not even have the legal authority to shut down trippleA.
Sometimes I get carried away in discussions on what rules we like to have and not to have in A&A.
But TripleA will not be shutdown for long, not if there is enough interest in it.
I put up TripleA for downloading so it is still available, but it is sad that it cannot be hosted on sourceforge anymore, b/c it means that the development process is stopped or slowed down.
@a44bigdog, can you link to documentation or a web site for this, b/c if you are right then the lawyers of Hasbro made a mistake, which probably isn’t the case, but it’s interesting to check it out anyway.
Not right of the top of my head Subotai. Such comes from discussions of Multi Man Publishing putting out the Advanced Squad Leader rulebook in PDF format a few years ago when it was out of print.
The example of a bad player getting LRA+HB and winning against a good one is EXTREMELY improbable. First, you have to miraculously get both technologies early enough in the game for them to be some use to you. If you are up against a good player, that really limits your time frame. Second, you have to know how to use them, if you are a bad player, that is very improbably. Third, you have to be able to get them where you need them, if you are against a good player, that is improbable. Fourth, you have to still build ground units since even LRA HBs only defend with one die at 1. A single tank could, theoretically, take out a dozen HBs if the tank is attacking. Fifth, you’re good player has to make a number of mistakes, even if he does not go technology, in order for the bad player to win.
More likely, you have two bad players, one who went tech, one who either did not, or did and didnt get good ones. Or you have two good players, one who got the techs but faces someone who also got them or knew how to neutralize them.
Remember, in previous incarnations of the game, a technology was a HUGE boon to the side that got it. In this version, every technology nerfs a different technology. It’s balanced.
Lastly, I say that it is my opinion that players who are not as good as others at the game, refuse to play with technologies because it adds depth to the game, a depth they cannot handle. If we have player A with a 7 wins per loss ratio who loses to player B with a 1 win to 7 losses ratio because player B played player A in a tech game, then I have to think maybe the better player did win, and the worse player lost.
Hasbro will not release a game of this. I think they only released the CD Rom before so they had ammo in court against Dogs of War. That way they could tell the judge “hey, we have a game, they are infringing on our copywrites by giving this one away!” That’s why it was never really supported and was buggier than shizzit.
@ Jennifer, how delusional can you possibly be??? It’s not about tech or no tech, the players who wins a series of games is better than the players who loses that series of games! You disagree with this statement??
The question is how many games between 2 players is necessary to determine the better player. Maybe 10 games, maybe 20, but probably not more than 30-40 games.
This is not a law of nature, but very close imo. The players who wins many more games than other players, regardless of what setting is used, being LL or ADS, tech or no tech, Revised or AA50, optional rules or no optional rules is better than the players who loses more games than he/she wins.
Are you seriously claiming that the weaker player will win a series of games, and not the better player? That is the conclusion you are making with your statement. I chose to define this as stupidity, and delusions, b/c if any player plays against any other player in a series of games, it’s the total result that will matter, not if said players prefer tech or no tech.
The depth that tech adds to the game is randomness, aka good and bad luck, aka good and bad dice rolls, but this will even out in the long run, that is, a series of games. I have a hard time believing that you are a math teacher. Plz stop lying about aspects that is close to the laws of the nature.
I’m repeating the only possible conclusion about your statement, if you do not see this yourself, your statements claim that it is not the better player who will win in the long run, but the player(s) who prefer tech!!!
this thread is sure having a tendency to go off topic…
@Subotai:
@ Jennifer, how delusional can you possibly be??? It’s not about tech or no tech, the players who wins a series of games is better than the players who loses that series of games! You disagree with this statement??
That’s been my point. If you cannot win in the average game with technology, then I feel you are the inferior player. To me, blaming a game loss on your opponent(s) getting technology is as silly as blaming it on dice. You are either the better player(s) or not!
Coupled with that is that many players who refuse to play with technology also seem to lose a lot more often when technology is used. To me, that means they are probably the lesser of the two players, skill wise. Obviously, since they tend to lose more games when playing with technology, that is why they refuse to play with technology. Which leads me to the indicator that if a player refuses to play a game with technology available, they are probably - in my opinion - the lesser player. (These are also the types of players who play a very specific game, which is to mean, they expect their opponent to act in a certain manner and plan to use a specific over all strategy which they will select from their list of strategies based on how their opponent is playing. This is why I creamed NCSCSwitch in our KJF game together, he just could not handle a Russia that was overly aggressive, a suicidal England and an America bombing the crud out of the Japanese navy. It was not in his play style, he had no strategy to pull out of his bag to deal with it, as such, he had to think and thus, ended up losing.)
It is a matter of fact that using tech means more randomness, but this will not matter in the long run. Agree or disagree?
Tech and/or ADS/LL and every other variant does not have a greater influence on players skills level, it’s the total statistics that matter. To put it very simple, I’m not a better or lesser player than you b/c I prefer no tech, I’m a better or lesser player than you if I win or lose more games against you, for a certain number of games. This has nothing to do with tech or no tech, b/c it’s the total number of wins and losses which determines who is the better player. How can I explain this any simpler? You are obsessed with tech or no tech, but this aspect has no relevance at all. All that matters is that in whatever setting is used, for a certain number of games, the better player is the one who wins more than he/she loses. Tech or no tech is absolutely irrelevant in deciding the players skills. And this is not about my or your opininon, it’s as simple as the best player will win in the long run.
Tech or no tech is irrelevant for playing skills, as is LL or ADS, it’s the number of wins and losses which determines the best players regardless of if the games are with tech or no tech.
And it is not about how I feel or how you feel, it’s about empirical data. I don’t like tech, and you prefer tech, but this matter is not about feelings, it’s about facts. The better player will win regardless of tech or no tech. And I can assure you, that the best A&A players who prefer LL and no tech, are also very good in ADS and tech, but I doubt that they will waste their time by showing you this simple fact.
Can we please talk about Hasbro shutting down tripleA instead of debating tech it yet ANOTHER thread.
