Was it worth adding ART to the game?

I agree with the portion of switch’s statement I read. (Sorry,didn’t read through it all.)

You’d have to apply the mathematics to a series with different outcomes over a period of time.  If you are only doing a strafe for one round, then you are okay.

Exactly that is the reason to use “Sum of decreasing punches” - to account for an unknown number of rounds and some +/- variation in firepower at that times.

6:3:1  18+17+16+15+13+11+9+7+5+3 = 114
5:5:0  20+18+16+14+12+10+8+6+4+2 = 110

My 6:3:1 “solution” when applied against 10 inf loses on average 3.33 inf so the 2nd round on average is 2.67:3:1. Not much “waste”. If the battle goes well enough one presses to the end, if not it becomes a 2 or even 1-round strafe.

For planned 1-round raids 1:1:0 is optimal.

True, pure inf and some armor is better defensively but in offensive situations I thinked this for that’s irrelevant. They include the much stronger multi-power attacker’s disadvantage: UK+US trying to break German EEU; Japan trying to take Moscow defended by all 3 Allies etc. If attackers are near strong enough to win offensively their defensive is very safely above equilibrium. So arty is what to add at the end !

What I haven’t told yet is that the 6:3:1 result depends closely on 3:4:5 IPC costs as inputs. If covering the investment in transport ships the ratios may modify.

For how many turns do you think it’s sensible to calculate “amortization” of transports ?
8 turns ? for US that would make 1 IPC per transport*turn, 1/2 per unit transported, 2 stages = +1 IPC per unit. So 4:5:6 IPC real cost.
4 turns ? … … +2 per unit so 5:6:7.

I’ll redo the calculations.

Also for land offensives (Berlin<>Moscow direction, Japan/Asia>Moscow) tanks may save 1-2 turns of march, reducing “dead investment” so inf/art are relatively more expensive.

Art was definitely worth adding to the game. Before art, we had to chose from only 2 different ground units.
I prefer inf+tanks if I can afford it. Numbers are very important and for UK, and also Jap in the first few rnds, art is
good investment for increasing the attack punch for infantry.
Also for G and Russia art is worth buying, but still inf+tanks are better than inf+art.
For Jap, to buy inf first few rnds, then some art in addition to inf, and from rnd 3-4 tanks mainly bc Jap should be at 40-45,
and tanks can reach a destination faster than inf and art.
For US I think is important to fill up the trans, preferably with inf+tanks, but with art this can give more units, and it’s a long
way to persia/caucus so the men better start walking asap, tanks will follow shortly….  8-)

Well, more then adding artillery, what made revised worth buying is the tanks getting a defense of 3.  That by far was the best change in the game in my most humble of opinions.

Ageed! The increase to Armor defence is what really makes revised better. It has made us completey rethink how we structure our forces especially for def.

The increase of defense value for tanks is the most important and clever change of all unit changes, I certainly agree.
But the revised map is a more significant difference than change of unit values, and also more important in general imo.
The ftr decrease cost to 10 is very good also.

Double hit BBs seems rather big too  :?

@Bean:

Double hit BBs seems rather big too  :?

Those were in classic as well though.  It was an optional rule, but it was still there in classic thus it was not introduced in revised.

Oh, didn’t know that. Never played classic  :roll:

After revised, going back to classic kinda sucks.

It’s like becoming a gourmet chef and then going back to condensed Chicken and Stars soup. :P  Oh sure, you can still live on it, but would you want too?

@Cmdr:

After revised, going back to classic kinda sucks.

It’s like becoming a gourmet chef and then going back to condensed Chicken and Stars soup. :P  Oh sure, you can still live on it, but would you want too?

more fun to go KJF in classic.

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. =)

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.)