Was it worth adding ART to the game?

The harder it is, the funner it is? Must be a masochist  :wink:

@Cmdr:

I agree.  But man, it is SOOO much harder to go KJF in classic then KGF!

Just invade Gibraltar, make a HUGE stack and walk into Spain. =)

seemed easier to go KJF om classic. pretend to go island hoping. Japan usally leaves their captial vulnerable. at least that what happens on games by emial

How’s the bids in classic?
15-20 for axis?
Not very well balanced  :lol:

seemed easier to go KJF om classic. pretend to go island hoping. Japan usally leaves their captial vulnerable. at least that what happens on games by emial

Rofl you tricky bastard!

How’s the bids in classic?
15-20 for axis?

From what I’ve skimmed in the classic threads, it’s something like 20 IPCs on top of Russia Restricted. Without Russia Restricted 30+ would be very reasonable.  :roll:

Revised is surprisingly well balanced, considering Harris probably didn’t have the time to test it extensively. It seems to be off by 6 or 7 IPCs, which really isn’t a whole lot, enough for 2 units on the board, which is great considering there’s something like 1200 IPCs of units total on the board with all sorts of territory parameters to consider.

Bid in revised, to me, isn’t so much a method to balance the game as it is to give the axis options at other avenues of attack.

Bid in classic was life or death for the axis.  Fastest classic game I saw was 3 rounds with England taking S. Europe and Germany at the same time.

You just never see that in revised.

I think classic was released raw.  Larry didn’t really have all the ideas worked out because he’s just one guy!  Once the internet community got a hold of it, exploited it like a $20 hooker in DC and then spat it back with all the holes highlighted in neon yellow for Larry to review, he started working on revised. (Never talked to the guy, so I don’t know for sure, just my thoughts on how it might have happened.)

I still think revised needs some balancing issues.

1)  All economic attacks should be removed with the possible exception of U-Boat Interdiction National Advantage and then, only because it’s so bloody easy to counter it. (Though replacing it with wolf packs would be better. +1 to all submarine attacks if you have more then 1 submarine attacking.  Stacks with super submarines.  Does not function on defense.)

2)  W. USA and E. USA should be split in half top to bottom.  5/5 for W. USA and 6/6 for E. USA

3)  England needs a destroyer in SZ 2.  Or, maybe replace the battleship in SZ 13 with 2 destroyers.  It’ll still get sunk, but now it will cost Germany something important.

4)  Germany needs another fighter.  I’d vote for W. Europe for a place to put it.

5)  SFE, Yakut and Buryatia should be worth 2 IPC.  Why can’t Russia have 27 starting income?  They’re still the cheapest bastages on the planet and they’ll still lose SFE, Yak and Bury in any KGF scenario I’ve ever seen.

6)  Pearl needs to be bolstered.  +1 Destroyer, +1 Carrier, +1 Fighter.  Remove the American Battleship (they were sunk in Pearl on 12/7/41, the carriers were not.)  Give Japan an extra destroyer that should almost even it back out.  (Destroyer for Japan should be SZ 61, 59 or 36, basically along the edge of Asia supporting landing efforts against the Chinas there.)

7)  Fix up the Russian NAs a bit.  Of all the countries out there, Russia got the most hosed in the NAs (and the new map, if you want to be honest.)

8)  Add more victory cities.  S. Africa (diamond mines), E. Europe (Poland/Warsaw), Caucasus (Stalingrad), Hawaii (Pearl), E. Indies (Oil!), Borneo (Oil!)  Should add some more flavor and they’re all really good targets to aim for.  Hampers the allies a bit more then the axis given the axis have +2 VCs on island groups and one in a territory normally stacked to high heaven anyway.  Meanwhile the allies have +1 island group that’s normally attacked anyway and two in easy reach of the Germans in most games.

Larry Harris says the next edition of A&A will see huge changes. On his site he has been talking about things like making the seas a constant source of battle, less reliance on massive infantry stacks, 10 sided dice, etc.

I hope he incorporates a system like A&A Europe where there’s a turn 0 where it’s sort of like a bid, you have some IPCs to sprinkle wherever you want them. That would definitely take out the monotony of certain “set” attacks on turn 1.

teh PAcific is very historical. the US fighter in hawaii needs to be moved to hawaii sz and then its would be prefect. US had battleships then, but middway is a piontless island. china needs to be divided virtically in half and so does FIC.( for burma) then it would be more realestic. Germany doesn’t need another fighter because that’s how many airfleets they had in 42.

Ya know what might be fun?

Double the cost of all units, double the value of all land and make valueless land worth 1 IPC. (Not Neutral land, I’m talking Gibraltar, Solomons, Carolines, Wake, Midway, and any I forgot in this list.)

Now they are not worthless!  Infantry cost 6 IPC and Midway is worth only 1 IPC, but at least it’s worth something!

Anyway, never thought about the extra fighter in SZ 52, but even with England’s fighter there, I don’t see much change in the outcome of the battle.  Maybe I’ve just been lucky with Japan. /shrug. (I normally get 4-6 hits in round 1 with Japan at Pearl.)

no Japan just had bad luck round 1 in real life. (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=9663.0)

j1-  1 fac to manchuria
battle of midway(sz 52)-
  1 bb, 1 ac, 1 sub, 2 fig( 1 sz 50, 1 sz37) > vs. 1 sub, 1 ac, 1fig ( retreats with 1 bb, 1 us ac still alive)
batttle of the coral sea
  1 ac > sz 46(empty)
  1fig sz 37> sz 40  vs. 1 trn (no survivors)
  1 destroyer sz 50 > sz 45 (sinks sub)
china campgian
  1bb > sz 59 wol
  3inf( 1 man, 2 kwantwang), 3 fig, 1bmb > china cleared with 3 fig 1 bmb. ( mad a boboo all the AF surrives)

@cyan:

no Japan just had bad luck round 1 in real life. (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=9663.0)

j1-  1 fac to manchuria
battle of midway(sz 52)-
  1 bb, 1 ac, 1 sub, 2 fig( 1 sz 50, 1 sz37) > vs. 1 sub, 1 ac, 1fig ( retreats with 1 bb, 1 us ac still alive)
batttle of the coral sea
  1 ac > sz 46(empty)
  1fig sz 37> sz 40  vs. 1 trn (no survivors)
  1 destroyer sz 50 > sz 45 (sinks sub)
china campgian
  1bb > sz 59 wol
  3inf( 1 man, 2 kwantwang), 3 fig, 1bmb > china cleared with 1 fig.

After that, I think I would have taken a 2 week break from Axis and Allies. It’s painful READING about that.

:-o :-o :-o

The game needs some kind of ports to protect fleets and or artificial rules to prohibit:

Allies in Baltic
Italians into Atlantic

The game needs another German fighter and a Soviet Bomber and perhaps another Soviet fighter so that the Soviets have alot of new options

No more Japanese in Russia crap… different victory conditions for both axis… basically they dont work together and they should not

Same goes for Soviets. If the game is 1 v 1 the Soviet player should have rules for auto play because the coordination of the 3 allies with one guy playing all three is totally bankrupt. This has nothing to do how the war was fought.

Thus the Soviets have their own victory conditions as well.

IN this way its will be possible for one ally to win and one axis player to win… no more “”““TEAM””“” wins… good greif!

The only thing that came close to a real Axis and Allies game IMO is back in 1998-99 when the CD rom came out and allowed 4-5 players
and the goal of that game was to by diplomacy motivate your allies to adopt a strategy and stick with it knowing all the time you had a weak link player who could mess up and your own skill can compensate for his shortcommings and still win the war. This added a truly unigue game that was lost on all the 1 vs. 1 crowd. I think thats what made the game fun: the idea that you needed to rely on the skills of others to win and you could be a good negotiator and motivate to agree to your idea what victory would be according to your view.

The game needs a Mechanized Infantry piece attack 2 defend 2 and move 2 cost 4

The game needs cheaper naval

The map should be 50% larger minimum and drawn much better

The game needs some random ( but sequential) card system to address developments in the war and get rid of technology in its present form. Its bankrupt ideas. Their are not enough technology ideas represented.

The game needs a historical time frame e.g a turn = 4 months, you are now in turn 5 (spring 1943)

The map needs to represent the world in 1939 to allow for all kinds of scenarios for shorter and longer games

for tournaments a 1943 scenario would be nice and make for shorter game.

Combat rounds need to cost a player money… if you keep attacking this is not cheap by any means

AA guns are a joke … get rid of them

and Artillery are probably needed, but they function incorrectly

Fighters must boost tanks

Tank hits must go on enemy armor

defender should be able to retreat… the current system is a joke… the defender is like frozen in time taking punishment without recourse.

their are a hundred other things to list… this is just the top 10… i could go on

No more Japanese in Russia crap… different victory conditions for both axis… basically they dont work together and they should not

Same goes for Soviets. If the game is 1 v 1 the Soviet player should have rules for auto play because the coordination of the 3 allies with one guy playing all three is totally bankrupt. This has nothing to do how the war was fought.

Thus the Soviets have their own victory conditions as well.

IN this way its will be possible for one ally to win and one axis player to win… no more “”““TEAM””“” wins… good greif!

That’s a little bit extreme, I like the team aspect of the game = (

The game needs a Mechanized Infantry piece attack 2 defend 2 and move 2 cost 4

The game needs cheaper naval

The map should be 50% larger minimum and drawn much better

The game needs some random ( but sequential) card system to address developments in the war and get rid of technology in its present form. Its bankrupt ideas. Their are not enough technology ideas represented.

I like  :lol:

The game needs a historical time frame e.g a turn = 4 months, you are now in turn 5 (spring 1943)

Seems too detailed for me ; (

Combat rounds need to cost a player money… if you keep attacking this is not cheap by any means

I don’t know about costing money, but supply lines are interesting.

AA guns are a joke … get rid of them

Haha!

defender should be able to retreat… the current system is a joke… the defender is like frozen in time taking punishment without recourse.

Yea, but they would take a round of free fire from the attackers right?

o yeah there should be a south italy and a north italy too. but IL how could the axis of won in 1943?
yeah alliance need to be handed differntly.

@Imperious:

The game needs some kind of ports to protect fleets and or artificial rules to prohibit:

Allies in Baltic
Italians into Atlantic

Disagree

The game needs another German fighter and a Soviet Bomber and perhaps another Soviet fighter so that the Soviets have alot of new options
Agree

No more Japanese in Russia crap… different victory conditions for both axis… basically they dont work together and they should not

Agree with Japan –> Russia, victory condition should always be total domination as was the case in WW2

Same goes for Soviets. If the game is 1 v 1 the Soviet player should have rules for auto play because the coordination of the 3 allies with one guy playing all three is totally bankrupt. This has nothing to do how the war was fought.

Thus the Soviets have their own victory conditions as well.

IN this way its will be possible for one ally to win and one axis player to win… no more “”““TEAM””“” wins… good greif!

hmm… maybe…

The only thing that came close to a real Axis and Allies game IMO is back in 1998-99 when the CD rom came out and allowed 4-5 players
and the goal of that game was to by diplomacy motivate your allies to adopt a strategy and stick with it knowing all the time you had a weak link player who could mess up and your own skill can compensate for his shortcommings and still win the war. This added a truly unigue game that was lost on all the 1 vs. 1 crowd. I think thats what made the game fun: the idea that you needed to rely on the skills of others to win and you could be a good negotiator and motivate to agree to your idea what victory would be according to your view.

Good point. I started playing 1vs1 a few weeks ago, after seeing some (opening) moves that would make
our side lose the game in 3-4 rnds, and the newb didn’t know how, why and  what he was doing

The game needs a Mechanized Infantry piece attack 2 defend 2 and move 2 cost 4

Probably, yes

The game needs cheaper naval

Hmmm… cool BB’s at 12??? W00t :-)

The map should be 50% larger minimum and drawn much better

The game needs some random ( but sequential) card system to address developments in the war and get rid of technology in its present form. Its bankrupt ideas. Their are not enough technology ideas represented.

The game needs a historical time frame e.g a turn = 4 months, you are now in turn 5 (spring 1943)

The map needs to represent the world in 1939 to allow for all kinds of scenarios for shorter and longer games

for tournaments a 1943 scenario would be nice and make for shorter game.

Combat rounds need to cost a player money… if you keep attacking this is not cheap by any means

Disagree. U lose units by keep attacking for several rounds of combat.

AA guns are a joke … get rid of them

How bout: Each AA fire one shot. No other changes

Fighters must boost tanks

Tank hits must go on enemy armor
Disagree, this is tactical management

defender should be able to retreat… the current system is a joke… the defender is like frozen in time taking punishment without recourse.
Probably, yes

their are a hundred other things to list… this is just the top 10… i could go on

Good thinking, but I’m afraid that much of this will make the game more complicated. Too (much) complicated I’m afraid.
A game could last 1-2 hours, or maybe 7-8-10 hours. 10 rnds or more means more than a working day. (I don’t work atm :))
I don’t want to a game to last any longer than now, although this can vary a great deal in different games.
Larry said he regret the sub rules…. too confusing.
The game will not be better by just making it more sophisticated.

Allies in Baltic
Italians into Atlantic

Disagree

Well it creates an artificial implement for German strategy. They basically need to buy a fleet ( usually a carrier ) to avoid getting invaded by American and British fleets is a limitation on the critical German battles it must fight against the Soviets. The German fleet was not created to protect Germany from invasion it was used to attack transports and sink them and avoid direct military confrontation. The game totally lacks any substantial German strategy of using subs to defeat england which they tried in both world wars. IN AA this simply does not exist… in AA for Germany to survive in Baltic they must by a freeking Carrier? This is not a solution that i want made for me.

The game needs cheaper naval

Hmmm… cool BB’s at 12?HuhHuhHuh? W00t smiley

NO and you know thats not the idea. BB at 20, DD at 10, CA at perhaps 15.

Combat rounds need to cost a player money… if you keep attacking this is not cheap by any means

Disagree. U lose units by keep attacking for several rounds of combat.

well a nation cant be constantly engaged in combat. there are periods of quiet and rebuilding of strength especially in the winters. Id like to see some logistics in the game on a very small scale. IN some games they allocate “combat actions” which cost money because they resemble stocks of oil and materials to fight huge offensives… this is not free combat.

Tank hits must go on enemy armor
Disagree, this is tactical management

But its totally unrealistic to allow infantry to take the hits from armor battles. Tanks fight other tanks and men fight men. at times they mingle but it allows people to hide behind that stack of ‘elite units’ and they never get touched.

Id like to see a kursk type of battle and bleed the enemies tanks. It would be really cool and if you think about it it would allow for more tank buys as players seek to send tank armies to destroy the enemy. This = less infantry BTW and thats a good thing

tank hits could also go against artillery which is considered ‘armor’

@Bean:

Revised is surprisingly well balanced, considering Harris probably didn’t have the time to test it extensively. It seems to be off by 6 or 7 IPCs, which really isn’t a whole lot, enough for 2 units on the board, which is great considering there’s something like 1200 IPCs of units total on the board with all sorts of territory parameters to consider.

Well…. I’m pretty sure that the best lobby players would not play me without a bid, if they play axis.
And few would go below 8. Thats 1 unit pr. TT, with 2 units pr. TT maybe the bid would be 7-8.
The reason why, is that I think I would win :-)
If I’d play the best lobby players (bid 9 triplea ladder rules, LL etc.) it would be a mismatch. Rnd 3-4 the game would be closed,
although I could possible perhaps drag the game out to 6-7 rnds before losing a capital, it would be much sooner that it
would be obvious that I couldn’t win. With reg dice there would be more uncertainty, but the best lobby players
use LL.
So while axis need 8-9 bid with ladder rules, and 6-7 with fullplacement (?) rules, I don’t fully agree with the statement that the game
is balanced.
Revised is much better balanced than classic, but I think that Larry feels comfortable with that axis needs bid to win.
In 1941-42 (real WW2) they could not win, they had to make different decisions from 1935 to be able to win the war.

defender should be able to retreat… the current system is a joke… the defender is like frozen in time taking punishment without recourse.

Yea, but they would take a round of free fire from the attackers right?

Yes probably like they do in the war game: world war two. It works well.

this allows the defender to leave a rearguard force to make a few rolls and take up the hits as the better units leave and fight for another day.

Problem with that system is it can trick the attacker to stuck him into the territory and then get counter attacked. I have used it many times myself in other games.

what i have learned is to allow an other rule to be used:

all units that have at least one movement point left over during the combat phase can use that last MP to get out of territories they just took to avoid this problem.

So while axis need 8-9 bid with ladder rules, and 6-7 with fullplacement (?) rules, I don’t fully agree with the statement that the game
is balanced.
Revised is much better balanced than classic, but I think that Larry feels comfortable with that axis needs bid to win.
In 1941-42 (real WW2) they could not win, they had to make different decisions from 1935 to be able to win the war.

yes the games not balanced, but i favor the idea that the German player can make a few changes on placement example: exchange up to X IPC worth of pieces and convert them to other pieces and combine that with something they used in AAE by giving the Germans 6-9 IPC of units as standard to buy extra junk.

Problem with that system is it can trick the attacker to stuck him into the territory and then get counter attacked. I have used it many times myself in other games.

Yeah that’s what I was thinking, it wouldn’t really solve anything because now that both sides are constantly strafing in and out which is what it looks like normally.  :roll:

all units that have at least one movement point left over during the combat phase can use that last MP to get out of territories they just took to avoid this problem.

Oh man that’d be so annoying to keep track of which units had movement points and which don’t….