The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@nishav

Interesting. Thank you for responding!

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@andrewaagamer

Nice gamble.

[nishav]

@andrewaagamer 1-2, you killed him and got permanent $5 bonus, 3-5 you failed nothing happens, 6 you failed and you have to remove 2 German Infantry and 2 German Armor.

[squirecam]

@nishav said in The cheezy retreat from Yugoslavia to Romania on G2:

@andrewaagamer 1-2, you killed him and got permanent $5 bonus, 3-5 you failed nothing happens, 6 you failed and you have to remove 2 German Infantry and 2 German Armor.

Which was funny because that was better odds than any other actual attempt. There was really no incentive not to try it.

[nishav]

@squirecam timing was everything. You could maximize your income by trying turn one but you also had to get Poland and France turn 1 so losing a 1/4 of your army would be problematic. You also had to make the attempt during the purchase units phase of the turn.

[Burgh Gamer 67]

By your logic every retreat would be bogus because let’s say your infantry want to retreat but ooops they already moved their 1 movement space into combat

[Burgh Gamer 67]

And most experienced players hit Yugoslavia Germany t1 ping pong into Romania and let Italy mop it up

[General 6 Stars]

Mop it up = Lip Locks !

[nishav]

@burgh-gamer-67 the logic holds, they march forward, then they retreat back, the problem that people have with this abstraction is that the units “retreat” forward

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@nishav

Except they’re not, they’re retreating back to another space (remember that one unit from Romania needs to come in). And what is your definition of “retreating back”, anyway? If you mean that you or someone else wants units so they can only retreat to the territory they came from, then the logic holds (I do not support this).

[nishav]

@superbattleshipyamato when 2 armies approach an opponent from opposite directions, engage in battle, and then retreat, the opponent does not open his lines to allow one army to join the other in retreating in one direction

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@nishav

Well, due to how strategic the game is, the armies might have linked up.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@nishav there are sub forums for house rules. You are welcome to have as many rules as you want to improve gameplay and/or realism. This isn’t the right place to be discussing it.

[nishav]

@arthur-bomber-harris The game is improved by people providing constructive criticism, as it was when transports were made defenseless, battleships stopped by sunk by the same amount of damage as a submarine or destroyer, and addressing the vast distances of Siberia and China dwarf those of Europe.

As I’m not addressing any kind of house rule, simply the flawed logic behind the existing rule in the game, this would seem to be the correct place to discuss it by default. Unfortunately, there is no separate “review” section of the forums to have this discussion.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@nishav

I agree. I believe that this is unlike the other examples you mentioned, and therefore does not need to be fixed.

I reiterate my position that this is not a problem.

[nishav]

@superbattleshipyamato I respect your difference of opinion. While I do disagree with you, in that i feel this is a problem in the game, I do concur that it is not of the same severity as several other opportunities the game has experienced and continues to experience.

[taamvan]

@nishav @seancb @SuperbattleshipYamato

Most of us call this move a Strafe. The Yugoslavia strafe is canned into the opener, but there are occasionally situations where you can use the same rule to move your army into a new position when it happens to be attacking from two or more different directions. Sometimes, these moves will be dependent on the dice (you may have intended to take the zone, but need a backup plan to consolidate the attackers and incoming defenders need to join up when you dont).

It also plays into territories that need to be taken and blocked (to prevent a blitz) vs territories that need to be cleared or reduced (to destroy potential attackers).

Since the game doesnt have a logistics element, nor should it, these moves simulate kessels, salients, hit-and-run tactics, flanking and things common in other zoomed up tactical wargames.

It makes the game way more chesslike–it would be very odd to state that you think castling, en passant, or forking, the rule that prevents you from just moving your pieces back and forth to stalemate etc, are illegitimate moves in chess. Perhaps you dont like those rules, but they evolved for a reason to keep play dynamic, they are part of the canon of modern chess, and there are literally hundreds of other chess variants you can play that dont use those conventions.

As others have pointed out–there are far cheezier things that acutally add more moves–if you land fighters on an allied carrier, it moves two, then on the next turn those fighters can move 4 again, extending their range from 8 to 10 across two turns. That may seem cheezy but its done to facilitate the use of planes on allied carriers and since its unusual to move in a straight line with all your units, its difficult to exploit this rule.

The Axis and Allies online version doesnt allow you to land on allied carriers–for a variety of reasons. That also means that Axa Online based on 42.2 is somewhat different than 42.2.

If you look at all the versions of Axa put together, the designers tried different rules, and different treatments for each type of unit. That means that each game remains unique, and eventually many of their brainstormed ideas and solutions ended up in published versions. The different treatment of AAA or transports in different versions make the game a bit more confusing, but they also show a 30 year process of testing, development and creativty that I appreciate.

[nishav]

@taamvan Thank you for your response as it beautifully sums up the disconnect surrounding this issue. While I certainly can’t speak for anyone else, the arguments that I have advanced here and elsewhere, as well as many of the arguments I have seen over the years pertaining to the overly simplified retreat rule are not based in any way on their reasonableness or their lack thereof from a game balance perspective.

Axis & Allies is a re-creation of an event from our very recent history. It’s not Dune, it’s not Root, it’s not Twilight Imperium. It’s not just another board game that simply needs to be fun, interesting, and deep. Its appeal is that it is simultaneously extremely accessible and attempts to remain true to the spirit of accurately depicting the realities of the Second World War.

Ultimately, over the past 43 years, the game has changed multiple times resulting in a consistent increase of complexity while still remaining one of the most accessible wargames you’ll find. This is a damned challenging tightrope to walk and Larry Harris indeed deserves our gratitude and recognition.

This does not mean, however, that we are not to point out rules that need changing. From the perspective of a game designer one of the most reliable indications that a rule needs to be altered, changed, or tweaked is when it creates extremely non-intuitive gameplay and motivations. In an historical game it also needs to be considered if it is creating clearly anti-historical gameplay situations.

Yes, there are other facets of the game that would certainly fall under these umbrellas, and yes, this is a rule that has been part of the game for years and is a part of making the game relatively simple. But if we can keep track of the movement remaining on planes coming from 6 different territories to the same battle, we can keep track of which units came from which land territories.

[taamvan]

@nishav @argothair

–there is a principle regarding lawyers that we cannot be censured for doing things that 1) attempt to overturn unjust laws 2) attempt to create beneficial new laws or changes in laws 3) or be punished no matter how offensive, implasuible, etc our actions in those pursuits may be.

But, this is just a game…so yes if you think the move is a total cheeze dump, then dont play with it. or any other rule. But since I play BBR, at Gencon, and in other live formats, the canon and accepted versions have plenty of strategic richness and new challenges–that keep me occupied rather than going on and on about what i personally would do about the game. I let better game designers and critics than me do the hard work there and let the Bid and the tournament rules do the rest. Then i seek them out, befriend them–travel to where they live and play–which is what I’ll do in Indy in August and in Atlanta this fall.

So yes! make up your own approach here and we should definitedly play with it. A good example might be the Defender Retreat idea…it doesnt really work in the axis and allies dynamic too well but if you think its just totally stupid that defenders cant retreat then please, change that rule. And I’ll play with you, at your house, once. But id possibly rather play BBR or G42 or 42.2 or any of the dozens (hundred?+) of games I have in my basement with you if that ever came up.

Incidentally, tracking where each unit came from, and tracking elite veteran or special units (as in aaz or tech or many mods) is burdensome and easy to forget which is why I think thats not the direction to go modding wise (it should be a 1 day concise game).

Please forgive the digression into house rule theory Panther.

[nishav]

@taamvan At least I now understand our fundamental difference. To me, original should be a concise 1 day game, Revised maybe 1 day. Global '40 should be a multi-week 20-30 hour game with its early starting position and rich ruleset regarding individual powers, national advantages, and neutral countries.

I personally prefer Columbus in June but I do hope you enjoy Atlanta.