To CWOMarc, I think the concept of a national “special unit” is interesting. I also like how you considered a practical option using a generic marker to achieve this. While I agree that an actual sculpt would definitely be cooler, a simple marker is definitely more accessible, with the upside that it gives players a way to try out the rule and see if they like it before investing money in sculpts. The randomization element would be fun as well I think.
I have a definite preference for some kind of initial dice roll, or random draw from a card deck, or something similar that appreciably alters the starting set up from game to game, you know, in a way that is hard to predict. Sure one could make the case that combat rolls already provide a certain level of randomization, but the combat stuff is rather less pronounced and rather more predictable than what I have in mind.
In the past I proposed some ways that a standard deck of playing cards might be used in conjunction with dice, to achieve similar randomized effects. Not sure the extent to which other people would enjoy those ideas though.
Sometimes I think are two ways to make a game, either you can create the perfect game by achieving the perfect 50/50 starting balance, or you can create the perfect game by making it essentially impossible to determine what the starting balance really is, ever. I often think the later situation would be easier to achieve. But what does that look like? Well basically, it means ditching the set script and instead using gameplay mechanics for some of the initial set-up/balance of forces distribution.
Currently Axis and Allies is not like this. In A&A you read a set up chart and plug in the values. There’s no real gameplay element to any of that. Its just read and set. The closest you’d get would be in the bid process, but bidding (or haggling for sides) is not a particularly engaging gameplay element unto itself.
I think the reason why balance is such an issue in A&A, is because the set up is unchanging. Everything written on the set up chart or the map is basically pre-determined. The starting income, the unit placement, the turn order, these are all locked in from the get-go. But those things could be built into some sort of gameplay process though. You know, like with coin flips, or rolls, or random draws. Things that make it effectively impossible, to say what the “balance” will be, before the game even begins. I’m down if this is something that other people are interested in taking on. It’s perhaps a very tall order though, and a somewhat dramatic departure from the normal type of A&A game. But it strikes me as problematic that there is such an obsession in A&A with “game balance” or “which side can win,” or which can’t win, given optimal strategy and average rolls. Or which can’t win “without a bid of at least X” etc.
I believe this sort of attitude about balance could be altered, while still operating within the same basic game architecture and with the same basic feel of normal Axis and Allies.
As for the territory/sz connections or production values, its very hard to adjust the map directly, or to change information that is clearly represented graphically on that map. But its not impossible. If attempting a change of that sort something that I think you really have to keep in mind is the question, “how laborious is this change going to be to track?”
This is kind of a digression, but just a quick thought on two different kinds of house rule (or any rule really)…
:-D
First you have the rules with a broad application, which cover a number of different situations in some uniform way. And then you have rules with a very narrow application, which cover one specific situation, or maybe just a couple nuanced situations in variegated ways. The later are much harder to memorize and much harder to track.
Lets take IPC or production value as an example. Say we wanted to change the value of some territories such that players are awarded more IPCs for controlling them during the collect income phase. You could approach this many different ways, some which are going to be easy for players to track, and some which aren’t.
One way you might do it, a particularly bad way in my view, is just to create a large list of territories and adjustments that players then have to reference or memorize. Something like “Territory X + 1 ipc, Territory Y + 3 ipcs, Territory A -2 ipcs, Territory B -1 etc.”
Another way you might do it, a much better way in my view, is to focus on a certain class or set of territories rather than specific individual territories, where that class is fairly easy to recognize/memorize. Something like “All island territories with a base value of Zero are now worth +1 ipc” or perhaps “All territories with a Victory City are now worth + 1 ipc” or similar with the formulation “All territories that meet such and such a criteria, receive some uniform bonus.”
The alternative of trying to manually tweak specific territories, seems like it just lends itself to confusion/annoyance, when the time comes for players to add up their income. If we want to change the production or income spread, there are uniform ways to do this and then there are more nuanced ones, like National Objectives. I’ve never been a huge fan of National Objectives really. Ever since AA50 came out I grumbled about them as being exactly the kinds of rules that are too narrow in application and too hard to track. I know they add a degree of novelty, once you get used to them and memorize them, they can be a cool way to add new dimensions or quick fixes to the game. But the OOB game is rather over reliant on them. Do you think it is even possible to create a game on the G40 map using the OOB roster that is enjoyable to play without National Objectives? Or that would look anything like World War II? Again just things to consider.
:-D
My attitude is that it would be great to develop a core HR game off the G40 map as it is, with the materials already provided, that affords the same style of gameplay and strategic thinking, but where the initial set-up is such that no one side has the clear advantage from the outset. Or at least no advantage that can’t be overcome by some counterbalancing option.
There are simpler ways we might explore, that go beyond “hits” or “duds” in the opening combats to introduce a randomizing effect to the first round. I’m interested in any rules or ideas that people have for creating conditions like those.
:-D
I tend to agree with Trenacker, there are some combat units in the current roster that are rather underwhelming. One unit that I always enjoyed though was the factory unit. The “empire building” unit. In every A&A game, people always have fun considering whether a factory in such and such place can work, before ultimately determining that it can’t haha, but G40 is very restrictive. Bases are a bit better because you can build them anywhere. A lot of the gameplay interest and strategizing for this game revolves around where to place bases, or how to use existing bases, or how to counter enemy bases.
Thanks for the quick recap Barney. Helps to keep us focused. If new units or unit modifications are something we want to explore, then the game will need a new battle board. Something that can be printed out showing the relationships with whatever attack/defense hits are altered, for easy reference. Or a printable cost/abilities chart indicating whatever combined arms might be in play.
I agree the most problematic units are cruisers and aaguns, as I almost never see these purchased. The Tac B is rather underwhelming, though it has some uses for carrier attack.
I like the +2 only if taking off from an operational airbase as suggested by YG. The airbase is probably the most important unit in the game.
I wonder if anyone else finds the OBB scrambling system a bit weird? It slows down email and forum games considerably, with constant confirmation requests. Sometimes I think its a little silly, but it’s such an important part of what makes G40 unique from a combat perspective, that I’m reluctant to change it dramatically. I feel like the air base scramble should have been more like an AAgun roll or Kamakazi token. You know, instead of putting actual fighter units into the fray, it could just be some automatic combat advantage, a free hit or whatnot. Some cimbat feature of the air base itself, rather than the fighters parked in the territory.
Naval bases might be handled in a similar way. Basically giving both base types some functionality independent of the defenders combat units (or lack thereof.) The idea being that an airbase always has at least some kind of air defense or aircraft in place. Similarly a naval base might be assumed to have some naval defense vs ships built in.
If it was an automatic combat bonus, you wouldn’t need to constantly ask. And it avoids the issue of turn order exploits (scrambling your friends fighters) or building an airbase just to get a combat bonus exploit out of an ally’s aircraft. Also avoids the situation where a player chooses not to scramble, for fear of losing a fighter, in a situation where it would obviously have made sense to scramble if it was a battle in the real world.
For example:
Air base gives the defender a free auto shot 1d6, which hits at a 3 in the territory itself or adjecent sea zone.
Naval base gives the defender a free auto shot 1d6, which hits at a 3 in the sea zone itself or adjacent sea zone.
This way there is always some basic combat benefit for a base that the player can utilize automatically, and just preserve the interaction between bases and combat units as purely movement/repair related.
Alternatively if you think a defensive hit is too potent, you could make it a hit absorption instead. Then at least the airbase could “scramble” (ie absorb a hit) during an attack on the actual territory where the base is housed.
Anyone else think its odd, that there is no scrambling during an attack on the land territory where the base is actually located (the base plays no role in such instances, since the fighters are already in place defending regardless.) OOB scrambling is basically just something that happens in adjacent sea zones. But we could improve on that and make a more automatic ability instead of one that requires the attacker to wait while the defender to make a decisison.
The OOB system kind of messes turn sequence I feel, it makes planes behave a bit like subs. Where the attacker has to wait for the defended to decide, or click a prompt.
Subs are another issue altogether, but I’m running out of steam at 3 am haha
