Was this game play tested AT ALL?

@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?  :?

@Captain:

@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.

Exactly.

I had many long conversations with the powers that be about precisely what I was allowed to say, both before and after the game was released, in order to give you guys the maximum possible amount of information.

I’m not sure how long AA50 was tested or how many different testers there were, but we’ve been playing competitive games (tourney-league) here for 7 months  and one thing I’ve noticed is it is incredibly hard to duplicate results to test long term playouts.  I’ve seen lots of similar attacks but very rarely have I seen games with the exact same dice rolls for G1, R1, and J1.

Now that could be one line of thinking, more variety in rds 1-3 over how will things look if we get to rds 6+.
Afterall, it is a boardgame designed to be played FTF with up to 6 players on a weekend with your buddies, on-line play is 1-1 for the most part.  One player working 3 countries is much more effiicient then 3 different players.

So, on-line is much more competitive in that “funness” may be sacrificed at the higher levels of play so that you can win the tourney, win the league, have the best record, etc.  I’m not saying the game isn’t fun for a person that wins a tourney or goes 16-0, what I’m saying is at some point winning becomes more important over things like the historical nature of the game, playing muli-player, or if KGF is better than KJF, etc.

Testers have a limited time, we have years if needed to find all the bugs.  :-D

@Lynxes:

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?  :?

You’re right, but I personally prefer open bids, b/c for me it’s about winning the game. But for players who want more action in the pacific, and mainland Asia, force bids can be a good solution.
It will be more like a “house rule” for bidding rules, in contrast to the TripleA lobby environment, TripleA warclub ladder and here on A&A.org (PBF games). Historically, players have been using open bids, with some regulations.

I won’t change the rules, but many people play with one or more house rules, and if a playgroup is unhappy with some aspects/theaters of the game, then this force bids option can be a good solution.
As the game designers say, there’s no problem in using house rules if all players agree, and if it makes the game more interesting.
For AA50 or AA42 to be less 100%-KGF-like, there has to be much more radical changes then we see from Revised to AA50.

@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?

An extra DD at WUSA will deter nothing. I would still throw 2 fighters at it and a DD and 2 fighters at Pearl Harbor. The outcome is the same.

I think for history sake the PH attack must happen. The Japanese did not attack any US warships just off the western coast. That is why I would be for a DD at PH and a Cruiser at WUSA. A DD at PH changes nothing except it makes the Japanese attack it with more than 2 fighters and a DD. This eliminates the WUSA attack. I am for historical accuracy in the 1st round after that though it’s anyones game and anyones stategy.

I seriously cannot believe the playtesters allowed the Japanese to sink both fleets at PH and WUSA. It’s a no brainer with the setup as is. Pathetic actually.

Let’s refresh…With my setup the Japanese will have to throw 4 fighters and the DD at PH, losing the DD . If they try to throw 2 fighters and a DD at it they may lose. Maybe they throw 3 fighters at it and win but then what do they do with the 4th fighter? Attack a DD and a Cruiser? I don’t think so.

Why not simply replace the sz56 transport with a cruiser?

That is somewhat historical in that the US was not militarily ready at the time to start amphibiously assaulting islands.  This also makes it harder for Japan to attack sz56, and it actually takes away some of Japan’s incentive to attack it since there is no free transport there to destroy.