Posts made by amanntai

@Narvik:

@amanntai:

Like Young Grasshopper said, A&A favors the aggressive side, and Axis is always the aggressive side.

Like in chess, I believe A&A favors the side with a better brain.

But if two “infinitely good” players play chess, it always ends in a draw. If two infinitely good players play Axis and Allies, The Axis will win, unless the dice intervene.

Brains alone cannot fix the inherent game mechanics that favor Axis.

The aggressive player need luck with dice to succeed.

Yes, but so does the defender. Dice and luck does not mean Axis and Allies does not favor the Axis.

I would say that by making Germany go first, Axis will always have a slight advantage, all other things being equal-ish. Axis gets to set the strategy for the game: they male the moves, and then the Allies must respond. This sort of forces the Allies to prepare for multiple possible Axis moves, while the Axis merely need to prepare one strategy to take, maybe a backup for bad rolls (something low luck and battle calculators have eliminated for some players).

Like Young Grasshopper said, A&A favors the aggressive side, and Axis is always the aggressive side.

1. Heavy Tanks: Tanks may now take 2 hits

I find this tech extremely questionable from both a gameplay and historical perspective.

Gameplay wise, would this not make tanks really overpowered? They’d be vastly superior to 2 Infantry offense-wise, but also nearly their equal defensively!

Historically, heavy tanks were not that great. They were expensive, slow, prone to mechanical failure, and generally not that much better than medium tanks, which is why they aren’t used in modern warfare. Main battle tanks are superior.

What happens if Japan does a turn 1 declaration of war? Immediate Combat? And can the US move these units into China, or out to sea? Can the US move its Navy into the neighboring sea zone, or does the “no ending next to a japan-occupied territory” rule still apply?

Also, are the Marine and gunboat units different units from the out of box units?

These questions must be answered before I can give an assessment of this house rule.

@ZeusEQ:

Hi,

First off, I’m sorry if there’s already a topic about this (if so, please point me to it). I don’t know if it is like this for everyone, but the “google custom search” functionality places its results overlaid on the topic overview, making one unreadable mess of letters :-( .

As far as I know, that happens to everyone.

@ZeusEQ:

So my questions:

– Would this be feasible, or is it too OP?
– How many points do you think this unit should cost?
– Do you have specific rules for rocket artillery, and what are they?

Thanks, Zeus

While everyone else seems focused on their own ideas of an MLRS unit, I’ll comment on your idea.
I think it is definitely feasible. To avoid being OP, I’d either up the cost from 4 to 5, or keep cost at 4 but drop the defense value to 1 instead of 2 like artillery, since rocket artillery always seemed more offensive than defensive to me.

I have no specific rules myself, but a unit with your fire twice ever other round property and the following values would likely be used by me:
C5 A2 D1 M2 (no blitz), can support Infantry on attack.

@Young:

2 Tactical bomber on the air base rolls a 6 - the air base is now damaged

I think you meant to write “1 Tactical Bomber on the air base rolls a 6”, unless you meant to include the one bomber that was shot down.

I think I like this system a lot more than OOB, as it doesn’t guarantee damage to factories (although admittedly, you’d need to pretty bad luck to fail to do any damage with 12 bombers), and it prevents a massive bomber stack from annihilating interceptors by restricting the fire to one die per group.

One potential suggestion would be to change the result needed to damage a factory to 4 or lower rather than 3 or higher, to keep with the normal combat mechanics of rolling low to hit. It also mimics the Bomber attack value, so it’d be even easier to remember.

Hey, Baron… whatever happened to the anti-tank gun (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35315.75 ) ?
Did you scrap that unit, or is it just waiting to be implemented later?

But everything here looks nice, I will try to playtest this and tell you more about what I think.

Hey guys!
I’ve been away for awhile, and noticed this thread… but 40 pages is a lot of reading.
Can someone summarize the proposed changes, or is there a google doc of all the changes, or something?

So, to shift the topic back towards the topic, and away from Egypt…

It seems that:

1. Russia’s historical economy is accurately modeled in 1940 2nd Edition, so doesn’t need a boost.
2. Germany’s economy is not so accurately modeled, and might need the NO for Leningrad removed.
3. The US economy was clearly the strongest among the allies all throughout the war, increased throughout the war, and this is not accurately modeled in 1940 2nd Edition.

I am in favor of an exponential increase in US income, starting from Turn 1, rather than entering the war, so Japan still has a reason to do a DoW on their first turn. I think somewhere between 1-4 IPCS per turn per turn should do it. Then by Turn 16 (by some reasoning ~1944) the US could have as many as 64 extra IPCS per turn, which about doubles the US starting income while at war, consistent with the historical GDP increase.

In total, this would force the Axis to win quickly before the US totally dwarfed them in income, and would open up a possible KGF if the NO for Lenin grad was removed.

This seems to be the most historically correct fix. What are your opinions on it gamewise?

@ItIsILeClerc:

After all we all know the good guys lost in WW2…. Just kidding of course :mrgreen:

I bet you are German, Elrood?
Don’t worry, it won’t be held against you :-D.

I have used a ~12-bid to add all Russian Units, once. And it didn’t make much of a difference against a G4J4 used against me that time. If used in the Med it certainly would have been of better use… Don’t know what it could have done against a different axis strategy, though.

Whoever is interested in knowing what would have happened if certain historical mistakes would not have been made: A&A is not the right game for that. It is certainly a fun game, but with more similarities to chess than with WWII, I’m afraid.

Moscow is definately the kick-dog of this game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCARDozMEU
Aren’t the developers Americans? If so, this is probably by design :P.
But seriously. I think you are right about Russia being designed to go down economically. I don’t like it, but if Russia could hold their own against Germany, it would certainly be moot to play the game (USA would kill Japan, while UK + Russia sandwich Germany). Though it could be a little harder for the axis to reduce Russia to an economic non-factor.

Hmmm… an interesting point. If the game is made truly historically correct, can the Axis ever win? In this case for the sake of game play Russia cannot be historically correct, for the same reason France is not historically correct.

@KimRYoung:

The Russians produced more tanks then the Americans (and certainly better tanks); twice as many artillery pieces, and twice as many soldiers as the US. Russian aircraft production exceeded Germany throughout the war (and Germany’s went UP every year through 1945). An extra income bid for the Russians makes far more sense than for the US.

Eliminate the pre-game unit bid for the Allies (effectively the UK) this allows the Russians get the income Bid each turn. With no extra units for the UK, Italy can make a fight for the Med and assist the Germans in Russia. The Eastern front is now a battle of uncertain outcome every game, and if Germany knocks out Russia, the extra income for the Allies is gone! (It never goes away for the US).

The original post is the right idea; it�s just for the wrong country. I gotta go along with Vance and Garg on this, and I think it makes for a better game all around.

Kim

I haven’t had time to look up the statistics on unit production in the USSR and US during WWII, but your post does neglect one rather important factor: Naval Production. The USSR was by no means outproducing the US in that regard, and the US, fighting a largely naval war in the Pacific, obviously put a large portion of its production into naval vessels. I don’t know whether that outweighs the extra Soviet production in other areas, but it certainly would affect it.

But those are excellent gamewise reasons for shifting the bonus to Russia.

@variance:

@amanntai:

The final blow was dealt by the US in its invasion of continental Europe and push into Germany.

Bagration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6UkVl3ZFuI&list=ELlzBS5WrPu4s&index=10

EDIT:
What Germany faced in June 1944:
Allied troops on D-day: 156,000
Soviet troops in Operation Bagration: 2.4 million

D-day was a very small portion of the US military during WWII. In total, the US had over 16 million serving in the military throughout the war, only about 500,000 of them died. The USSR had more troops committed, but also far heavier casualties.

@variance:

@Gargantua:

Balance values need to be put in the center of the board and not the outlier.  5 IPC’s in Russia, is worth 15 IPC’s in USA.

To reduce the risk of wildly increasing balancing efforts, the lesser value should be used, and should be of primary importance.

Put the money in Russia.

Begin rant.

One thing I really don’t like about axis & allies is how it always exaggerates the American contribution to defeating Nazi Germany.  It is true that they beat Japan fair and square, but their contribution to beating Hitler was minimal compared to what the Russian people endured.

Now I know someone will say “we gave them lend lease supplies blah blah” which is true, but to put things into perspective, please consider the number 3000.  That number is about how many Americans died at Pearl Harbour, D-Day and Sept 11.  Those events were tragedies, but compare that to the 3000-4000 Russians who died every day in the siege of Leningrad alone, which went on for some 900 days (total Soviet casualties around 3.4 million, plus 600 thousand axis casualties).  And that was just one battle.

So I agree with Gargantua that for gameplay reasons, as well as for historical accuracy reasons you need to bump up Russia not America.  It makes the game more phoney baloney if you bump USA even more than it already is.  If anything the USA should be toned down in the game.

Rant complete.

But historically, the US, and not Russia, was the economic power of the Allies. The US was virtually untouched by war, and increased in production capacity. Russia was ravaged by war, and lost production capacity.

Stalin practically begged the Western Allies to open up a second front in Europe. If the US had not come in to North Africa and Italy, the Axis might have yet been victorious in Africa and Russia.

The final blow was dealt by the US in its invasion of continental Europe and push into Germany. This is not to ignore the contributions of UK and Canadian forces in the invasion, but the invasion would not have been possible without US support.

And of course, the US provided most of the troops and ships that halted Japan and turned the war in the Pacific around.

I think the US actually plays a smaller role in A&A than it did in real life.

Actually, TripleA does change the rules (just look at the list of known bugs, some OOB rules are ignored).

But while I agree that the Battle Calculator makes a difference, I don’t think it unbalances the game. I think it just makes it almost impossible for players to make mistakes, and thus makes the unbalance more evident. For two new players, it doesn’t matter which side they play, either can win. This is because the Axis player will most likely make many rookie mistakes, allowing the Allied player a chance to win. But if both players are experienced and use a Calculator to figure out everything beforehand, they can use optimal strategies to win… favoring the Axis because the OOB game favors the Axis if played optimally.

@Gargantua:

@Elrood:

Are we playing the same game?�  :?

If Russia is strong enough to give a real fight to Germany, then I would not play Axis. What chance would Germany have to really capture 8 capitals then?
And also… it WAS a massacre … Russia lost how many? 22 Million people?

And again: sorry guys, but this just doesn’t belong in this thread. Its about US Income vs. Unit bidding.

Oh we’re playing the same game, and on average the Germans can stomp through Russia and into moscow at the +20 units mark.  The Russians will have no, or limited counter attack capabilities, and the other allies are stretched to the max for time to help make a stand.

And as-is Italy doesn’t even matter,  just their starting aircraft and armor count for can-openers on the eastern front.

The goal the original poster set out for with this bidding strategy, was to come up with a system that gave Italy a chance/fight, and one that made the game balancing fundamentally different.  Novisibirsk +10 will do exactly that.

Russia lost 22 million people, absolutely, and lost 7-1 in kill ratio on the eastern front.   So why is it then that Russia has approximately HALF of the starting forces as Germany, and HALF of the income potential?  And no can-opener allies?

If you want to see 22 million plastic pieces get massacred, you have to put them on the damn board to begin with!

Want another alternative balance?  Make it 7 VC’s in Pacific, and 9 on the Europe board.  Allies will have enough time to contend properly that way.

The problem is you can only get a 7-1 kill ratio if the Germans have twice the troops Russia has. Unlike in real life, where even when outnumbered the Germans could mow down Russians left and right, A&A heavily favors the side with the largest army. Historically, the Russians had more troops than Germany, but still came close to losing because the Germans were better. If you tried to simulate that in A&A, Germany would be crushed by the Red wave.

If you’re going to buff Russia instead of the US, reduce the victory cities needed to 7 instead of 8 to compensate for the much harder time Germany will have.

But that really defeats the purpose, I think. The OP wanted a system that put pressure on the Axis to win quick (something hard to do if Russia is cranking out units) before the mighty US comes to save the Allies’ bacon. The Russia buff does not accomplish this.

@Stalingradski:

Variance - thank you  :-)

Amanntai - perhaps I oversold the point, or didn’t communicate my point sufficiently.

I would never advocate for a simple reenactment. I’m just as interested in novel ideas and new methods as anyone. I’ve been playing one version or another of A&A since the 1984 Milton Bradley version - thirty + years. As a disclaimer, I love new strategies - it’s why I play against other people and try to read threads on new strats. However!

There’s a point at which it becomes something else entirely, and (to me!) loses the spirit of the game. There are thousands of ‘chance’ games available for people to choose. Since I don’t have the time in my life to delve into serious WWII simulations, I fall back on this particular A&A system - a strategy game with dice. I’m not interested in counters and chits with historically accurate divisions, logistics, terrain issues, etc… speaking for most working class individuals with a family and a stressful job, I don’t have time. A&A is the (close to) perfect amalgam of history and chance and also has the my-wife-can-deal-with-me-playing-it-now-and-then factor. But… I’m interested in history. Not the pure domination of others. Not pure mathematics. History. And I like to recreate history, with chance involved, and add my own particular twist.

I tried to state in my post (if you go back and read) as often as possible, the disclaimer that this was my particular preference. But I know that I speak for some others as well… picking one particular unit for mathematical assurance violates a basic code for me… as Omar in The Wire (and later The Hound in GoT) noted - “A man’s gotta have a code.” My code is that I want to reenact WW II, and put my own twist on WII warfare in A&A, and not to find a mathematical break in the game and exploit it… does that make sense?

Another, more concrete way to say it - if I were to learn that the US could buy all battleships in the Pacific, and that by turn six I would win every game, would I do it? No way. I would have to say that I’d stubbornly still buy some aircraft, and try to get boots on the ground and take some islands, because I’m playing for more than just victory… I’m playing for an elegant victory, and for fun. I’d rather lose and play by my code than win by exploiting mathematics. To some, that makes no sense! To others, it makes perfect sense. Ahh… the wonder of diversity.

I simply offered a response to the original question about how to deal with the issue of German Bomber Strategy… and I chose to say “Don’t engage at all”. I think it was fair to add my voice to the discussion.

The great thing about A&A is there are so many variables that there is no way you can “do X and win by turn X every time”. There are millions of possible moves and strategies, and any one of the dozens of dice rolls made at each turn can be disastrous and foil your whole plan. It isn’t like Tic Tac Toe, where a skill player can always ensure either a win or a draw, or even like Chess, where an advanced computer can predict every move and develop a winning strategy every time.

Even then, Dark Skies is different than “US buys only battleships in the pacific and wins every time”. Dark Skies isn’t “all bombers and Axis victory”. It’s “buy a lot of bombers early, with some other units, and then build whatever you want after you have ‘enough’ bombers, and then you might win”. I see no reason people shouldn’t be allowed to play a valid strategy that isn’t a guaranteed win.

@ShadowHAwk:

Well the islands in the med are also part of continental europe so that does not really rule them out.
Sugest naming it countries with a IPC value of 1 or more.

Also there are no pro allied neutrals in the zones you give so better dont put the line there only causes confusion.
Strickt neutrals should not be touched really, it gives the allies even bigger incentive to attack the true neutrals, true it is more hystorical correct,
if russia is strong in scandinavia then us can just attack a true neutral and give russia a +5 bonus for the rest of the game ( sweden + NO ), no need to weaken sea lion even further.

The islands aren’t part of continental Europe. By definition, no island is part of continental Europe.

There are pro-allied neutrals in that zone: Yugoslavia and Greece.

Russia can’t invade Sweden for a +5 bonus unless Germany already invaded it. Germany just has to leave Sweden alone to deny Russia the bonus.

@Stalingradski:

I’m quite late to this conversation, but my thought is this:

The counter to this German bomber strategy is to choose not to use it, and to avoid playing against players who do. I mean this with all respect!

I can speak for myself, and probably many others, in that I don’t play A&A purely as a series of mathematical equations. If that were the case, there are plenty of other games out there to scratch that particular itch. I play because I’m also interested in history, as well as the history of warfare, and World War II in particular.

I’m always a bit suspicious of the constant search to discover a mechanical ‘break’ in this (very elegant) game. If I learned I could win every time by buying 20 infantry every round for Germany, personally I won’t just start buying 20 infantry a round every turn until someone stops me. That’s not my definition of fun. For some, it is, and that’s fine - diversity is a beautiful thing.

Give me 6 infantry, an artillery, 2 mech infantry, 2 armor, a fighter, and a destroyer for 60 IPCs as Germany. If I’m feeling whimsical or aggressive, replace the 2 armor with a bomber. That’s my definition of dark skies!

When I read through this thread, not once did I start considering that I should try it as a strategy - why would I? Part of the enjoyment - for me - is replicating/advancing themes from warfare conducted early in the last century. If anything, it helped me realize that I should buy a few more bombers, but that’s about the extent of it.

Some see this as as a dice game with strategy - I choose to see it as a strategy game with dice. Mass purchases of one unit for the purpose of maximizing movement and mathematical assurance, in my opinion, shift the game toward the former. Again, a matter of personal preference.

If that’s the case, why bother with strategies at all? Why not just have a script where you buy units representative of the units produced historically, and follow all the battles in a way that happened historically?

Dark Skies isn’t historically accurate, but it’s still a strategy. This is a strategy game. The goal is to find a strategy that allows you to win (secondary of course to the goal of having fun). If Dark Skies allows you to win, you’re meeting that goal.

Personally I don’t use Dark Skies because if it’s as broken as some claim then no one would want to play against me using it, and if it’s not broken as some claim then I have no reason use it over a more traditional strategy that works just as well, if not better.

@wittmann:

Capturing Korea is pointless early on, as Japan ought to have a fleet in SZ6 and Russia gains no income and loses the potential 6 Infantry. If you say it happened, historically, I can agree.
Still, we have to get that Lend Lease to stick. Russia cannot be on 20 income, while Germany is on 60 and hoping that the UK comes up through the Middle East to save them.

Like I said, it is unlikely that Russia will take many, or even any, original Japanese territories. But the option should still be there. It might encourage Russia jumping in on a KJF if they get an extra 3 IPCs from Korea.

The Historical basis is this:

North Korea’s history began with occupation of the Korean Peninsula north of the 38th parallel by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II in 1945, a division of Korea with the United States occupying the south. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was established in 1948.

In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.

Kim established the Korean People’s Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft.

-http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_North_Korea

@wittmann:

I think many here think it ridiculous that Russia can convert African nations, like Ethiopia or Libya. It is a silly sideshow, which many Allied players go for, to supplement Russia’s meagre income. If it had a proper, workable, NO, it would not need to send Mechanized forces into Africa to do this.
Thank you for telling me that it did do so in Korea, however.

Well, maybe just get rid of the Italy portion, and replace it with Japanese original territories. It’s unlikely that Russia will capture many of those, anyway.