The continuous “we need to balance the game discussions” has worn me down. To paraphrase Winston Churchill– “Never was more said by a few and read by so many”. I am going to just play the game, and have fun with my friends in our group. Maybe we should all try that in 2011. When Larry publishes an OFFICIAL rules change I will adopt it. But the incessant lobbying for new setups based on your own game play preferences is just crazy. I guess when all of you “Larry Lobbyists” win every game every time then in your mind the game is perfectly balanced. Imagine if the creators of Monoploy had to put up with this-- we would be on Zeta #45 setup.
Raise a glass to one of the greatest games every made!
Thank God. A voice of reason.
Hear Hear!
The current alpha is good enough. Go with it!
@mantlefan:
The continuous “we need to balance the game discussions” has worn me down. To paraphrase Winston Churchill– “Never was more said by a few and read by so many”. I am going to just play the game, and have fun with my friends in our group. Maybe we should all try that in 2011. When Larry publishes an OFFICIAL rules change I will adopt it. But the incessant lobbying for new setups based on your own game play preferences is just crazy. I guess when all of you “Larry Lobbyists” win every game every time then in your mind the game is perfectly balanced. Imagine if the creators of Monoploy had to put up with this-- we would be on Zeta #45 setup.
Raise a glass to one of the greatest games every made!
From his posts, it seems that Larry appreciates the feedback. I appreciate how blunt he is when dismissing ideas he considers to be bad. I think the posts at which your complaints are directed are pretty easy to identify as being ideas to make the game more balanced, so you should be able to avoid them. I think they are useful, and it seems Larry does too. For good or bad, the best playtesting is always done AFTER the game is released. Now yes, there are some bad ideas people propose to fix the game. But should we stop postinggood ideas as well? Really, we should post whatever we think helps, and let Larry decide. He’s a smart guy, but he can’t think of everything.
Larry doesn’t “have” to put up with anything. He comments on practically every idea people put out there on his forums. Would he do that if he himself wasn’t interested in ideas to improve his game?
Another voice of reason
Personally I think at this point it should just stand as it is for a while and let people play. I mean, it’s a LONG game and people can’t get many plays in so it’s quite possible what looks like a balance issue in one or two games might just be play-style or even bad luck, yet the people who are losing those games can quite easily report the set up as a ‘problem’.
Case in point:
We played 2 games over the holidays with the Alpha +1 set up. In the first game, the Italians overran most of the Med and had a competitive navy etc. After that game, the Brit player thought he was just overmatched in the Med and didnt like the set up.
In the 2nd game, the Brits played differently (different player as well) and Italians lost half their fleet in the first round and the other half shortly thereafter. Italy was eventually run out of Africa and was pretty much a non-entity for the majority of the game. At the conclusion of that game, the Italian player was convinced that the Brit Med set up would never allow the Italians a chance in the Med.
Now that is two COMPLETELY different sets of conclusions drawn from the exact same set up, but played differently, the game came out very differently (luck wasnt a major factor in either game).
In addition, I pointed out to the 2nd Italian player that simply moving a German plane or two down into Italy on G1 would likely be more than sufficient to keep the Italians alive on UK1. So again, ‘opinion’ around the table reversed itself back to ‘UK will be overrun’ lol.
Soooo, IMO it’s time to leave well enough alone for a while and let people try alternate strategies with the SAME SETUP. And to be honest, the tweaks being made at this point are pretty minor so I dont think +1 Inf here or +1 Fighter - 1 Tac there is going to have anywhere near as much impact as a change in strategy (or even a few dice rolls either way).
Don’t get me wrong, I think the changes made in the Alpha setup(S) have been great for the game. The new Scramble rules are fantastic and a MUCH needed change. But they also completely change the complexion of the naval war in the game and it’s going to take a fair amount of time before people are experienced enough with it to be able to draw consistent conclusions.
from your post it sounds like the Italian navy situation has a big impact on the game, which even one more plane in UK would have a big impact on in turn.
Exactly. But that’s why I think it’s important to be able to explore the various strategies and opening gambits a few times before tweaking it further. Maybe that bomber is too much, but maybe using it down there costs the Brits elsewhere. The point being, is that no one can reasonably tell after just a game or two and given the investment in time (and space) Global takes, it’s very unlikely that there will be consensus feedback any time in the near future.
So changing/tweaking/massaging the start-ups every few weeks greatly reduces the chances of actually knowing if the PREVIOUS set-up was balanced or not.
Caveat:
If Larry Harris is under some form of a timetable for a 2nd printing or something, then by all means the changes have to come fast and furious. But barring that, I’d say it’s time to let it bake for a while IMO.
Larry’s focus should be to COMPLETE the FAQ and changes to his game. Not to continue IMPROVING it.
That’s what he has to get his head around. Pre-season is OVER, it’s Race Day, decide what there is to decide now, put gas in the car and go. The constant process of “improving” something, prevents the final process of “completing” something. Everyone is sick of change after change, the ruleset is close enough,
Han Solo says it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bSefSLaPFs
I am with Gargantua on this. If the original setup and/or rules are seen to have errors, then yes there should be some changes made. However, get ideas and do a little testing then come out with some sort of change. We have had 5 different setups in the past month. I barely got through a game of Alpha when suddenly there is an Alpha +. I haven’t even tried Alpha + and there has been 3 more changes since. Get it finalized first then offer it up to us.
Yea, and instead of
Alpha
Alpha +
Alpha +.1
Alpha +.2
Alpha +.2a
Just call it
Beta
Ceta
Delta
Echo
Foxtrot
Gamma
etc Get it done!
Nobody is forcing anyone to play the latest version. Pick the one you like best and go with that, but here’s to all of you for showing interest in the game.
Here’s to Larry for standing behind his brainchild.
All the best in 2011!
Nobody is forcing anyone to play the latest version. Pick the one you like best and go with that, but here’s to all of you for showing interest in the game.
Here’s to Larry for standing behind his brainchild.
All the best in 2011!
Cheers for a great game and to all who have stood by it.
I think we all agree that changes through playtesting are good. My point is enough is enough. I think Larry has at least 10,000 posts from people with their point and counterpoints. We can’t seriously need more input. Larry–pick a final setup and lets go. My frustration, and I think others based on some feedback here, is that this game seems to change every two weeks. Not only is that inefficient, and perplexing to the casual A&A player-- but it makes the product currently put out seem like a pre-production model.
Larry has designed a great game- but to play it now you have to ask someone “what setup are we playing”. All I am saying is that the time for a decison is here.
Larry has designed a great game- but to play it now you have to ask someone “what setup are we playing”. All I am saying is that the time for a decison is here.
Here’s the thing. Europe 1940 only came out in August, so that’s the first time the general public has been capable of playing the Global 1940 format. Compared to the Classic board there is twice as many territories and unit types, the game is not the same at all. As far as I know even the Anniversary edition doesn’t have as many territories as this one, there’s new playable countries, new units(?) and I’m rather positive there are other revisions to the rules as well.
Now look at a game such as StarCraft, released in 1998. This is a real-time strategy in which a multiplayer game can take anywhere between 11 and 45 minutes (vice A&A’s several hours), and there’s no setup time to consider. You also have millions of people playing this game, some 20+ games per day. Even with all these advantages that game was NOT balanced in a matter of months, it took years of regular patching and an extremely talented PROFESSIONAL TEAM of experienced developers (not just a few people as in Larry’s situation, and playtesters, though important, are not experienced professional developers, I’m sorry).
Perhaps instead of criticizing Larry and Co for not leaving us to the mercy of the OOB ruleset you should praise him for trying. He does not have to do this for us, he’s a made man.
Or like I said before, pretend this community does not exist and live blissfully ignorant with the extremely shite printed manual.
^
Why did you quote yourself?
Sorry I did not follow proper journalism protocol Calvinhobbes. I guess I will forward all emails to you for your perusal. C’mon
Huh? My post wasn’t directed at you.
Yea, and instead of
Alpha
Alpha +
Alpha +.1
Alpha +.2
Alpha +.2aJust call it
Beta
Ceta
Delta
Echo
Foxtrot
Gammaetc Get it done!
I believe the correct NATO Phonetic Alphabet designations are:
NATO Letter phonetic letter
A Alpha
B Bravo
C Charlie
D Delta
E Echo
F Foxtrot
G Golf
H Hotel
I India
J Juliet
K Kilo
L Lima
M Mike
N November
O Oscar
P Papa
Q Quebec
R Romeo
S Sierra
T Tango
U Uniform
V Victor
W Whiskey
X X-ray
Y Yankee
Z Zulu
I don’t even think Ceta is a word
