Was this game play tested AT ALL?

@critmonster:

@Flying:

My fix would be….

Put 2 extra chinese infantry with the flying tigers to help it survive 1st round.

Put extra US DD at Hawaii. This will make it a juicer target and you are going to have to throw more than 2 fighters and a DD at it to kill it.

Put extra Cruiser at WUSA. This deters any attack here if you want to kill the BB and beefs up the post PH attack American navy to a reasonable level.

American NOs changed to only 2…(France and home territory NO deleted)
Receive 15 ipcs if Allies control 3 of the four following territories…Hawaii, Alaska, Midway, Wake island

Receive 5 ipcs if allies control the Phillipines

so a bid of $26 for the USA/China?!? seems a bit extreme

Not a bid, a FIX. The US must fight in pacific or it isn’t WW2. You may as well call it the great european war as it stands now.

only if you want to see Japan roll over everything. The USA needs to engage and battle Japan in the Pacific or they just get to far out of hand. I do agree that NO’s need to be pacific focused (perhaps more lucrative for USA as well) and Japans NO needs to be Australia not India (which they would take anyway).
As far as your idea, I am not “shooting it down” so to speak,but how do you balance an extra $26 in allied units? Do you think no additional axis incentives are needed?

@critmonster:

only if you want to see Japan roll over everything. The USA needs to engage and battle Japan in the Pacific or they just get to far out of hand.

This is JMO but I think you can let Japan roam free for a few rounds. If they are going to Alaska the USA needs to build some land units to slow them down. But I don’t think it hurts the USAs focus in Africa or Europe enough. If Japan is going hard against Alaska they aren’t going hard into China, Russia or SE Asia. I believe going to Alaska is a big mistake for Japan. It wastes alot of time and valuable units that could be taking all of Asia. You can let them roam while you destroy Germany and Italy, after that it doesn’t matter how big Japan is they will go down against 3 allies. JMO though.

I do agree that NO’s need to be pacific focused (perhaps more lucrative for USA as well) and Japans NO needs to be Australia not India (which they would take anyway).
As far as your idea, I am not “shooting it down” so to speak,but how do you balance an extra $26 in allied units? Do you think no additional axis incentives are needed?

The whole idea behind it is that now the USA has a large NO that is very much in their interest to acquire. It is close to WUSA and if they have ships in the area of Midway, Wake Alaska or Hawaii to defend this NO that means that they also have other options in the Pacific like the high value islands. With the inflated Japanese navy the extra ships the USA get are more true to historical values. Hell it probably ought to be an extra BB in WUSA instead of a Cruiser. I want a more historical war where the USA fights in both theatres. This extra incentive to fight in the pacific WILL TAKE PRESSURE OFF OF A KGIF STRATEGY. This IMO balances the game better. A KGIF strategy will win for the allies more times than not.

Well, over on the other bid thread I threw out the idea that instead of unlimited bids you could have a forced bid so that bid units must be placed in territories or sea zones bordering Japanese at-start units. A-JAP bids.  :wink:

I think this or China inf bids are better than unlimited bids since that will just push the game back into an AAR-mode dominated by KGF/JTDTM-strategies. If we go for A-JAP bids we will see where bids will best be placed, I would think infantry in Yunnan but also a DD or CA on the West coast is nice to have. Infantry on Phillippines could be a dark horse, forcing the Japanese to use three transports to take it, but then you might have setting up for a turn 2 grab instead. It would, in any case, open up for a different game without changing the base rules of the game which I think is to early just yet.

I’m just thinking….when I see the AA50 41 setup, with +NOs, Japan will often be ready for Australia J2, and India light J2, eventually India heavy J3. From that point Japan will build IC in India and expand slowly or fast depending if UK retreated everything to Persia, and if Russia is strong in Caucasus. Japan will attack Russia from Japan island in the north, and army/navy group south will attack UK/Russia in the south, and if the game goes for several rnds then Japan will build IC in Burma as well, E.I. is also a good option for Japan.

It’s very hard to understand if the playtesters didn’t try to attack Russia with Japan. This is an efficient strat, and if you play more than 3 games any player will try this option.
It’s hard to understand that they overlooked this when the game fairly balanced, and some of the playtesters are veteran A&A players.

Even if A&A is mainly a boardgame, and even if L.H. or AH/WotC have no immediate plans to make a software version of AA50, it would be much more efficient playtesting if it was done with a computer game, or any other software version.
And logically, they should ask me to be playtester if the game designers wanted to know the efficient strats for both sides and all nations in AA50  :-D

I don’t know if the playtesters missed Japan attacking Russia, that’s obvious as you say, I think they missed the German “turtle”-strategy involving IC built in France or Poland. That’s a new strategy that’s made possible by the high German income with NOs and low number of units being able to built in Germany proper. Maybe the play-testers just built in Germany and then KGF probably can succeed before Japan enters Moscow. Krieghund, Craig Yope, or any other play-tester, care to fill in here?

I can’t really comment much on the playtesting process for reasons of confidentiality.  All I can say is that the playtesters made observations and suggestions.  Some were taken and some weren’t.

@Krieghund:

I can’t really comment much on the playtesting process for reasons of confidentiality.

Oh my God, is this a beer & pretzl -game with plastic toy soldiers, or is it some super secret military prosject ?

@Adlertag:

@Krieghund:

I can’t really comment much on the playtesting process for reasons of confidentiality.

Oh my God, is this a beer & pretzl -game with plastic toy soldiers, or is it some super secret military prosject ?

Its still a commercially sensitive programme of work, and Im sure Kreighund signed a non disclosure agreement. He probably isnt legally allowed to say squat.

Just standard business practice.

I can understand this non disclosure issue before a game is released, but not afterwards.

Personally, I don’t have a big problem with Japanese units in Moscow, and Japanese ftrs in Berlin/Rome, for me, I would only be disappointed if the game was not substantially better than Revised, and it is much better even with flaws we did not expect.

For realism, we can only have so much, but the end product should/could at least have some minor adjustments which is more towards what we wanted AA50 to be like.
For me it’s like a complex chess game, 1vs1, who can move the pieces/units better than the opponent. But it is also a WW2 theme, and it is better with a little more realism, both for warfare matters and specific WW2 factors. We got improvements from the Revised version, but not enough, imo.

Maybe having Japan attacking Russia is a lesser evil, for the real WW2, what the hell was the Japanese thinking before they attacked the US in 1941  :roll:  :-)

@Adlertag:

@Krieghund:

I can’t really comment much on the playtesting process for reasons of confidentiality.

Oh my God, is this a beer & pretzl -game with plastic toy soldiers, or is it some super secret military prosject ?

LMAO, thanks for that Adlertag.

Krieghund, I can only assume the playtesters forgot about the battle of Midway, Guadalcanal, The taking of The Philippines, Iwo Jima, because none of this shit is happening in my games. If they wanted a European war why didn’t they just make one and call it “Alternative history: The really really huge war in Europe”? You could ask Harry Turtledove for tips.

There is no benefit to taking these islands, either for japan or for the usa.  even National Objectives do not solve this because Japan is going to want to take the Philippines, East Indies, Borneo, and Kwangtung anyway just for the money.  The NOs should have skipped these and only dealt with the non-moneyed islands.

@Veqryn:

There is no benefit to taking these islands, either for japan or for the usa. The NOs should have skipped these and only dealt with the non-moneyed islands.

I couldn’t agree more

East indies and Borneo should be worth 1 ipc each. Then, put the 6 ipc somewhere that is truly worth that much, like Australia or Canada

Back to the topic!! I think the NOs do something to encourage a Pacific conflict, what’s wrong is the set-up which is skewed towards the Japanese. They just have so many units compared to the Allies that it’s often not worth to try and fight them. AA50 did strengthen the US fleet somewhat, but they gave the Japanese 9 fighters and 5 transports which is too much.

So, back to the idea of bids being placed in China or on TTs or sz:s bordering Japanese at-start units. Would a bid of say 4 inf in Yunnan and 1 Destroyer at the West coast make the game more like it was meant to be from the start?

@Lynxes:

Back to the topic!! I think the NOs do something to encourage a Pacific conflict, what’s wrong is the set-up which is skewed towards the Japanese. They just have so many units compared to the Allies that it’s often not worth to try and fight them. AA50 did strengthen the US fleet somewhat, but they gave the Japanese 9 fighters and 5 transports which is too much.

So, back to the idea of bids being placed in China or on TTs or sz:s bordering Japanese at-start units. Would a bid of say 4 inf in Yunnan and 1 Destroyer at the West coast make the game more like it was meant to be from the start?

That might be a titch too much, but I think that you’re on the right track.

I would rather see a Pacific USA naval bid than a bid anywhere else.

I think a cruiser along side Western US or with the BB in Hawaii, along with a Submarine added to the Carrier force near South America.

/Veqryn

So you’re more into the idea of bids being forced in TTs or sz:s next to Japanese at-start forces? And in this way naval bids like what you propose would be chosen. The crucial question is if bids should be guided or not since unlimited bids will go to EGY or KAR, of course.

I think the US should have more naval units in sz 44, it takes 4 turns to sail to Italy from sz 44, and even longer to the Baltic sz.
I don’t favor forced bids, but if players desperately wants more action in the pacific, bidding Chinese infs, and/or US naval units in the pacific makes it easier (for allies) to wage war in the pacific.

I did some calcing, and it is $47 in the pacific with NOs. Not all of this cash is easy obtainable, but even with the original setup, allies will get hurt if they leave the pacific altogether.

And US can be threatened by the polar express, note, any decent allied player will not lose WUS, but it will tie up US forces to protect it’s mainland.
Japan has to expand a lot before any polar express is powerful enough to make an impact, but from several rnds into the game, Japan can get a foothold in mainland Asia, and at the same time keep Alaska for a few rnds.

But the most important factor is that Germany+Italy is usually stronger than UK+Russia, I think the game is meant to give US incentives for fighting mainly in Europe, the problem is that naval units are very expensive, even a sub cost the same as two infs, so it is too expensive to fight a two-front war. Bidding naval units for US in the pacific can help solve this issue.

But, surely, Subotai, you don’t expect people to bid for units in the Pacific theater if they are allowed to place units in Europe which are much more cost-effective IPC per IPC?  :?