Well, the reason I bring it up is because it’s breaking the game. This entire thread is about discussing how alpha+2 is broken and what should be done in “alpha+3-the-return-of-the-son-of-the-next-generation of rules and setups”. Alpha+2 isn’t broken, not by a long shot. It may need a few tweaks here and there, such as having the Italian navy start the game all deployed in the same sea zone, or changing the Japanese NO that gives them money for not invading FIC, for example. Simple things like that are all that’s really needed, and these are things can be handled by the players, it doesn’t need a massive overhaul by Larry himself.
Also, gamers will always find ways to “break” the game, regardless of what Larry does, so why should he keep trying to please them? When and if Larry does come out with a new setup and rules, it won’t be enough, or the gamers won’t like it. What you need to acknowledge is that this is a Historical game. If you want to play a game that represents a period of general history and is perfectly balanced, go play Risk or Battleship. If you want a game that recreates World War 2 and allows you to play with history and explore the what ifs? Then Axis&Allies 1940 is for you. The thing you have to realize is that Histroy isn’t balanced, and all Larry can do is get it as close to fair as he can and let us play from there. This is as good as it’s going to get, and its pretty good as is.
It gets wayyyy better in Hearts Of Iron 2. As Japan I was able to attack China 6 months earlier. By pulling all my garrisons off my worthless islands I was able to take China out of the war by 1938. Then I prepared for the fall of France, grabbed FIC and then launched an attack on the allies in Burma/DEI area. Sweeping through Burma I reached the border with Persia and then prepared for the invasion of Russia. Meanwhile my diplomatic corps was sweetening our relationship with US while my marines were invading Australia.
You mean like that? HoI2 is a great game to recreate WW2. A&A is a WW2 themed boardgame.
It gets wayyyy better in Hearts Of Iron 2. HoI2 is a great game to recreate WW2.
Jim, I love the HOI series, and there’s a whole thread in the other games forum about it, please, stop bringing it up here.
A&A is a WW2 themed boardgame.
I dont think A&A40 can be called a “WW2 themed boardgame” anymore. I’ll grant you, previous incarnations of the game are just that, espically A&A revised, and can be ranked with other historical themed games like Risk and Battleship. However, with this game, the seires has achieved a level of depth that has, till this point, not existed. There are pages and pages in thread after thread, detailing, in depth, conditions and strategies on various fronts of the game, and they are all still perfectly and beautifully bound to eachother by the over-arching game play. What happens on one front will have an effect on others, sometimes in a major way and other times more subtle. In past games, the Japanese rush on the Soviets made sense, you only had to take 2 China territories and 3 or 4 Soviet ones to be at the gates of Moscow. This made sense because Japan could build a factory on the mainland and be threating the Soviet heartland in 1 turn. Now, trying that same idea requires you to push through 4 or 5 Chinese territories, with China now being able to defend itself in the process, which could make it take longer! No A&A game has ever allowed a player so many options, from unit choice, to strategic option, to so much money to spend. There is to much detail, and to close a parity with the actual historical situation it is trying to represent to call it a “WW2 themed” game anymore.
Amen.
This game isn’t broken. I still welcome changes, because changes represent thought, and playtesting, and evolution, and those are all ok.
It would be a mistake to lump people into groups such as the “numbers and game mechanics” nerds and the “I’ll only play a historically-aligned game” geeks… we’re all some combo of the two. I think that like anything, though, people can drift too far one way or the other, for a time.
Finding a game mechanic that ‘wins’ every time and then mechanically repeating it is the same definition of insanity found in someone who has to play a historic reenactment every time, even to their own in-game death.
Again - the game is fine.
Yes Clyde, the game gives you choices.
Choices like attacking Russia, which was very much an ideological enemy of Japan.
Japan doesn’t abandon its own objectives by attacking Russia. It simply realizes a different option available to it.
If you want so much historical accuracy, why do you say -
It may need a few tweaks here and there, such as having the Italian navy start the game all deployed in the same sea zone
When the Italian navy in reality did employ a strategy that required it remain at harbour, very much vulnerable to the British Med carrier-based forces that did effectively cut the strength of the Italian navy in half with one fell swoop? Why are you against this option?
or-
or changing the Japanese NO that gives them money for not invading FIC
Like how America did place stronger trade sanctions on Japan for the forceful occupation of the Indo-China region? Why are you against this very real and historical parallel?
I apologize if I seem rash, but I really don’t understand your qualms with this game.
It’s a game, naturally there are superior and inferior strategies.
Yes Clyde, the game gives you choices.
Choices like attacking Russia, which was very much an ideological enemy of Japan.
Japan doesn’t abandon its own objectives by attacking Russia. It simply realizes a different option available to it.If you want so much historical accuracy, why do you say -
It may need a few tweaks here and there, such as having the Italian navy start the game all deployed in the same sea zone
When the Italian navy in reality did employ a strategy that required it remain at harbour, very much vulnerable to the British Med carrier-based forces that did effectively cut the strength of the Italian navy in half with one fell swoop? Why are you against this option?
or-
or changing the Japanese NO that gives them money for not invading FIC
Like how America did place stronger trade sanctions on Japan for the forceful occupation of the Indo-China region? Why are you against this very real and historical parallel?
I apologize if I seem rash, but I really don’t understand your qualms with this game.
It’s a game, naturally there are superior and inferior strategies.
Ideologically, yes, it made sense for Japan to attack Russia. From any other standpoint it made no sense. Japan had no desire or ability to slog through thousands of miles of land that was far less valuable than land to the South. The Soviet Far East isn’t exactly a rich territory. I’m not saying Japan shouldn’t have the option of attacking Russia; I’m just saying it should be more inclined to actually want to follow its own goals instead of essentially being a German puppet (which is certainly was not in real life).
There’s also a difference in allowing for different broad strategic options (like Japan attacking Russia, or Sea Lion) and having an opening situation that makes a specific tactical option (e.g. Taranto) very preferable to one side and devastating to the other. Hence the problems with the Italian fleet and, to a lesser degree, the FIC NO. I don’t like a situation where a nation should always do a certain option or never do another (in this case always Taranto, never FIC).
When it comes down to it A&A is about historical plausibility, not historical accuracy. If it went for accuracy the Allies would always win, after all. But it really isn’t plausible at all for Japan to divert tons of resources into attacking relatively poor territories in the North when it can go for richer territories in the South. It is somewhat more plausible for Japan to actually benefit a bit from taking FIC, and for the Italian navy to not be in such a bad strategic position at the beginning of the war.
Always Taranto? :?
I nearly never do it. Even though it should usually go UK’s way (although I’ve had terrible luck recently), Taranto, with a UK-threatening G1, basically equates into a very easy Sealion.
It is definitely a difficult decision for UK.
Always Taranto? :?
I nearly never do it. Even though it should usually go UK’s way (although I’ve had terrible luck recently), Taranto, with a UK-threatening G1, basically equates into a very easy Sealion.
It is definitely a difficult decision for UK.
Agreed.
If 2 German planes in SITA + Extra german transports = I never attack Italian fleets.
So I can’t say “never” or “always” since my moves (except G1!) depends on my opponent moves… which is very nice. No “always”, no “never” !!
I still claim all that really needs to be done to rebalance things, in the most simplistic manner possible, would be to keep the FIC NO forever or until Japan invades (which it might do for the possibility of a Minor Complex perhaps.) That would balance them out so they can slow America enough to allow Germany to win, if America goes all in after Japan. That is essentially what is making it “broken”.
So I can’t say “never” or “always” since my moves (except G1!) depends on my opponent moves… which is very nice. No “always”, no “never” !!
“I never invade Moscow on Germany 1.” Except for those obvious statments (of which I reference only to be silly) I agree with that statement.
One last point, it is VERY hard to test a strategy to see if it breaks since to perform the test, your opponent must, by necessity, know it is being tested. Minor things like India Crush or Australia Crush (both of which can be done routinely despite interference) or exceptions. I refer more to surprise attacks like Sea Lion, Kill America First, etc.
I would like to see a more realistic Sealion. The problem is that it is:
A) Too easy for German success (as I see it anyways) I understand the need for “Balance” in this game but surely it could have been done some other way. Historically speaking, Sealion was always going to be a gamble at best and would be very difficult to pull off. From what I can tell, Alpha +2 has overlooked this and gone for game balance rather than historical accuracy. What I’m saying is that Sealion should be possible but not at 65-85% of the time but rather 25-45% of the time.
B) To counterbalance point A, a failed German Sealion should NOT constitute a German “Game Over” It wouldn’t have historically and it could be seen as the bait for a 25-45% Sealion gamble by a German player. If you succeed, great, if not there are other options and the game doesn’t necessarily need to be restarted. Has anyone really continued playing a failed Sealion game? there are probably VERY! few of you who have. All that lengthy setup for a game that doesn’t last 3 full turns is rather sad (I can’t stand a game that isn’t more than 8 Full game rounds)
C) I’m not sure how these two ideas might be incorporated into the global game. Maybe a failed Sealion postpones the Russian DOW/ American involvement by a turn or two (so long as other conditions are not violated) Maybe at weaker odds of a successful Sealion you increase the prize by making it far tougher for the allies if it is accomplished. Maybe the “Battle of Britain” involves far more aircraft as it historically did with alternate battle rules or something.
Suggestions? Agree? Disagree?
The easiest way to accomplish that would be to replace a fighter with two armor. I think that would be significant enough to both prevent a game over from a failed attempt and reduce the success rate as you desire. Perhaps replace a fighter and a tactical bomber with 2 Artillery and 2 Armor?
@Cmdr:
I still claim all that really needs to be done to rebalance things, in the most simplistic manner possible, would be to keep the FIC NO forever or until Japan invades (which it might do for the possibility of a Minor Complex perhaps.) That would balance them out so they can slow America enough to allow Germany to win, if America goes all in after Japan. That is essentially what is making it “broken”.
I see what you’re saying Jen, but does this really help solve the problem of the US Pac-Strategy? It seems to me that this would only encourage US to do it even more, with Japan making 8 IPCs more a turn. This doesn’t encourage US to invest resources in the Atlantic.
I also have issue with the in-game reasoning. The FIC NO represents the resources that Japan was receiving from US. For it to continue after war with America starts doesn’t make much sense.
The extra income for Japan is equivalent to a free destroyer a round. That’s a significant shift in power in the Pacific. Not enough to allow Japan to suddenly beat the Pac Strat, but it’s enough to slow America down that if Germany does not get really unlucky they have a chance to win first.
No arguements there, but what I’m saying is that if US responds the way we like - splitting its income significantly - then we’ve only caused Japan to be able to win faster. This doens’t encourage US to split income. The power that is the bigger threat to US - Japan - would only become more threatening.
We don’t want Japan to be able to “slow US down” more. We want for Japan to not see its first priority as simply stalling for time - for US to split its IPCs.
To Alsch91 : I don’t beleive the " US Pac-Strategy" is a wining strat for alliance… Nobody won against me with that strat. Of course Japan will be weak, but German will win. If US goes all Europe, then Japan will win. I think US has to split so alliance can win. All my alliance victories were achieved by splitting USA. So I don’t see the need to boost Japan.
To Enigmatic : I think sea lion has to be a gamble… and was in fact. And if it’s too a gamble to succeed, as Germany, I don’t try it and focus on Russia so I (usually) don’t fail Sea lion, I do or don’t try.
But, let’s give it a thought anyway… As you notice, kinna paradoxal to make sea lion less a gamble AND make it harder to succeed. Perhaps a Germany’s NO linked to UK casualties… as propaganda to recruit new troops for example. This NO could be progressif too.
Well there’s been significant discussions and testing on the Pacific Strategy. The results more or less show that it’s just about the best strategy for the Allies. Sure, it’s not an instant win, but it’s usually the best way to do it.
Frankly, there wouldn’t be so much discussion on how to stop the Pacific Strategy if it weren’t very legitimate and effective.
BigBadBruce: My idea was always going to be paradox like (after all look at my name tag) You raised some interesting points.
Jen: your idea also sounds interesting and well thought out.
A little more food for thought might be to have a German air force presence on Western europe cause some kind of economic penalty for Britain. Something a little more substantial than the current Str. bombing rules?
Completely off topic but bringing in some form of espionage rules to the game as a whole might work and has anyone envisioned what a “fog of war” game might look like?
The main principle behind SJF is that America spends all their income in the Pacific for 5-7 rounds (depending on the board situation and dice results, of course.) After that, they split their income (as they earn more than what Japan + Italy earn in any given round at this point.)
To augment their defense, India and Australia put submarines and destroyers in the water. Australian fighters can land on Islands to add additional air support. This forces Japan to keep their aircraft near home else get pinned early in the game.
SJF is not a winning move! You do not take Japan! Ever! Unless they leave it undefended of course. That’s not the idea! The idea is to stop Japan’s growth. Once India and Australia are earning more than Japan, they can take over from there and you can go back to crushing Germany with the lion’s share of your income.
I’ve seen games where the allies have recovered from India, England and Australia being lost, and games where the fall of Russia proved meaningless because the allies are THAT STRONG!
That’s a major problem in my book. I cannot speak for anyone else, but that is a MAJOR PROBLEM in my book! If Russia falls, the game should be over. If India and Australia fall, the game should be over. If Germany or Japan falls, the game should be over. IMHO.
No arguements there, but what I’m saying is that if US responds the way we like - splitting its income significantly - then we’ve only caused Japan to be able to win faster. This doens’t encourage US to split income. The power that is the bigger threat to US - Japan - would only become more threatening.
We don’t want Japan to be able to “slow US down” more. We want for Japan to not see its first priority as simply stalling for time - for US to split its IPCs.
8 IPC is not enough to force America to invest significantly more or less IPC than normal. We’re only talking a potential 2 artillery or 1 destroyer a round. It is, however, enough to slow America by at least one round if not two or three which could be the difference between victory or failure.
@Cmdr:
The main principle behind SJF is that America spends all their income in the Pacific for 5-7 rounds (depending on the board situation and dice results, of course.) After that, (…)
I understand you point… but mine is that by turn 3 (maybe 4), London is under Germany’s occupation. By turn 6-7 Germany is within Mother land and Leningrad is about to fall (is not done already) and within next 2-3 turns Moscow is greatly threaten.
Bottom line, with time frame you propose, I say Germany will have time to win before USA can take back London (or Gibraltar for that matter).
