Build/Placement question…

@Gamerman01:

Why not let the OPPONENT choose which units are refunded??!

This would also seem like overly punishing a simple mistake.

Suppose all the Chinese territories are axis controlled, China has troops in Burma, and they have $6.  They buy 2 infantry and attack Yunnan but fail to liberate it.  They would get their $6 back right?

@Krieghund:

I suggest you read my post again.  What I said was that the only restrictions were that you cannot violate other rules.  If the new carriers would be the only place you can land planes, the carriers must be mobilized, and other units chosen to return for a refund.

Oh!  Excellent.  That pretty much closes that abuse door entirely.

@Shin:

@Krieghund:

I suggest you read my post again.  What I said was that the only restrictions were that you cannot violate other rules.  If the new carriers would be the only place you can land planes, the carriers must be mobilized, and other units chosen to return for a refund.

Oh!  Excellent.  That pretty much closes that abuse door entirely.

wait so is krieg saying that even if the planes whos range was extended by the purchased acc’s DIE IN COMBAT and no longer need a place to land, the acc’s must still be mobilized?

if so, we have no real issue (and one wile.e.coyote is very sad and disappointed)

Wait, not so fast…. Krieghund’s post was in response to a specific question by Wheatbeer:

“1. If you over-purchase, can you choose not a mobilize carrier if one of your planes can’t land without it?”

So I’m not sure that also applies when there are no planes left. Because that also seems to imply that in a similar situation where you didn’t overpurchase but still bought a carrier, you’d have to mobilize that carrier in the seazone where combat took place even when the planes that needed the carrier had died. That would be strange.

Reposting this side by side to clear up the confusion.

@wheatbeer:

1. If you over-purchase, can you choose not a mobilize carrier if one of your planes can’t land without it?

2. If you over-purchase, can you choose not to mobilize a carrier whose purchase was originally required to launch an attack (by creating a hypothetical landing zone)?

@Krieghund:

1. No.

2. Only if the air units that were going to land on the carrier either no longer exist or have another place to land.

OK, thanks Wheat, I think I did mismatch those.

STILL

This is the problem for us on the website:
If I was playing face to face, I would stop my opponent during the purchase phase if he over-bought.  However, if I recall correctly, Krieghund hasn’t said that you can’t over-buy.

Playing on TripleA, however, my opponent has played his whole turn already.  So this rule is highly problematic (a big loophole) playing on-line, because you could intentionally over-buy, run all your combat, refund yourself some carriers or transports or subs or whatever, and there’s nothing your opponent could do to stop it.

There is a HUGE difference between intentional and unintentional over-buying, and you choosing your own units to refund or your opponent choosing or whatever, and there is a very simple solution.  Over-buying should be explicitly not allowed.  If it still happens, accidental or not, the OPPONENT should get to choose which units are refunded.

No matter what Krieghund’s ruling is (you still haven’t cleared this up satisfactorily in my mind), I know what the league’s rule will be.  Especially because 99-100% of our games are played online.  Overbuying will not be allowed, and the opponent will choose which units are refunded if it does occur.

I agree that disallowing overbuy for League play is a great idea.

Thanks for the feedback, Shin Ji

I’m still hoping to hear from Krieghund whether the intent is against intentional over-buying or not.  There’s not a rule against it, as he pointed out.

It seems we’ll need a new feature request for TripleA to prevent overbuying…  TBH I’m surprised it’s not there already.  It’s not terribly complicated–what one can buy is limited by production capacity and PUs.

triplea does alert you to the fact that you bought more units than you can place although it doesn’t prevent it

you can’t refund the unit it just stays in limbo until it is placed

but you guys probably already know that

Our current thinking is that intentional over-purchasing should not be allowed.  That means that all players must verify during the purchase phase that more units have not been purchased than can be mobilized at that time.  Since repairs of damaged ICs occur in the purchase phase, those repairs are taken into consideration.  However, no events that may or may not happen after the purchase phase may be taken into account.  If over-purchasing still occurs, it must be considered accidental and should be dealt with using the current rules.

@variance:

Suppose all the Chinese territories are axis controlled, China has troops in Burma, and they have $6.  They buy 2 infantry and attack Yunnan but fail to liberate it.  They would get their $6 back right?

Under the conditions above, the China player would not be allowed to purchase any units that turn, as he/she has no mobilization capacity during the purchase phase.

@ShadowHAwk:

Then the US issue also needs to be solved as you get your factories to majors after going to war but that is after the buy phase so you would have 9 production where you would actualy have 30.

Under the conditions above, if the US begins the turn still neutral, all of its ICs will still be minors, and its mobilization potential should be calculated as such.  Bear in mind that this only occurs if the US declares war without having been attacked first, as a declaration of war against the US will immediately upgrade the ICs so that they will be majors at the beginning of the US’s following turn.

Thanks Krieghund!

That is what I was guessing (about the intent) and already ruled on our on-line league accordingly - that over-buying is not allowed.

Shadowhawk is referring to a Triple A glitch/loophole where the USA factories are not always upgraded immediately upon state of war.

There is no " intentional over-purchasing " only the intend to not place all units.
You would have to know if somebody is intentionaly over-purchasing units wich you don’t know.
( How would you ever find out??)

But there is intentionaly holding back on placing units, and this may occur when the events after purchasing your units are changed to your disadvantage!

For example: you bought an IC  (as Axis Player) for Romania and start now your combat in eastern Poland and loose horroble and also have nothing between Romania and the hordes of the red army and must now place your IC in your Mob.Phase knowing that russia now can reach and take over.
You then intentionally Holding back on Units wich you should have placed.
But it was not intentionally during your purchasing Phase since you did not now the outcome of combat due to bad dice rolling.
Well we all agree this case is not a comon one.
But it will be still punished as that, that you have to loose not placed Units.

I think the rule (place all units or loose them) is ok, but needs a diffrent Name.
I go for - Sabotage, since Sabotage was performed on any side during WWII and is not as sounding hard as the explanation of it.
It does not leave the bitter taste that you intenionally did something wrong  :-).

And yes, it should be changed for the online game, because you are able to just place them the next turn.

my two cents…

That doesn’t even apply, aequitias.

You talking about buying a major?  You still have to place it.  You could place it in Holland or Norway or something, but you have to place it.

Never mind that you’re crazy to purchase a major for Romania…

I’m curious, from a gameplay enjoyment standpoint, what is the benefit of separating the purchase phase from the placement phase, by interjecting the combat move/battle/noncom move phases between them? I mean other than tradition?

Because I don’t see a major problem with just shifting the purchase phase to some penultimate position in the phase order right, before placement. So long as each player receives the same benefit, of being able to choose their purchase after the combats are resolved, I just don’t think it would have a negative impact on the gameplay or game enjoyment. It would resolve all the problems mentioned in this thread, and accelerate the pace of the game considerably.

I can understand the idea that OOB these units are being purchased = “trained in advance, under fog of war conditions” but is it really even necessary to model this, given how abstract time is in this game already? I honestly wouldn’t have a problem if the game phases looked more like this…

Research/Repair
Combat Movement
Combat
Non Combat Movement
Purchase
Place
Collect Income

I think the gameplay would be just as enjoyable, and the game would resolve faster, with less purchasing errors or problems along the way.

The only complication in adopting such a scheme would be landing air on a newly purchased carrier, but honestly, you could just ditch that rule. I mean how weird is that rule anyway?

Picture this…

They christen the new ship with a bottle of champagne against the hull.
The band starts playing, crowds of people begin waving flags, elated to sea the new ship hit the water for the first time.
Just then, fighters returning from the heat of battle, start skidding in and landing on the deck!
I mean, how real is that anyway?
:-D

Perhaps even more to the point…

Why should the enemy get to know what forces you purchased before the combat phase?  From a metagaming standpoint, the defender can then use this knowledge to determine what sorts of casualty selections they make or whether to scramble or intercept, which just seems a bit weird. Sure you could write it down in secret, but in that case why force the players to make another step in a game already full of steps? If you shifted the purchase phase, you could again get rid of this issue. For me the actual gameflow and gamplay would trump whatever you lose in imaginary interpretion terms, from saying the money always has to be allocated beforehand to such and such, because this mirrors reality somehow.

Its just as easy to say that “time is abstract in this game.” And because game time is abstract, you can thus call up your units and place them at the same time, though in real life of course this process represents weeks and months of advanced planning. Who really cares about the abstract interpretation, if it makes the game better? and prevents common errors, and encourages people to play faster games, that resolve in a more timely fashion? I don’t care, anyway. For me it would be better just to have purchase after combat, and let the warfare determine what you buy. But I guess there is that force of tradition.

I just see so many purchasing/placement mistakes derail the gameplay so often and lead to these huge time sinks where players can’t decide what to buy. Or they buy something and then move in a way that screws up their original plan. Probably hours of wasted game time, that could have been spent on more positive game experiences, simply as a result of where the Purchase phase occurs in the procession of phases.

Too long, so didn’t read it all, but I have some answers for you.

#1) Playing by forum, for big/complicated moves, players often skip the purchase phase, mock up their turn (so they can see it after all the combat movement and noncombat movement) and then decide what they want to buy.  So your suggestion would help by making the game easier to play.

#2) The main reason the purchase phase is before the combat phase is obviously so that you are required to commit to your purchases before seeing how the dice go.  This is not just tradition, it makes the game more fun.

#3) Yes a reason you purchase first is because of the time it takes to produce things.  In the war, they had to anticipate what was needed months in advance.  A game turn is roughly a season, or 3 months.

Well brevity is not my strong suit I guess, judging by the walls I like to post. But just on #2)

Are you really sure that it adds that much to the fun?  Because I’m not.

I’d rather win or lose a game based on the rolls and sound decision making by both players on purchase. Not because someone got confused, or botched something, and now they can’t land their fighters. Or because they clearly didn’t bean count very well on fly, and now have transports they can’t defend, or can’t use effectively.

When games resolve based on mistaken stuff like that, I think most players find the resolution more frustrating than fun. Sure you can point out the opponents mistake and gloat, or allow for a replay, but I’d just shirk the whole thing, and shift that purchase phase.

I don’t buy the whole game time = real historical time analogy, in months or seasons or whatever. It’s so abstract already, what’s the difference how historical time is imagined to elapse? Players will create there own narratives about the timeline regardless of what a game turn in intended to represent.

There’s a lot I could say, but I’ll just be brief.
I’ve never had any problem getting confused, botching something, not being able to land my fighters, or having transport problems. 
I also don’t see my opponents making these glaring errors.

Again, if you are not playing face to face, merely make up your move, see where everything’s going to be, figure out what to buy, then go back and redo the turn.

If G40 is too complicated or too much work for you, try AA50.  It is not nearly as complicated.  If you don’t like the rules of the game, you just need to find someone to play who agrees with you, and house rule it.

Or, play RISK.  You figure out how many armies you get, you place them immediately, you make one attack at a time, and you roll dice.  I’m not sure A&A is your game.

AA50 is great, so is Risk, so is this game.

I get the impression that you’re coming at this from a long or multi-session game, or perhaps games played by forum or email, where time and intense focus and pre planning are easier. Or I don’t know, perhaps your playgroup is just so expert that none of these issues ever come up.

I’ve been playing for a while though, with players of varying skill levels, and trying to teach this game to new players, and I still see this stuff happen all the time.

@Gamerman01:

If G40 is too complicated or too much work for you, try AA50.  It is not nearly as complicated.  If you don’t like the rules of the game, you just need to find someone to play who agrees with you, and house rule it.

Or, play RISK.  You figure out how many armies you get, you place them immediately, you make one attack at a time, and you roll dice.  I’m not sure A&A is your game.

I agree with you that there are many ways one might play a game like this, and ways to play using the same basic architecture in different variations.

All I wanted to do was highlight an observation here, about hang ups I’ve seen with the purchase phase.

The suggestion that A&A isn’t my game? Patently ridiculous! I have a deep love of this game.

If something I said got under your skin,  I don’t know why. But no need to put me on blast. I’m here to share thoughts and ideas about A&A, same as anyone else. Because it is most definitely my game, and I dig it.

I guess I touched a nerve with you somewhere, and this thread feels rather heated now. I’ll come back later when the conversation doesn’t burn so hot.