Was this game play tested AT ALL?

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.

You must be very careful though as to weakening Japan, as if you do it too much the Japan war machine can be gutted very quickly (IPC wise).  An India IC + US pacific builds + R1 bomber in caucaus and reinforcements into India can stop Japan’s income.  Granted Russia will be pressed but that happens, and just holding moscow for a few rounds is not difficult.

@bugoo:

You must be very careful though as to weakening Japan, as if you do it too much the Japan war machine can be gutted very quickly (IPC wise).  An India IC + US pacific builds + R1 bomber in caucaus and reinforcements into India can stop Japan’s income.  Granted Russia will be pressed but that happens, and just holding moscow for a few rounds is not difficult.

well, i was implying that if you added a cruiser and/or DD to western USA, that you would not need ANY other bids at all.

I find its easier to play as the allies, even against compotent opponents right here at AA org.

Its all about using the units you start with effectively.

There are alot of holes in every J1 that can be exploited.

this is just a case of modern stratgies needing to catch up with the awesomeness of the game we’ve been provided. :)

When we judge the (un)balance, we look at a # of games, not only 2-3 games. Dice is very important in AA50, much more than in Revised. While in a no bid Revised game you will only have extreme luck, enough to win w/o a bid maybe 1% of all games, the dice in AA50 41 rnd 1 is more like yahtzee, although with LL it will favor the attacker, I have seen so many 70%-95% battles go wrong in ADS games.
For more than 60% of all games axis are favored imo, but the balance in AA50 41 is as much about the dice as a unit bid is in Revised. You only need bids in AA50 41 if axis does not have bad luck rnd 1.
While it is very hard to win a single game in Revised w/o bids as axis, (against decent players), this is different in AA50 b/c of the extreme effect of the rnd 1 dice. So even if axis should win maybe 60% of all games, or even more, it is not so difficult to win a single no bid game in AA50 as allies. As it is not so difficult to win a single game, it is also easier to win several no bid games as allies in AA50.

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.

Yes, flying tiger, you’re right that a DD at PH works better than a DD at WCO. Do you want to try a game with a 20 IPC bid for Allies, bound to the Pacific theater? You would put 12 IPC on a cruiser, and I would put on 4 inf in YUN, and we would both put a DD in PH. We could play two parallell games, with both sides!

People have rightly pointed out that the IJN was the most powerful navy in the Pacific at the outbreak of the Pacific war. This is reflected in the A&A initial set up.

The problem is that the Japanese simply were not able to quadruple their pre-war industrial power the way they almost effortlessly do in this game. Neither were they in practice able to reduce US industrial production by 20% simply by invading the Solomons, Phillipines and Wake Island! Maybe to reflect the absolutely massive industrial response of the US they should drop the US NO for wake etc. and increase the mainland (E USA, C USA, W USA) NO to 10 IPCs. Leave the Phillipines NO because it really was a US priority (Well a McArthurite priority anyway!).

Then, instead of the E Indies NO for Japan, give the Japanese the (currently US) Wake/Midway/Hawaii/Solomons NO. Force them to fight the Americans on unfavourable terms if they want that extra 5 IPCs. Because in the end that was what the Japanese never managed - they over stretched their defensive perimeter in the Pacific and the US were able to puncture and eventually collapse it.

Does this mean the Japanese will ahistorically ignore the E.Indies and Borneo? Well both the islands are worth 8 IPCs between them, 10 with the easily conquered Phillipines thrown in. So no of course they won’t.

But it will mean that if they want to play with fire and get within US air force/navy range for 5 IPCs extra then they’d better make sure they know what they’re doing…

To me, the Philippines NO seems totally redundant.  Things have gone very wrong for Japan if the US has a chance at it…

Germany’s NOs are the best designed - they are very interactive.  I wish the NOs for the other countries were as well implemented (they are either too hard to get until you’ve won, or are so easy you can assume them).

@Telamon:

To me, the Philippines NO seems totally redundant.  Things have gone very wrong for Japan if the US has a chance at it…

Germany’s NOs are the best designed - they are very interactive.  I wish the NOs for the other countries were as well implemented (they are either too hard to get until you’ve won, or are so easy you can assume them).

Half of the NOs are good, the other half are redundant.

I think Germany’s, Italy’s, and Russia’s NOs are very good.  They are interactive and encourage people to play the game slightly differently and a bit more historically accurately.

UK’s, USA’s, and Japan’s NOs I believe are terrible. 
Japan is going to get all of her NOs by playing the same way as she would normally play if there were not NOs, and the allies are NEVER, never going to take them away from her until they have already won the game (ie: berlin and italy have fallen).
USA’s NOs are the same way, the USA is going to get the first one no matter how they play, and the one in france does not encourage any behavior that the USA does not already do without NOs.  The NO for the philippines will never be taken until Japan is essentially defeated.  The only interactive NO they have is the one about the solomon islands and hawaii.
UKs NOs are again, usually pretty redundant.  Slightly more interactive than Japan and the USA, they still suffer from the problem of UK not really being able to do much.  UK is going to take France when they take France, and that doesn’t change much whether you have NOs or not.  The NO about controlling terr like Gibralter, Egypt, South Africa, and Australia, does not really come into play much because the Axis are going to take and hold Egypt for the same number of turns whether there are NOs or not.  It really only comes into play when the Axis do something odd like take Gibralter or Australia.  And their NO about Japanese pacific Islands is dumb since the UK can’t do shit about it anyway, therefore it is not really very interactive.

I think the suggestion of replacing the transport in W.USA with a cruiser might just do it, and at a net of $5! Coupled with my suggestion that the game starts with China then moves to the regular sequence (with China going after USA) Japan would then have to make hard choices from amongst their options.
The problem with adding US navy is many will simply send it through Panama (especiall if it is an offshore capable unit).
I like the Idea of split USA production ala Pacific (Auss/India) with an additional central cash pool that can be divied up as preferred for which ever strat the US player desires. This keeps USA in both theatres but allows individualized strats as well. I think the income would have to be higher though.

Last few posts are very good.

If the game is going to be re-released then I hope WOTC, Larry Harris and the original playtesters realize the errors in the Pacific and fix them.

Europe looks fine to me.

@critmonster:

I think the suggestion of replacing the transport in W.USA with a cruiser might just do it, and at a net of $5! Coupled with my suggestion that the game starts with China then moves to the regular sequence (with China going after USA) Japan would then have to make hard choices from amongst their options.
The problem with adding US navy is many will simply send it through Panama (especiall if it is an offshore capable unit).

Yes, that is the reason I suggest a very high NO value(15) for Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway. This makes America stay and fight.

Yes, that is the reason I suggest a very high NO value(15) for Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway. This makes America stay and fight.

Or give them 3 NO’s based upon island pairs and the “homeland” NO including Alaska. This keeps the big payoff from being all or nothing and allows for strategic island hopping from both powers (Japan’s NO cash should also be based away from the mainland primarily)