@TheJediCharles:
Well, the way I always resist the need to ‘twist the rules’ or ‘customize’ anything is to remember that this game is the grandest of scale. That stuff, like maintenance, may seem like it needs to be accounted for actually ‘is’ accounted for. Just because it’s not channeled through the IPC’s or something we as players have to work out doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The maintenence that isn’t ‘shipped in’ comes off the land controlled. Notice that Italy is mearly an extention of Germany and not independant and that China is the same thing as well; this is a game honed finely by it’s great usage of what I might call “global generalization”. Industrial production values of the territory don’t represent everything the land has to offer, only what it offers in the respect of the items we purchase from round to round.
This can be extended to the notion that when the numbers of infantry become hugely unbelieveable, it’s not the ‘number of actual troops’ that is being added to but ‘the combat effectiveness of all of them’. So, in terms of ‘generality’, when you increase a number of infantry units from 1 to 50, it’s not exactly 50 times the number of men. Perhaps it’s mearly 10 times the number of men, but are provided with much more supplies and sophistation than there was originally. See what I’m saying? ?
A very valid point. And here’s a good response (at least IMHO) to such an excellent post… However, certain questions arise. Should the troops near the end of the war have the most “combat effectiveness” due to advances in technology and tactics? Also, I think this follows the flow of the game. The game takes place in 1942, which isn’t exactly the peak of wartime enlistment, so as the game progresses the armies become larger and larger (USA being a fine example). And near the end of the game they start to shrink (at least for the loosers). Does this mean the late game armies had less supplies and sophistation compared with armies near the middle of game? No, as for Germany (in the real war), their troops became more effective (in terms of weaponry and equipment) but lost due to numerical inferiority. I think this is what the game is suppose to mirror, at least from my perspective (which might be totally wrong).
@TheJediCharles:
It works fine the way it is.
I agree, Axis and Allies is a great beginners game if you’re looking to “step up” from Risk. However, after continual playing games 50-100, you start finding players execute the same moves over and over again for maximum efficiency. Now players will change their playing style (maybe I’ll go Japan First this time or maybe a IC in Brazil will do the trick), but if you’re playing professionally, there’s usually only one way to go in order to compete in the field. What you have is a repeat of the last game (and the future game), except the outcome of the dice are different. This is when the game becomes stagnant and remedial. This is when it’s time to whip out the “Rogaine Solution.” What is the Rogaine Solution? It can be any number of things, like switching the teams around, including bidding, introducing new techs and strategies, adding new rules and changing old ones. Basically, you want to make the game as new and enjoyable as the last without sacrificing the overall impact of the game. And I see no problem with this.
A great example would be Eagle Game’s Civil War (sorry, but it’s probably the best game on the market next to A&A). This game includes two rule sets, one “basic” and the other “advanced.” What does this mean? Well after you get your feet wet and grasped the fundamentals of the game, maybe you should try something more “challenging” or inject a boost new “gameplay.” Before when you had games usually ended before three hours, they now drag on for days – even weeks! And best of all, those extra hours are some of the most exhilarating of your gaming life (just ask any Civil War player). Extra hours that probably would’ve rather be spent playing the “basic” game over and over again. Rules is a testament of the game’s replayability.
@TheJediCharles:
Anyway, anytime you find yourself wishing to account for every nagging thing you think should be adjusted to make the game ‘more realistic’, I suggest you resist. This game scale of warfare doesn’t notice seasons, resupplies, or school districts. It’s a game intentionally made generalized so we can enjoy a very realistic representation of easily controlling all the superpowers global domination of one another in simple rotating rounds of play.
And about the scale of the game, indeed it is huge. But some people do like micromanagement, which can be a great boon (or disaster if you’re not careful) to the game. Even with the size of the game, some factors do have to be taken for, weather (or seasons as you call it) being an example. Do you think the Russian winters only existed in one particular part of Eastern Europe? No, it extended and encompassed the whole Russian Front. Now does that mean every minute detail should be taken in account for (ie Campaign for North Africa)? I mean who really wants to spend their time figuring out “pre-battle planning,” “battle planning,” and finally battling” or keeping a log sheet of every single units detailing everything from exp. Points (with custom dice modifier) to amount of ammunition (urg)? Of course not. Board games were meant for player interaction, and when you find yourself playing more against “the system” than your opponent, something is seriously wrong here. However, weather rules do take into account player interaction. It creates suspense between Russia and Germany, as they nervously steer down each other’s stack until the weather subsides. Or maybe one player will decide to “push his luck” against the weather and exploit the lack of enemy forces, unsuspectingly transferred to other fronts for the time being.
@TheJediCharles:
Heck the way I see it, one more big thing not ‘accounted for’ in the scale of the game is “nationism” and how much it can affect things. I’d say that a territory under enemy control ‘should’ turn up less production. But, I trust the representation as provided being good enough to enjoy, without the need to go turning the rules on it’s ear.
Before trying out any rule, you must weigh the benefits with the possible consequences. Your nationalism idea would be a nice, logical addition to the game. However, technically, wouldn’t this mean that the Axis start out with a reduced income since a lot of their starting territories were former Allied countries? And shouldn’t Allied territory liberated from the Axis (Western Europe and the Phillipines being good examples) produce more than their stated NP value due to an upsurge in nationalism? An interesting possibility that must be weighed….
