Version 4?
-
@chris_henry
The argument on the Japanese sneak attack, has been ongoing for a while now. The rule in the book states that Japanese ships can move 5 spaces when performing the sneak attack and the argument is carrier based aircraft can only move a maximum of 4 spaces according to the rules. I am paraphrasing but just trying to give you a basic understanding of the argument. In my opinion the Japanese aircraft should be allowed to participate in the sneak attack, this I believe is the spirit of the whole sneak attack scenario involving Japan. I am sure it will be straightened out soon if it has not already been and I just missed it…which sometimes happens. -
@chris_henry said in Version 4?:
Thanks @Trig . I thought there were some changes, maybe I misunderstood insaneHoshi’s comment above!
No, that was my problem. I misread his statement as what he wanted not what he expected. Hence my list. I doubt even half the things I say will get changed, but it is worth getting them out there.
- More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
To your point on territories, specifically in Yugo, China, and Iran. First, it sounds like the Croatia at War Expansion is something for you! Do you use it? True it’s not base game, but getting that expansion probably quells your concerns there? I agree with China, I think some of those warlord territories could be split in two, at least. I don’t know how much Iran matters overall. I think that area is largely a sideshow compared to the others. At what point do they stop splitting? You could argue Africa should more or less double it’s territories as well then, same with Canada. But I do get what you’re saying.
My thoughts are this: If you can get the space, make more territories. If possible, make the sizing as realistic as possible. For instance, the Belgian Congo is the same size as much of western europe, which is over 20 territories. That is not necessary, but 2 or 3 might be nice. And there is space, considering that almost nothing happens there and the armies involved are quite small. similarly, you could cut down Quebec of Northwest territories, or add in more territories in Siberia (or especially Western Kazakhstan. That thing is bloated.) Tsinghai or Tibet could be two territories. Even Iran could get another territory, Southeastern Iran or something. I could list a bunch of places but you get the idea.
On Yugo, I like the idea from the expansion, but I think a better solution would be to make 2 or 3 territories in the base game. A northern Croatia and a southern Serbia, possibly adding Northern Macedonia if needed. (Slovenia is just too small.) The expansion also only takes effect after the conquest, and the point is to make it a little longer to conquer Yugoslavia and show their historical problem of a decent army but a huge border. (Also, Greece is about 1.5 times smaller than Yugo, but gets 4 territories. Really?)
- Japan being able to take planes on their sneak attack
I don’t follow here. You’re talking about the Japanese Special Ability, right? Nothing says Japanese planes can’t partake. It in fact says that all Japanese planes get first strike. Maybe I’m misunderstanding?
Mark just answered this, and I would just love an ability to either give the plans a +1 or let them ride carriers or something. There are a lot of Sneak attack possibilities where it is called off b/c the planes can’t reach. this just seems unrealistic, b/c one of the biggest reasons for Japan to do well early on was air superiority. (Pearl Harbor anyone?) Not a big deal, but it is annoying.
Overall, I have great respect for the designers, this is just a list of things think could be improved or added. I look forward to v4, and can’t wait to see what they pull out next.
-
@gen-manstein said in Version 4?:
@trig said in Version 4?:
@chris_henry I know there was definitely a few set up changes from V2. The french got an extra BB, the cruisers got divided up, and I think the British “Force H” got moved from 80 to 79. Some of the build queue stuff changed as well. Plus of course the added territories in Greece, Japan, London, Tobruk, etc. Nothing major.
My wishlist for v4 includes:- Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
I noticed that too. Maybe on my next map make routes but can only hit in certain areas based on history.
I mainly want this for the Coastal gun and terrain question, about where ships are. It just makes sense that we can use a existing system from the land and move it to sea. Also, now we could add reefs and sea terrain :) - A better Strategic naval move system
.
How would you like to have this ?
Mainly just an ability to move all ships, or move w/o transports, longer distance, etc to better reflect the speed at which ships move! I’m not sure, but it could definitely be improved. I need to try some things out. A air ferry thing would be cool too, seeing as we have a speed move for land and sea as well.
. - More territories in Yugo and China and Iran. I don’t like how Yugoslavia is one, while Greece is 4, and China’s rear areas get rolled through too fast. I in general say, if a territory is large on the map (southern Iran) and it is large IRL, then chop it.
**Agree here. At least I have on my map only 1 move period through Asia and Russian Siberian territories to the coast.
** - On more sea zone from the US to HI. They are almost as far away from HI as HI is from Japan.
Yes. Should be the same for both countries or just 1 sz closer for US if possible. Depends on miles.
Yes> They are 3,855.98 mi from Tokyo and 2,393 mi for San Fran. At least 22 and3 >
- Damage costs for capital ships
Yes
I use 1d6 for thins
- Supply, defending retreat, in port, shipborne AA rules. All just good ways to add some accuracy to the game.
**How would you use your shipborne AA ? I have in my game.
**
Mainly as a form of defense aginst air attack. A plane can attack ship with them shooting back at lower values. Would give some more accuracy. - Battlecruisers!!! And not those mislabeled things we have now. I want the Hood and Kongo and well, that is about it. Maybe Yavuz.
Sweet
I would like a system much like a BB but without any hitpoints, would be a fun unit.
k
Sorry for the bad text near the middle, my computer is acting up. Will redo on a ddifferent device. - Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all
-
Thanks @Trig and @Mark-the-Shark. I guess I hadn’t really considered that before! Has there been official rulings on that? I have somehow missed those discussions here. I can’t imagine they meant to not have planes be able to attack. I’m guessing that was an oversight when creating that rule allowing ships to move 5 spaces. That’s what I had always assumed at least. We’ve never even considered not allowing planes to go in that circumstance. I just let them ride with the carrier the 5 spaces, but they can’t attack outside that last landing spot.
My thoughts are this: If you can get the space, make more territories. If possible, make the sizing as realistic as possible. For instance, the Belgian Congo is the same size as much of western europe, which is over 20 territories. That is not necessary, but 2 or 3 might be nice. And there is space, considering that almost nothing happens there and the armies involved are quite small. similarly, you could cut down Quebec of Northwest territories, or add in more territories in Siberia (or especially Western Kazakhstan. That thing is bloated.) Tsinghai or Tibet could be two territories. Even Iran could get another territory, Southeastern Iran or something. I could list a bunch of places but you get the idea.
On Yugo, I like the idea from the expansion, but I think a better solution would be to make 2 or 3 territories in the base game. A northern Croatia and a southern Serbia, possibly adding Northern Macedonia if needed. (Slovenia is just too small.) The expansion also only takes effect after the conquest, and the point is to make it a little longer to conquer Yugoslavia and show their historical problem of a decent army but a huge border. (Also, Greece is about 1.5 times smaller than Yugo, but gets 4 territories. Really?)
I definitely get your overall argument for such large swaths only being one territory when much smaller areas are more. I guess to that I’d just say there’s a point in game/map designing where “less is more”. The Congo for example, while I totally agree with you given it’s size, is really a backwater in the game that is probably hardly ever touched, right? There were probably decisions made on that based on playability and overall usefulness I’d think. I know the overarching complaints on the size of Africa in this and basically all A&A games have always been there. But I think it ultimately comes down to playtesting and realizing nothing usually happens down that way outside of Northern African more or less.
I think a similar argument could be made for Yugoslavia. The entire invasion of Yugoslavia, start to surrender, was 11 days. That’s hardly even a fraction of a game turn of 6 months! It would seem weird to me to have that occupation potentially take 3 game turns to playout. I get your point on comparing to Greece, but the Greeks also held out for 6 months, and even then were only defeated after the Germans helped out.
I’m not sold on Iran though. Again, I get your points, but for a Neutral nation that historically was a backwater, I think 3 territories is fine. But obviously we all have our different thoughts. Yugoslavia, when put in the context of Greece, is pretty glaring too. I just always assume the expansion layover. Maybe you could just start your games with the overlay on your board as a bit of a house rule?
I do, however, completely agree with you on China. I think Tibet, Sinkiang, and Xibei San Ma, at the very least could each be split in two. Maybe even into three for Xibei San Ma. Yunnan could maybe have a North and South also. I think the internalized struggle of the Chinese Civil War alone could warrant this. But I agree too that it could help bog down the Japanese. Our games don’t usually see the Japanese move far inland after taking the money territories, so maybe we don’t see it as much. From a gaming sense though, I could see how the free recruitment rolls for the CCP, for example, could get too out of control if you give them 6-8 more territories to conceivably take over and utilize. Again, I could see how that could start to unbalance game play a bit.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound combative by mentioning everything piece by piece. I think you just hit the nail on the head on a lot of intriguing areas and the pros/cons can probably build up forever! I just think sometimes there was probably gaming considerations put into some of these thoughts as opposed to glaring, intentional omissions from overall landmass!
-
@trig “Sea zone “roundels” to make life easier for us all”
Why would you want roundels in the sea, and how would that make anything easier?
-
@captainnapalm
I don’t want a roundel per say, but a “locater” (or just the sea zone number) so one can tell where to measure from. In this case I am referring to the use of the roundel as a way to figure out terrain and such, not as a mark or ownership. It is a good system and could easily be applied to sea zones.
Currently, with all the sea zone numbers in the bottom corners, you don’t know where to measure from when figuring out terrain for amphibs or such. Also, if used, this could allow an easy solution to the coastal gun problem. If from roundel to roundel you cross the crossing, you get shot at. Also, now we can add reefs!
That is why I want a “roundel” at sea. Even just moving the numbers would help, and solve several problems easily. -
@trig Where are some places you’ve had trouble telling terrain for amphibious assaults? I don’t recall that ever happening in our games. I think we’d default to the location of the port, if it did.
As for the coastal guns at narrow crossings problem, it sounds like you are proposing the Sea zone number/roundel be placed between the two narrow crossings in the English Channel? I think that the rules about that situation do need some work!
-
@captainnapalm One example would be north australia. Depending on where you measure it from, an amphibious assault cosses mountains or it does not.
Im not sure if there are any others.
-
@captainnapalm
1: See from Hoshi below. There might not be many, but I am sure they will come up.
2: Yes, that sort of idea, though in the Channel, I would put the “roundel” in the southern (channel) side. You go through none or both of the crossings. Those two crossings are so close together. They are basically just a 4 crossing that goes to two ports. It would be unrealistic to put the roundel between them. The Channel is the bigger of the two sides, and the more likely side for a fleet to be parked on. See here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1CEgx4Z2et2e6QkxhHWFMb3vTa6uJ8PXY&ll=51.36987064258579%2C-0.19830579999998044&z=6
for a map of the sea zone and a possible other fix -
@chris_henry I think it would be nice if poeple could send in their old maps ( like v2, v3) to they print the new map over the old one(for a cheaper price)
-
@david-06 that is a great thought but I imagine the logistics of doing something like that would probably drive the price up instead of down.
-
@mark-the-shark, @David-06, in a perfect world for us as consumers, I would love that. I don’t want to sound disparaging at all, but part of me says it would be good to reward your long-time/loyal customers/players who have endured 3-4 (and maybe more in the future) map iterations with that option.
But the practical part of me gets that that would never happen. I’m sure profit margins are already thin, and it is a business after all, so having them discount maps in exchange for existing old ones probably doesn’t work well. Not to mention they’d have who knows how many V2 maps just lying around collecting dust now.
Frankly, I’m going to see if I can sell my V2 map for something. I won’t need to have multiple lying around. My dad (who I play this game with mostly along with my brother) is convinced we should keep it as a practice map for my now-11-month-old-son haha. To me that’s what the older A&A versions are for, but he does bring up the good point that this doesn’t take up a ton of space when all rolled up.
As was mentioned earlier, ~$150 more for a new map isn’t so outrageous to deal with, especially when you consider all the other money you’re bound to have dropped to complete the game. While true not everyone has the same (or hardly any) disposable income, I think it’s safe to say those that don’t have much aren’t exactly shelling out for this game and all its components in the first place.
-
@chris_henry totally agree!
-
@mark-the-shark @Chris_Henry I was thinking of sending the old maps to HGB and to HGB, for a price, print the new board over the old one
Suggested Topics
