Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?

For a long time now I’ve been hoping to see an official digital platform for A&A (one with at least some kind of connection to the designers and publishers) that could be used for alpha testing a new game before its actually released in print. I mean like a tandem release, where the new physical game follows the online drop.

Analog playtesting the way A&A has been handled in the past is pretty laborious and time intensive, as a cursory look back at the larry boards will reveal. Even with an open alpha and tons of feedback on forums and such for each proposal, its still a challenge to aggregate everything and to rely on anecdotal after action reports. I get the impression that there is never really enough time to hold the kind of informal FtF tournaments that would be required, or to get enough people all going gangbusters at the same time to actually get enough data beforehand to determine whether its fully cooked before running it to the printers in china and pushing it out on the shelves.

With a digital alpha you could speed up the whole process considerably and have gamesaves to use as evidence, to help parse the overall play-pattern and player experience in each iteration.

I think A&A online could provide a real opportunity, if ever we got a shot on a re-issue of 1942. Even a re-release using the same base map could be fun. I admit new maps get me more excited than the existing ones (there were a couple changes from Spring to 2nd Ed so least there’s a precedent), but even using the same map as 2nd ed, with set up changes or a rules change or two there are a lot of ways to get at a new take on things.

I guess what I’m hoping for is that A&Aonline goes beyond just offering a way to play 1942.2 or any of the existing A&A games digitally, and might eventually serve as a hub for developing the next A&A games. A place where the players could actually be more involved with that process, and provide feedback on things when it might still make a difference, e.g. before its shrink wrapped and sent off to stores.

I know there are some core table toppers who would probably never really play A&A on a computer, but who might reconsider doing so, if hopping online also meant possible glimpses at the next upcoming board. Or having other ways to get involved, provide feedback while it might still influence the basic set up/balance design, or otherwise engage with something that they eventually get to put on an actual table. I think we could see a pretty strong 3rd edition going at it that way.

Anyhow, just a few thoughts. To me the real longer term promise of an online A&A project would be something like that. And why I get exicted about things like possible toolsets or map/scenario editors.

Not sure what the publisher would stand to gain from that other than generating ill will with a core part of their potential online player base. TripleA has moved pretty far away from the A&A clone it was initially and is driven much more by original content now. The whole process of creating games, downloading maps and everything was altered to remain in-bounds a while back. I’ve been participating in the project now for the better part of almost two decades and I can say that it has morphed considerably since the last dmca of like 10 years ago. Really all you have to do is look back on the staying power of the defunct GTO A&A Spring 1942 computer game, to see how silly it was to try and present that as a viable alternative. To really replace tripleA they’d have to create a title that does all the things that tripleA does, but better, which seems like a pretty tall order given how its grown into an open ended game engine now, with the majority of maps having nothing to do with Axis and Allies. Pointlessly coming after it without a suitable replacement to fill that void for the larger game creating community would just piss off the exact long-time players they want to attract in the first place.

If they build a good stand alone A&A online platform, emblazoned with all the regalia of officialdom, then the players will gravitate to it by themselves, so I’d hope it doesn’t get presented as an either or proposition. I’m pretty sure the people at Beamdog can appreciate the value of having a creative user-content driven community behind them, just given their history taking on a redux for projects like BG or Neverwinter Nights.

I think beamdog is a particularly good fit for Axis and Allies, just coming out of a mutual appreciation for what they did with those other crpgs. I was really surprised and pleased to see that they were taking on this project for us.

Back when Black Elk was a druid named Jah-din, I used to put out massive portrait packs for those games hehe. Took samples from the dusty tomes, all my favorite fantasy artists of the 1st/2nd edition D&D era, with a credits list like half a mile long, since that kind of stuff is important to me. But anyway, main point being that a large part of the appeal of those games was stuff like that, all the user created content, mods, possibilities for customization etc.

I’d say we have the exact same sort of group here among the A&A playerbase, just waiting for a developer to do right by us. If anything TripleA could probably help them to learn a great deal about the sort of things the community is really hungry for.

Honestly the situation we’ve been in with A&A/tripleA is almost exactly analogous to what was happening with the Baldur’s Gate modding community before beamdog enhanced it across the finish line. People just trying their best to find new ways to make it happen in the afterlife. I remember the first time I played BG using the BGII engine, just hunting around in random corners of the internet, messing with dos prompts and the like. It was doable, and awesome when it finally worked, but I can tell you right now its way more convenient to just drop like 10 bones on a steam sale and have all the legwork already done.

But yeah man, a toolset. That’s the ticket right there. I mean obviously I’m buying it regardless, but with a toolset out the deal you could start to harness the creativity of the community at large, and put it to work in furthering the online franchise long term.

Exactly! Its actually kind of bizarre, given how much interest there is in things like collecting sculpts or additional accessories (dice, chips, counters and whatnot), not to mention other variant materials like card decks or specialty rules for expansion scenarios. Of course you can customize and cobble stuff together using 3rd party resources and house rules, but I think there is a pretty clear desire on the part of most players for some kind of official guidance in that area.

To me the most sensible approach would be a starter set (containing all the essential materials for the basic game) then a series of modular expansions for that starter set, and then periodically a big box (Black Box, Gold Box or whatever) where you can get a bundle of expansion materials incorporated into the sale of the starter materials. The potential for smaller transactions is pretty limitless. I could imagine things like national expansion sets with sculpts and rules for how to incorporate a new player nation into the base game, or unit expansions where you get sculpts for all the existing nations. AH tried to do something like this with their miniatures series, but the obvious issue was that those miniatures were for an entirely different “squad” based game, that had no application in the existing A&A boardgames and no real connection to the boardgame franchise other than the name recognition.

The other issue with the single “big get” model, is that the boards become outdated way too quickly. The older maps/rules become defunct as soon as the new stuff arrives, so you end up with all these total replacements and a bunch of boxes stacking up in the closet, rather than a situation where you could build up a for a master collectors game over time. In the digital arena people tend to grumble about DLCs and such, but to me it makes a lot of sense for the physical board, and is already going on anyway at places like historicalboardgaming, which is currently filling the void left over by the dearth of official A&A expansion materials.

The splintering of the community is a real problem, and there is a definite lack of cohesion when it comes to things like official fixes for game balance. It puts us in a position where people who are trying to play the same game, end up playing very different games, as they try to address these issues in localized player groups or tournaments with House Rules or whatever.

I think a lot of people find the idea of a balanced game ‘out the box’ kind of patronizing at this point. We know its not going to be balanced by sides. A balanced A&A board has never been realized to date, and the track record there is pretty clear, which is why its kind of surprising that we still don’t have any official remedy or scheme for dealing with this constant problem. Like just admitting that the game is inherently unbalanced already, so we can move past that and find an optimal working solution for choosing sides.

More importantly, even if the boxed game was balanced by sides, with the perfect starting unit set up, just the right amount of cash etc. what we are talking about there is a game balanced among players of roughly ‘equal skill,’ but that is rarely the situation around the home table. There is almost always a disparity in player ability/familiarity, so these games really do require a more refined handicapping scheme to give the underdog a leg up. It should be built into the game… part of the gameplay from the get-go, not an afterthought fix.

With respect to the A&Aonline project, I’ll admit to being a little concerned about that last point. I worry that anecdotal experiences around the office may lead them to think the game is a 50/50 toss up and so the issue doesn’t need addressing, but that is definitely not the consensus view here. There are probably hundreds of games logged in the PBF section which support the general assessment that the 1942 board was Axis advantage and seems to still be even after the tournament tweak. But you really don’t even need to go there, because we all know that even if the game was a perfect split by sides, you’d still need a way to deal with disparities in player ability. Just because an expert player can manage not to die as Allies, doesn’t mean that the average player will be able to do the same. And not every newb is going to want to play as Axis, just because its the ‘easier side’ to play. You need a system in place, an official system, to deal with this stuff.

The traditional tournament bid works alright, but even that is kind of tired at this point, and in any case it still doesn’t have the official nod despite being used by pretty much everyone. I’d rather have a series of thematic options spelled out in the rulebook.

ps. this isn’t a grand plan, but lets say worst case scenario and the boxed game is totally hardcoded with no way to edit units or provide a cash bid, or anything like that. What do we do then? Maybe skip the movement phases in the first round for everyone by player agreement? Like nothing can move until round 2, so everyone gets a preliminary purchase before it actually begins in earnest? Its the only thing I can think of right now that might somehow produce a substantially different playpattern PvP, potentially balancing if nothing else is done to vanilla 1942.2 and its just a direct port. It probably handles the balance on Caucasus and India, naval builds might be more interesting or production builds. Following the regular game sequence players would at least be able to build off each others purchases to shape the playbalance, instead of everything going to one side or one player. Might work. Allies could then save the American Atlantic transports and allow the US to pick a focus. Britain could try to set up in the Atlantic, or build for a hit on Japan out of India/sz35 so Allies get the leg up. But the Axis would also get a chance to build in sz15 or sz60 or do stuff with transports that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to, so I can imagine it going different ways depending on who builds what in the ghost round. The practical restriction of only placing units at the factory territories might be somewhat stabilizing, instead of a bid that goes to a battle breaker. I wonder what round 2 would look like then after a round of purchases? Russia would be able to ice the Ukraine battle, and Britain could put the lock on sz37, but G could probably do some things to compensate like with a transport buy in the med. Not sure how it would shake down, but might be more interesting than vanilla. A full round of purchasing would have to favor Allies for the initiative since they have more nations on the team, but least it wouldn’t be just all to one side.

Yeah man for sure. I gotta take a look at the channel. Sounds like the kind of place I should definitely have bookmarked, cause I was fully vibing on everything you posted earlier hehe. Catch you in a few

Yeah that’s also true, though it kind of makes sense since 1940 was the last scenario to offer something substantially new in a while. Everything since has been mainly reissues or retcons. 1942.2 and Zombies are both basically reissues of Spring 42, which wasn’t all that different from Revised. 1941 is basically a really stripped down simplification of Classic. So since AA50 came out only the 1940 maps really put a new spin on things. 1914 is clearly pretty different, buts its not a WW2 board, so is kind of marked out on account of that probably. If any of the reissues had been really well balanced and offered much more strategic depth than the Revised game they’d probably have seen more staying power, but the playpatterns and overall look/feel were still remarkably similar. I mean I guess we got the defenseless transport and the new bombing mechanics, more expensive tanks, and a cruiser unit that nobody buys, but they also ditched the tech and national advantages from Revised, so its debatable how much the mid-scale 5 man board with a total war start has really evolved in the past 15 years since Revised camed out. Not surprising if most people are still on a 1940 kick, since that was definitely an evolution, but 1940 still isn’t very serviceable for introductions. Its too long and the rules overhead has a learning curve like a cliff hehe.

I don’t see any reason though why we couldn’t take a board on the scale of 1942.2 or AA50, and have that as a more universal starter board that can be built into something more impressive with expansion materials. Or even with a starter board closer in scale to Global, but modular so that you can stage in the complexity.

When you combine the Europe and Pacific boards you end up with a map that has like 4 times as many game tiles as Classic or 1942.2. To me having more game tiles (a bunch of additional tt and sz) doesn’t really necessitate all the baseline rules complexity we see in 1940. What I mean is that you could surely find a way to make a more limited and much faster 5-6 man total war scenario, still with a larger game map more on the scale of global, and it wouldn’t be that much harder to learn than 1942.2 is currently. People have done exactly that designing custom scenarios with different start dates. But it just wasn’t really built out with that kind of modular approach in mind, and so nothing official on offer there. But I’m sure had they done it in a more modular way there’d probably have been more continuity if it was built off the same base mapboard.

For example, they could have sold a single Global Map starter set that had all the basic materials and rules designed for a much simpler introductory game that could then be built into a more complex hydra like G40 via expansion, but they didn’t really go that route. Both 1940 maps are separately still way more involved than any of the mid scale 1942 maps, and combined even moreso.

We’ve seen over successive editions how new units, mechanics, full player nations etc can be grafted onto what is still essentially a beefed up Classic game, so I imagine all that could be handled via expansions provided the basic map was well designed and durable and didn’t go out of print after just a couple years.

Honestly the main impediment to creating that kind of game that I’ve seen is that Larry was just a little too rigid with his conception of the production spread and the IPC values on the printed maps. It means that the map is constantly redrawn and values are redistributed, with considerable variation over successive editions, but still fixed for any given map. Its the same with VCs. Those could just as easily be game markers that could be added or moved around to accommodate things like adding in a new player nation. You could also do simple things like attaching an IPC value beyond the printed value of territory (or even sz) with things like game markers that can be moved. Simple rules could likewise allow for ways to re-balance the same game map for different scenarios depending on the desired scale or level of complexity.

Just spit-balling, but lets say that the starter map had no VCs printed on it but came with more VC tokens/markers than were actually needed for the base game. Then you add in say Italy or whoever, drop a token on the right territory with a simple rule that says any VC territory is worth +1 or 2 ipcs or +X over the printed value if its a capital and you’d have a way to get a new thing going without having to reprint the entire map. I can just think of a lot of ways it could be done with a more adaptive plan from the outset, so that periodic revisions or expansion scenarios could be issued (officially, not just as like HR stuff by committee) with everyone on basically the same page and not having it go obsolete quite so quickly.

Again though, I think that whole franchise model would be way way easier to develop if it was done digitally in tandem. Again so that everyone can be on the same page, and the testing and feedback, and dissemination of new materials would be easier to coordinate.