Under 2 hours to play

[Gargantua]

December 24th, 2013

Dear Santa,

I’ve decided this year that it’s my turn to send you a gift for christmas - since you failed so terribly last year.

I’ve attached a picture of what you’re going to get from me.

And this is how you should use it.

The best part about this gift, is that it’s the gift that keeps on giving, aside from the food you’ll provide for the local crow population, and maggot. The resulting lack of “santa disappointment” children world wide regularily recieve from you ever year, will suddenly be GONE from thier lives - resulting in happier children on a whole.  What better gift could I give to the world?

But of course… you’ll probably dissapoint us again :S.

Regards,

Garg

[Young Grasshopper]

@Rorschach:

@Young:

I’m sorry, but I’m not drinking the kool-aid. An Axis and Allies game of any kind will always take a mimimum of 6 hours to play. Remember when the original game said on the back “conquer the world in only a few short hours”…. ya right. Don’t get me wrong, I love long games like A&A, but please… they don’t have to lie to us.

Not sure if serious …

AA50 takes our group 4-6 hours per game
AA Spring 1942 takes at most 2

5 Nations + 5 Rounds = 5 Hours

[Imperious Leader]

Perhaps the reason why it’s shorter is an all axis all allies move sequence?

Consider:

Turn order:

Russia
Germany
Japan
UK
USA

or

Germany
Russia
UK
USA
Japan

which means from turn 2, it’s basically Axis then Allies

[Gargantua]

Yea… both axis at once, both allies at once… hmm.

[Hobbes]

@Young:

@Rorschach:

@Young:

I’m sorry, but I’m not drinking the kool-aid. An Axis and Allies game of any kind will always take a mimimum of 6 hours to play. Remember when the original game said on the back “conquer the world in only a few short hours”…. ya right. Don’t get me wrong, I love long games like A&A, but please… they don’t have to lie to us.

Not sure if serious …

AA50 takes our group 4-6 hours per game
AA Spring 1942 takes at most 2

5 Nations + 5 Rounds = 5 Hours

I agree with Roschach, but it largely depends on the number and skill of the players. For 2 hours, you’d need only 2 experienced players - the first turn is usually pretty much scripted and after the initial turns some nations buys/moves become almost automatic (UK, Japan, US).
If you are playing with TripleA or GTO, then 2 hour games are pretty much the norm. You can even set timers for a country’s round in GTO when you are playing live, with 5 minutes for buys/combat moves/non combat/place - and there games can go really really fast, depending on the style of your opponent.

[Imperious Leader]

Oh and the other thing that may save time is too get rid of NCM and just combine movements.  But this is not  in keeping with AA42 clone.

[Gargantua]

Let’s scale this back…

Maybe we’re going about this the wrong way here.

Instead of thinking about what the WOTC Monkies are going to do, lets think about what we’re going to do.

If you had to teach the basics of the game to your grandmother, who has a 1.5 to 2 hour attention span, what would you do to reduce the game so that you could learn it quickly, enjoy it, see an end result, and still teach all the basics?

1. no new units or rules
2. less pieces, less income.  WAY LESS
3. Smaller Map.
4. no special china rules, or airbases, maybe even no SUBS.  Certainly no convoys.
5. no sbr

[Col. Ty Webb]

I like your approach Gar, but there’s a problem - I think what we players as a community might do is often very different from WOTC (see Global OOB).

One thing that seems a little funny to me is that they move the start date back to 1941 (as opposed to '42) then say it’s going to be a shorter game. I know that it’s mainly marketing, it wouldn’t make much sense to make another '42 game with Spring 1942 still on the market.

To address Gar’s list,

1. no new units or rules (Absolutely, maybe even take a couple units out. Cruisers and arties maybe, or like you mentioned, subs.)

2. less pieces, less income (I also agree here, but if all countried are scaled equally then it will shorten the lentgth of a round, but maybe not the number of rounds)

3. Smaller map (I think this is the worst way to shorten a game, but it needs to be done if this is to be an introductory game.)

4. No specail china rules, airbases, etc. (These weren’t in the Spring 42 game, so if they are basing the new game off of it they propbably won’t be in there.

5. no sbr (I would add no optional rules to that as well. No option of scrambling or a sea zone being open or closed.)

One I would like to add, if it’s a game for newbies, is moving the purchase unit phase to the end of the turn. The couple of people I taught it to had a much easier time purchasing their units after all of the fighting was done than at the beginning of the round. Â

[techroll42]

Getting to build at the end isn’t a bad idea for n00bs.

[trackmagic]

Maybe each capitol gets a certain number of units each turn (eg US gets an air unit 3 ground units and a naval unit). There would be a chart that shows what they are specifically on each turn.

That would make the economics easier.

[Gargantua]

I’ll take 3 battleships and 3 bombers please.

[techroll42]

@trackmagic:

Maybe each capitol gets a certain number of units each turn (eg US gets an air unit 3 ground units and a naval unit). There would be a chart that shows what they are specifically on each turn.

That would make the economics easier.

But that doesn’t introduce players to the basic A&A mechanics. And it’s also a PITA for Moscow to have to build air (3 inf>1 fighter for Russia).

[djensen]

In order to guarantee under 2 hours, we have to think like a Euro/Strategy game.

What do those games do to keep the games short?

• Play until one player reaches a certain number of points. You can gain and lose points. (This is already similar to A&A, i.e., Victory Cities)
• Play until one player reaches are certain number of points. You cannot lose points.
• Play a fixed number of rounds.
• Play until you run out of something (no more cards, no more trains, no more money, etc.)

One thing that has been bothering me lately about Axis & Allies is the fact that world resources, people and raw materials, are unlimited. Maybe this version will address that.

[gamerman01]

@djensen:

One thing that has been bothering me lately about Axis & Allies is the fact that world resources, people and raw materials, are unlimited. Maybe this version will address that.

Yeah, like Risk!  I couldn’t quite wipe you out because I ran out of armies on my front lines, but you are now down to one territory with 3 armies.  You collect your minimum 3 armies and do nothing, then it is my turn again and I collect 45 armies!  :evil:  And if you get obscenely lucky and survive, that’s OK, because then you will get 3 again and I will get 45 again!  :-D

Or

So you are holding out in your last capital with a stack of 50 men - congratulations to you!  I will just sit here and collect and spend 135 IPC’s per turn which the entire world is happy to provide me with every turn without fail, while you spend your 10!  Let’s see how long you last!

[Guest]

Yes and I don’t have to keep providing food, fuel, ammunition to my big stack of units.  I buy an infantry for $3 and that unit is provisioned forever, even when encircled or cut off.  Also, my country never runs out of 18 year olds to call up.  There is an endless supply of coal, wood, steel for my ICs to keep operating and food for my workers and soldiers.  Oh well its just a game.

[gamerman01]

Exactly!
Try not to think about realism, Dave!  It’s fair for both sides!  :-)

[trackmagic]

@Gargantua:

I’ll take 3 battleships and 3 bombers please.

I guess I meant the purchases are scripted more than you get to choose.

[reloader-1]

Perhaps it is as simple as removing some of the decision making from the game. For example, instead of purchasing, you can use a reinforcement chart like D-Day and Bulge, with an optional rule to build yourself (for more “advanced” players). The map would look normal, with IPC values, but using the “quick” ruleset would mean those values are irrelevant except for economic victory.

[knp7765]

They couldn’t cut out the economic part of the game: eg. making IPCs & purchasing new units. I also don’t think it would be possible to use already laid out reinforcement charts like BOTB or D-Day. Something like that would only give you a certain number of each unit, for example naval units, especially transports.
Say you are Germany and have a strong Luftwaffe. USA sends over an invasion fleet and Germany manages to take it out with it’s Luftwaffe. The reinforcement charts are spent so now USA has a huge army that could take over Berlin, but no way to get it across the Atlantic because all their transports were sunk and they aren’t getting any more.
Perhaps Japan has a strong navy with many transports, but most of their army was killed off taking China and India. Now they can’t invade USA because they don’t have enough men and tanks to do the job.
You would need to be able to build new units at your own choosing.

By the way, kind of like that idea of putting the Purchase Units phase at the end. There has been many times I purchased certain items, then the combats didn’t go the way I planned and I end up stuck with units that now don’t help me much.

[gamerman01]

@knp7765:

By the way, kind of like that idea of putting the Purchase Units phase at the end. There has been many times I purchased certain items, then the combats didn’t go the way I planned and I end up stuck with units that now don’t help me much.

Sure, but that helps your opponent as well.  I like how you have to buy your units not knowing how combat will go.  It’s one of the things that makes the game more exciting, and makes players pay for taking risks that don’t work out.