National Objectives vs Balance

Let me clear up some of that for you. I am 39 and have my own house, heck I left home at 16. I only play online on weekends when I am at my girlfriends house. It may sound sophomoric at my age to have a girlfriend, but I was married for 13 years and will pass on repeating that experience. For online games I use battlemap. So when it is my turn all I have to do is open that file to see the board. For my face to face games I also use battlemap to record the status of the game board. That allows me to have more than one game going on my physical game board and keeps me from having to remember where everything is when my cat gets up there and scatters pieces. I have an IQ of 157 but I suspect it does not matter all that much as there are several of us that play multiple games at one time. They are all different and once you look at that map what is going on clicks into place. Me personally I spend probably at most 5 or 10 minutes debating on board conditions for a turn. I also suspect that is a side effect of playing so many games. I don’t have to ponder for ever on end because I have probably already seen the outcome of game moves in games past.

For those of you that have not discovered playing here through the forums I would urge you to give it a try. There are many advantages. Games can last as long as they take. No more trying to play an Axis and Allies game in one night. Games can be found at any time. No more trying to round up players and again find the time to play in one night. A player is also exposed to a wide variety of play stiles. If you game with the same people you are limited in what you see to what they do.

a44bigdog
For those of you that have not discovered playing here through the forums I would urge you to give it a try.

Will do; you make it sound easy and not all that time consuming…surely I can find 15mins a day to play one game.  :-)

Hope you did not take offence to my mamma basement comments…just messing with you… :mrgreen:

@Craig:

what I am trying to say is that we didn’t get enough time to playtest some things (like NOs) to my liking.  And even if we had gotten the time I felt necessary, the WotC types would have probably changed them anyway. :-P

As for the placement of the Chinese fighter, you would have to talk to Larry about that.  :roll:

So, you are saying they didn’t let you enough time to playtest China? Or simply Larry said this?: “the Flying Tigers must die round 1 in any scenario and China must die J1 in 1941. I’ll not change this, test the other stuff”

Any case, I fear you are right and we’ll have to ask Larry about this hidden knowledge  :|

@Craig:

We didn’t have time to playtest a lot of things thoroughly.  And when that happens, you tend to focus on the things you think are more important.  Then again, I understand that you can’t take forever to run through these things.  They (WotC) are running a business and need to get things done.

As for the China fighter, it was way down on the list, if it was there at all.

No, Larry didn’t impose his will and state such a thing.  I just don’t remember us getting to the point where we were really complaining about it.  (That was a year and a half ago!)  Maybe with more time we would have gotten to that point.

I personally didn’t like the placement, but we had bigger “fish to fry” at the time.

Ok, time issues. That’s not for fault, totally true

However, China’s status is a very important item (not only because the fighter, but also for the non-brain killer J1 move). It’s a playing power (even if it’s a minor) and usually almost the only enemy Japan will face in mainland Asia in 1941. That potentially can unbalance the whole Pacific theather

This is very valuable info. Thanks  :-)

I agree.  You cannot blame a man for being honest, under such extreme circumstances, no matter how egregious the mistake appears in hindsight.

The reason we’re complaining is because the rest of the setup is, for the most part, balanced.  You’re right, I’m sure the playtesters focused on much larger issues at hand, like the Eastern Front, which could’ve been easily botched.

With that being said, if the Asia Front is deemed unplayable, could we make suggestions to Larry?  Perhaps move the starting location of the Chinese Fighter.  Even a small change like this would improve China’s odds - no matter how improbable - a lot.

Not to jump on the China bandwagon here, but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

I can certainly see where in the grand scheme of things China drops way down on the list of things to check but it just seems like J1 was never play tested at all.

I would either move the ftr further inland with another China inf added for cover or removing some J inf to make it unattackable or such a low odds attack that if they try and fail they could be royally screwed.

I’d also remove the restrictions on their movement and give them the ability to enter any China, Japan, or UK territory.  Can’t go into Red (Russia).

Note:  This is not ment as slam on anyone or anything, I just wanted to setup “my view” for Asia.  I’ll freely admit I’m not big believer “historical accuracy” for A&A so I’d probably change a few other things.  :-)

As for NO’s I see them as a potentially reoccuring bid for the Axis.  An opening bid can be lost due to bad dice or placement, but say a 10 ipc adv in NO’s equaling 3 units per turn helps mitigate the all or nothing of some bid placements and helps you potentially recover from bad dice given all the G1-2 and a J1-2 attacks.

@DarthMaximus:

I would either move the ftr further inland with another China inf added for cover or removing some J inf to make it unattackable or such a low odds attack that if they try and fail they could be royally screwed.

I’d also remove the restrictions on their movement and give them the ability to enter any China, Japan, or UK territory.  Can’t go into Red (Russia).

You can’t do both.  The chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t think Japan would leave too many unguarded trns, they still start with 3 ac + ftrs, 1 ca, 1 bb.

You’d probably have to shuffle around some starting units, but it shouldn’t be a problem for Japan to still safely take all the coastal ter and a few of the boarder china ter meaning the ftr couldn’t reach the coast.  The only issue would be landing in Ind, but if it does that it can’t participate in the land battles deeper in China and still safely land.

I do think the China ftr could flee when the odds got overwhelming for Japan to take, but that shouldn’t be an issue when it comes to trns given the UK and US have plently of planes on the board that are just as likely to threaten a defenseless trn.

Also the ftr couldn’t flee to the West since Kaz and Novo are Red, it would have to go South East and if the Ftr started on say (chi - furthest ter West, it may never get the chance to fly to ind considering the J1 and J2 attacks may keep india out of range or it may just be an unsafe landing spot.

But I agree It would definitely require some testing though, since if China gets a bit too strong too early it will probably be an easy Allied victory.

But I agree It would definitely require some testing though, since if China gets a bit too strong too early it will probably be an easy Allied victory.

That is a big issue.  IF the game is “balanced” then any help we give to China will swing the game.

ie, if we beef up China (even if it’s move the Ftr and/or +1 inf), the Axis should some type of benefit elsewhere.

…but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

Granted its been a while since I’ve played the classic A&A, but the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

Sometimes I think it would have been better in a different stating location too; but only when I’m playing the Allies (of course), because if I’m the Axis, I think the placement is great!  But we could say that about a lot of starting locations of pieces.  The fact is, due to player sequencing, there are some units at the start of the game that are just pretty much toast for any Power (Axis OR Allies).  Something has to get killed round one (it is a war game…after all) so I don’t see what that issue is with the china fighter especially when compared to the past 2 games.  It dies J1 just like it does in AAR.

The Chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t really agree with this. So the fighter would be used as it works for everyone else instead of having its own rules; great.  What’s the big deal about it being able to hit lone transports, so can every one else’s fighters/bombers.  The China fighter will most likely die round one anyway (before it even gets the chance); and if for some odd reason Japan lets it survive long enough to hit lone transports, you could bet it probably wouldn’t get the chance to do it again before Japan would realize the error of their ways and hit that thing ASAP (or at the minimum Japan would secure enough of China’s territories to make it impossible to fly that sucker out to sea and back to a viable landing spot).

That is a big issue.  IF the game is “balanced” then any help we give to China will swing the game.

Yea…if they get too strong they are no longer the speed bump they are in the AAR and AAC but an actual Power.  But so far, they feel like a good mix between the old and the desire for the new to always be more (IMO).  :|

First time i played, China was dead before i could say WTF. Since then, in 1941, i did some changes, not big ones but china can now live a little longer. I just put 1 inf in the 3 vacant territory, so China have at least 1 inf in all territory. When you play U.S.A you ask for reinforcement from Russia and China can be defended for some extra turns. China will die eventually but in games that i tried this, China lived longer and did some damage to Japan and forced Japan to put more troops against China.

Thats all, you guys have tried other things?

@Builder_Chris:

…but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

Granted its been a while since I’ve played the classic A&A, but the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

But in the earlier versions China was not a minor power, it was just US forces.  So essentially the US loses a couple inf and a ftr before they start.  The US could always rebuy ftrs and eventually fly them to Asia, but with China as a “Minor Power” you cannot rebuy the China ftr.  If the intention was to keep China as a “speed bump”, why give them minor power status?  Why not just keep them fully US?  I think the same thing could have been accomplished by just keeping China part of the US, putting 1-3 more inf scattered around (no inf reinforcement per turn) to start with the caveat they couldn’t leave China and you get the same thing, Japan killing approximately 4-8 China inf on J3-4 in the last China territory.
This is my main issue, why introduce new rules for China only to have them never be used.  It would be like saying Russia automatically gets Heavy Bombers, but they can’t buy a bombers.

My impression (given the current '41 setup and description of China in the rules) is they wanted a little more than a “speed bump” type atmosphere, yet had trouble (or not enough time) finding the balance between China being annoying to Japan and China being too overwhelming so in an effort to fix other areas China was left on the back burner and figured “speed bump” status was good enough.

I think the solution to the Chinese Fighter problem would be to allow an American Fighter that lands in China and is not used for Combat or Non-Combat that round to be converted to a Chinese fighter if no other Chinese Fighter exists at that time.

In other words, make it replaceable.  It’s gunna be hard to get an American fighter there without moving it for a full game turn and it’ll cost America 10 IPC to build it which is appropriate since the Flying Tigers were American Pilots, American Equipment and working for China.

It also wouldn’t change any of the mechanics of the game, and it’s only one fighter so it wouldn’t be terribly unbalancing.  Especially since you are giving Japan 1 round to move into position to attack it and 1 round to kill it before it becomes Chinese. (USA lands the plane.  1 Round goes by where the plane is changed from US to China and then China can move the plane.)

@Builder_Chris:

The Chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t really agree with this. So the fighter would be used as it works for everyone else instead of having its own rules; great.  What’s the big deal about it being able to hit lone transports, so can every one else’s fighters/bombers.  The China fighter will most likely die round one anyway (before it even gets the chance); and if for some odd reason Japan lets it survive long enough to hit lone transports, you could bet it probably wouldn’t get the chance to do it again before Japan would realize the error of their ways and hit that thing ASAP (or at the minimum Japan would secure enough of China’s territories to make it impossible to fly that sucker out to sea and back to a viable landing spot

The big deal is that USUALLY they don’t have to worry about lone trannys getting picked off on C1 or even C2. 
The premise was to move the chinese ftr to keep it alive, so it won’t get killed round one

The only time to slow Japan is before she gets to big.  Early back door US fleet can cause the IJN to sail home for protection.

Adding a rogue Chinese ftr that can pick off transports only compounds this power swing you are discussing.  I have found in these games that the advantage penduleum swings much more quickly from one side to another … either messing with game set-up or actual game play outcomes.

@DarthMaximus:

stuff

DarthMaximus consistently gives the most informed and logical explainations at A&A.org.

+1.

@Cmdr:

I think the solution to the Chinese Fighter problem would be to allow an American Fighter that lands in China and is not used for Combat or Non-Combat that round to be converted to a Chinese fighter if no other Chinese Fighter exists at that time.

In other words, make it replaceable.  It’s gunna be hard to get an American fighter there without moving it for a full game turn and it’ll cost America 10 IPC to build it which is appropriate since the Flying Tigers were American Pilots, American Equipment and working for China.

It also wouldn’t change any of the mechanics of the game, and it’s only one fighter so it wouldn’t be terribly unbalancing.  Especially since you are giving Japan 1 round to move into position to attack it and 1 round to kill it before it becomes Chinese. (USA lands the plane.  1 Round goes by where the plane is changed from US to China and then China can move the plane.)

A clever idea, but impractical.  Lets say you want to convert the US fighter in Hawaii to a Flying Tiger.  Your route is Hawaii -> Australia -> India -> China.  That’s THREE turns.  And you have a wait ANOTHER turn to convert the fighter.  China is usually evaporated by J4.  You basically wasted a fighter.  That’s IF India doesn’t fall by J3.

Or you could take the US Fighter from Eastern USA and go: Eastern USA -> United Kingdom -> Russia -> China.  It’s a safer route and also takes three turns.  But again, same problems.

A better idea is to say, “If No Chinese Fighter exists turning the Purchase Units phase, USA may pay 10 IPCs to build a Flying Tiger which can be placed in any Chinese occupied territory during the Mobilized Units phase”

@axis_roll:

Adding a rogue Chinese ftr that can pick off transports only compounds this power swing you are discussing.  I have found in these games that the advantage penduleum swings much more quickly from one side to another … either messing with game set-up or actual game play outcomes.

True.  Especially when you consider the snowball effect of decisions made in the first turn rounds of the game.

The idea was to make it hard to replace the Chinese Fighter.  And if you have a carrier in the Pacific (you ARE engaging in the Pacific right?) then it should only be two turns to get a fighter to China and one to convert it.

Yes, that’s three turns.  But then, Russia is sending help to China right?

The idea was to make it hard to replace the Chinese Fighter.  And if you have a carrier in the Pacific (you ARE engaging in the Pacific right?) then it should only be two turns to get a fighter to China and one to convert it.

Yes, that’s three turns.  But then, Russia is sending help to China right?

Where do you get 2 turns from?

In 1941, the lone US Carrier starts off in Sz 44 and moves to Sz 46.  You’re better off sending your fighter to Australia and not risk you carrier getting sunk.

In 1942, you have a Carrier in Sz 53 (Hawaii).  The best you can do is move your Carrier to the Philippine Sea.  And it’ll get sunk.

The point is, by the time you build up a navy with USA to threaten Japan (turn 3 earliest) and move it, China’s already toast.  China needs that replacement fighter ASAP.

I really like this Idea, It Forces Japan to really deal with China and keeps China as a playable power without being overly powerfull. It DOES advantage the allies a bit though which might affect play balance.

Thank you. ;)  It does give the Allies an advantage but with strings attached.  That fighter still cost 10 IPCs (Not free) and if you’re not careful, the Japanese can still destroy it for a loss.

@Builder_Chris:

the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

Well, in first place, you allways can buy another figther or move one to China to replace the lost in Revised. You cannot replace the lost fighter in AA50.

In second place, I’ll not talk about Classic because I never played it, but in Revised, there are some strats that let China alive all the game (a combo of India IC, Sinkiang IC and Pacific fleet). That strat works (I played in many league games with winning result), but the better thing is that is not an auto-win move (there were a couple of games when I got a bit overconfident and lost, DM will remember the last, he played pretty well against me), so, at least in Revised, there was a strat that could let China AND India live the whole game being competitive but not an auto-winner (axis had enough chances of win). Now in AA50, we have lost that strat, even in 1942 scenario, not only because China lost her last fighter China1, but because China is unable of attack or trade terrain, colecting as much 1 inf in most turns, fate to die as much in J5, 1942. 1941 is a nightmare because of total killing J1. In both cases, the death of China makes India unable of hold unless playing 1942 and getting improved industry.

That leads to Godzilla Japan colecting 60 IPCs even if USA builds Pacific navy, and USA simply cannot beat Japan’s navy when Japan colects 15 IPCs more than USA. So, we get few chances of wining with a KJF (opposite to Revised, were you could win about 50% ot times with KJF)

But since a KGF leads 99% of times to axis economic advantage by round 4, we have a game that allies cannot win without massive amounts of luck (rolling a good tech in the proper time and hoping axis doesn’t get another countering the first, per example). And even if I’m wrong and KGF doesn’t lead to axis economic advantage so much times, we have a game that only can be won by allies with KGF, opposite to Revised were there are at least 3 mayor strategies for allies to won. This is a setback from Revised.

My whole point is not only the chinese fighter, is all the rules and setup of whole China who lead to a unplayable Asia mainland as TG Moses said. In best of cases, it’s allies doing 100% of times KGF (I’ll stick with Revised if this is the scenario, KGF bores me to the death). In the worst of cases, is allies losing about 90 % of games. I fear we are closer to 2nd scenario than first, but none of them likes me too much.

My only hope is that we are having a very interesting discussion here and we can all together manage a good fix  :-)

@TG:

@DarthMaximus:

stuff

DarthMaximus consistently gives the most informed and logical explainations at A&A.org.

+1.

Lol @ quoting “stuff”.   :-D

Thanks.