Why are you even bringing up America’s 1943/44 production? What is the point?
Because if America were valued as they were historically, there would be no point in playing. No one can defeat a 124 IPC per turn country. Its just sick.
Its a valid point. History vs game balance.
I have a hunch that most of you who are worried about play balance either play very good players online, or play a lot of two player games, one player Axis and one player Allied. ….
We always have at least 5 players, and more normally 5 two-person teams, so no person or team controls more than one country. During that period, our experience has been that the Allies have a tough time winning. My view is that the Classic and Revised games are more biased in favor of the Axis than the Allies, primarily with respect to limited IPCs for the US and bias in the relative force sizes, particularly with the US and UK navies. In several of the games, we have had to introduce our home rules for Lend-Lease to bail out the Allied players. Looking at Revised, which we have not used as yet, I do not see that much difference in play balance. Based on what I have seen in the pictures of the initial set-ups, and some of the rule discussion, I fail to see any strong bias for the Allies in the Anniversary Edition. The key is playing a true multiplayer game, i.e. 4 to 6 players.
Sure, when playing with novices, the axis should win more often with either classic or revised as they start with the most units on the board and they don’t have to work together.
I am not sure that your experience can be translated into the way most people end up playing A&A. They get addicted, play many many many games and host web site discussions revolving around ultimate strategies.
I am not saying you are wrong, you have just played A&A in a way most players here only played the game initially. Once you learn the game, even 3 total strangers can play the allies very well as they’ve learned to coordinate their moves. Perhaps this is this reason why the game doesn’t get the best game play testing that long time A&A players crave since it’s so new and it takes some time to realize their can be more efficient/ultimate strategies.
Perhaps this is this reason why the game doesn’t get the best game play testing that long time A&A players crave since it’s so new and it takes some time to realize their can be more efficient/ultimate strategies.
On this point, blame WOTC. You have a concentrated set of fanatical gamers at large conventions (i.e. Gencon) and you take the game away from them rather than learn feedback. (Or you let them play so late in the game changes cannot be made).
If I were WOTC, I would have brought 5 copies, basically shut down the revised mega, and let everyone play the new game. Massive feedback with new and experienced gamers all at once, and all costing you nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP_-_Gross_domestic_product
Timerovers numbers are way off. Total allied ratio of economic military might was about a consistent 2:1
Germany at 412 USA at 1094 in 1941 so for every German IPC ( lets use 30) multiply 2.65 to get American values= 79 IPC and NOT 124
If I were WOTC, I would have brought 5 copies, basically shut down the revised mega, and let everyone play the new game. Massive feedback with new and experienced gamers all at once, and all costing you nothing.
Bravo to this!
If i was there i would be likely yelling at the WOTC freeks using perfect ‘Gordon Ramsey style’ vocabulary. I would have demanded answers and given them the riot act of being such idiots…and probably got tossed out of the convention.
@Imperious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#GDP_-_Gross_domestic_product
Timerovers numbers are way off. Total allied ratio of economic military might was about a consistent 2:1
Germany at 412 USA at 1094 in 1941 so for every German IPC ( lets use 30) multiply 2.65 to get American values= 79 IPC and NOT 124
Hmm… so if they set Germany at 30, US at 79, what would UK/Japan/USSR be set to?
you just make a ratio based on the values. it cant take too long to figure out.
and BTW the totals do not include conquests. you will have to buy the book or find one of my earlier posts where i typed everything out a few years back on this site.
@Imperious:
If I were WOTC, I would have brought 5 copies, basically shut down the revised mega, and let everyone play the new game. Massive feedback with new and experienced gamers all at once, and all costing you nothing.
Bravo to this!
If i was there i would be likely yelling at the WOTC freeks using perfect ‘Gordon Ramsey style’ vocabulary. I would have demanded answers and given them the riot act of being such idiots…and probably got tossed out of the convention.
IL
Let me know when and where the next convention you are going to is. I want to bring a big tub of popcorn and a folding chair and watch. :evil:
LT
Imperious Leader, kindly cite your sources. Also, you are citing 1941 data, which means that the US is severely undervalued at the start of the game, thereby biasing it towards the Axis. My 124 is based on US production in late 1943/early 1944. The US economy was still mobilizing in 1941, and to be more historically accurate, should be increasing steadily in military production throughout the game.
Variant, my data reflects all of the German conquests. The British data does not reflect production in Canada, Australia, or India, especially Canada which was producing a fair number of ASW escorts by 1943. Britain was producing 4-engine heavy bombers when Germany had basicallty stopped producing any bombers, and Britain was adding to its surface fleet, ASW forces, and amphibious forces throught the war. How many surface ships did Germany complete after 1941? How many 4-engine bombers did Germany build after 1941? How large an amphibious force did Germany build after 1941? For part of its production, the UK was dependent upon US steel imports. I fail to see why that is a factor in your complaints. By 1943, the US was building merchant ships faster than the U-boats could have sunk them, even it the U-boats had not been defeated in May of 1943.
Based on the US Strategic Bombing Survey, Pacific Division, analysis of the Japanese wartime economy, the Japanese economy was about one-tenth that of the United States. In Kogun, written by a Japanese Army IGHQ staff oficer, “Just before the commencement of the Pacific War [i.e. December, 1941], Japan had developed a productivie capacity which enabled her to manufacture about 3,500 military aircraft and 1,200 tanks per year.”
Based on what has been said elsewhere, Japanese production is nearly half that of the US.
How much more bias in favor of the Axis do you want?
If I were WOTC, I would have brought 5 copies, basically shut down the revised mega, and let everyone play the new game. Massive feedback with new and experienced gamers all at once, and all costing you nothing.
Exactly!
And I was just certain they would have play tested this one to the max after what happened last time. With Revised the fanbase rewrote the rulebook right after the release. And I just read in a different thread here where Larry said everything was locked in on the Anniversary Ed. by April 08. Crap.
Well of course they do playtest “internally” and, I don’t know what it is that makes the difference but the internal playtesting never seems to bear out quite the same results as what the advanced players here and elsewhere can come up with. It probably comes down to the fact that we try everything.
So no paid playtest group is ever going to be able to touch the amount of time and variability that a forum board or tournament following is able to offer. It’s a shame WOC didn’t approach it that way. 5 sets going full bore at GenCon would have provided such valuable insight and feedback.
Hmm… bomber damage on IC’s seems extremely strong and subs and destroyers seem extremely cheap. Too cheap? Too strong? Too this? Not enough that? Well with or without our feedback we the fanbase will soon know. It’s kinda like 2004 all over again. ~ZP
timerover51, this is a strategy game, not a history book. The only bias in game design is when one side is more powerful than the other.
Plus, IPC and IPC cost is abstract and covers many aspects including technology, production cost, etc. A British Mark IV tank doesn’t cost the same to produce as a German Tiger II nor does it have the same performance.
timerover51, this is a strategy game, not a history book. The only bias in game design is when one side is more powerful than the other.
Plus, IPC and IPC cost is abstract and covers many aspects including technology, production cost, etc. A British Mark IV tank doesn’t cost the same to produce as a German Tiger II nor does it have the same performance.
Excellent idea. Make the German tanks cost more to produce. And eliminate Japanese tank production completely, because they basically stopped building tanks in any large number shortly after the war started. And if we factor in technology, then every Fletcher-class destroyer would be rated an antiair cruiser, as the British did when one of their older cruisers was given what was essentially a Fletcher’s armament and fire control system. You might want to look up HMS Delhi. As for technology, production costs, and production rates, I have quite a bit of official data on that. I am not sure that you would like it.
As for game bias, the IPC production given the Axis clearly bias the game in the Axis favor. That was done to make the game marketable, not historically accurate.
Yes and make the German tanks more effective as well to represent doctrine, leadership, and tactical enhancements over her enemies.
Make the Soviet infantry defend at 1
Make UK tanks attack and defend at 2 and also cost more
allow US infantry to move 2 spaces
and American transports cost 6 IPC
Don’t forget to change German arty to represent Dora :evil:
Germany’s and Japan’s fighters should attack at 4 (and maybe defend at 5) to represent the Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Focke-Wulf Fw 190.
Germany’s and Japan’s fighters should attack at 4 (and maybe defend at 5) to represent the Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Focke-Wulf Fw 190.
Yup, all these historical adjustments to different units of different nationalities are precisely why A&A is a strategy game, not a history book (unless you use house rules to make it so, which you can). The number of units, IPCs, etc., are all abstractions to present a WWII scenario in a fun, playable format.
Germany’s and Japan’s fighters should attack at 4 (and maybe defend at 5) to represent the Mitsubishi A6M Zero and Focke-Wulf Fw 190.
Given the poor armament of the Japanese Zero, two 7.7mm machine guns and two slow-firing 20mm cannon, attacking at 2 might be more accurate. As for the Focke-Wulf, with an armament of two 13mm machine guns, two 30mm and two 20mm cannon, plus in some variants, four 20mm cannon in underwing pods, they did shoot down Allied bombers on 17% of their passes, US Strategic Bombing Survey figures, but were also quite unmanueverable and needed the cover of the ME-109s to protect them against fighter escorts. However, that is more suited to a tactical game like Guadalcanal than a strategic game.
American Battleships and Aircraft Carriers should defend against air attack at 5 if you wish to be more accurate historically. Allied destroyers should after two or three turns in a game attack submarines on a 4 to reflect the use of the Hedgehog and Squid ahead-thrown ASW weapons. Allied patrol bombers should be able to attack submarines without a destroyer being present to reflect the development and use of sonobouys and air-dropped homing torpedoes and Magnetic Anomaly Detectors. Japanese ships should defend at 1 against air attack given their very poor antiaircraft performance and batteries. Aside from the Kaga and Akagi, carriers should defend against surface attack at 2, more like one of the A&A50 destroyers. Then there is the use of incendiary bombs, roughly 5 times more effective than HE bombs against burnable targets, like Japan. You have massive improvement in air to ground weaponry with the use of rockets, napalm, phosphorus bombs, massive machine gun batteries and airborne cannon on the B-25 Mitchell, and the use of parafrag and parademo bombs. The Germans and the US both developed and used radio-controlled bombs against pinpoint targets.
There are all sorts of things that you could add to the game. Just depends on how far that you want to go. Not sure about the US transports for 6 IPC though. One IPC, one million man hours buys you 5 Liberty or Victory ships, so 8 IPC would buy you 40. Given that the US basically built enough merchant ships in WW2 to totally replace all losses, as a rough guess, need to look this up for more accurate data, say 6000 ships, that would equate to about 1200 IPC, 8 X 150. Assuming the US gets 45 IPC average, that would be close to 30 turns of nothing but transports being built. Since the US did build a lot of other equipment, might be easier just to give the US and automatic build of two transports per turn like in Xeno’s Pacific at War game. Actually, you would need to give the US 4 transports per turn to reflect the East and the West Coast.
Well Japanese fighters from her 2 carriers should be at 4 against warships to reflect the trained superiority of her pilots performing torpedo runs, but if she loses original carriers based planes, future fighters are lower value. You can use planes from Milton Bradley edition to represent this asset.
Also Japanese warships could get a +1 for the first few turns to represent better night fighting
This discussion went totally out of hand :-(
Please refrain from posting longwinding texts concerning what transpired in the actual war. That goes for all of you :-)
This is a discussion thread concerning BIDS in the GAME AA50, please!
I think this post by Variant was constructive at least.
The Axis is gimped.
Japan will not be able to help Germany on Russia’s front.
Italy is entirely too weak and is nothing but a weak link in the Axis.
Italy splits up Germany’s IPCs.
Italy’s splits up Germany’s original forces, especially naval.
Italy only has a lousy 10 IPCs.
Italy has no transport and will be unable to ship anything to Africa to fix their IPC deficient status for at least a turn.
Italy’s IPC deficient status railroads them into an immediate expansion for IPCs.We won’t know just how much Axis is hurting until we see Germany’s and Japan’s starting IPCs.
Also , IL had some thoughts on bidding , before the thread went OT :
@Imperious:
yes and considering the Germans or Japanese play first in either scenario it stands to reason that the setup could not withstand any additional pieces because it was configured based on axis going first and if they had like a extra plane it could make a huge difference on play balance down the road. And i don’t think the allies need any help.
Id like to make a further prediction that these bonus IPC for national conquest idea can alternately be exchanged for victory points and a number of victory points assign to win the game can be ‘purchased’ with these or any IPC not spent…sort of like how they treated the Japaneses in AAP ( every 10 IPC that turn gained one VP).
As for myself, I think the bid system in AA50 will look exactly like in Revised. You bid a number of starting Units/IPCs before G1.
IL think that the changed Play Order (in which Axis goes first) would make bidding units for the Axis impossible. I can’t really see that, since no Axis territory borders Moscow any more. So if Axis gets a number of Infs or Ftrs before G1, they can’t really do much harm with that?
I think the bid levels will be slightly higher than in Revised (12-15 ipcs maybe), and the units will be used to place in LIB (just like in Revised) and secure EGY on Axis1. I’m leaning on thinking the bid units should go to Italy rather than Germany - since LIB is an Italian territory AFAIK, and not German.
Any thoughts on that?
…and please DON’T post "it’s ahistorical to add up 4-5 ITA Inf in LIB prior to play, because yada-yada.
You are welcome to (and I expect you to :-D ) thrash my thoughts, but do so from a Game Perspective, not a Historical Perspective :-)
Ok purely on game balance i feel the bid is too antiquated . I would rather make things more special to and not “lay the cards on the table” before the game starts.
Examples:
2)adjust the bonus that one axis nation receives to 10 IPC from 5 IPC ( this would depend on a larger imbalance). This would also make the allies wonder who is getting the extra till its too late to counter effectively. The allies would have to try to counter all bonus opportunities for the axis player. I think this adds something.
another option is reintroduce NA’s (under house rules) I will be doing that as everybody can figure.
allowing Germany to control the Italian units in Libya ONLY would make sence and not really introduce radical changes, The Africa Korps controlled Italian troops under Rommel followed by Kesselring. Im speaking about 1941 scenario specifically or you can just say: Germany control X amount IPC of Italian troops at any given time.
another option is to bring in economic victory conditions and bid from the established medium. So if its 85 total Axis IPC, you bid you can do it in 87, followed by the other side saying 89 etc…
some of these are HISTORICAL and thats not a bad thing as long as its reasonable.
