Making the playing time "shorter"

What do you want to see in an advanced A&A game?
Share your thoughts... Contribute to the ultimate A&A game design.
WanderingHead
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:45 am

Post by WanderingHead » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:07 am

Orillian wrote:... a plane that flies into combat uses a bunch of fuel fighting, were as a plane just flying would be able to go alot further since he did not waste fuel fighting.
In addition, planes have the option of either loading up with bombs or fuel. A plane that is not fighting will both have more fuel to begin with and burn less fuel on the way.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:16 am

dont entirely agree there . Planes are loaded and refueled at the same time in many cases like a race car especially in combat. In combat situations where the plane is to be used as torpedo bomber, they just drop the bomb in the ocean to gain flight time and conserve fuel if they were to run out.three or four months of warfare is enough time to fly any plane anywhere on the globe.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

WanderingHead
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:45 am

Post by WanderingHead » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:26 am

Imperious leader wrote:they just drop the bomb in the ocean to gain flight time and conserve fuel
So wouldn't it fly even further if they never loaded the bomb in the first place?
Imperious leader wrote:three or four months of warfare is enough time to fly any plane anywhere on the globe.
True. This is one of those issues where I have to think "it is just a game. It is not a simulation."

My original motivation in contemplating the rule is maps I've seen of air coverage of the Atlantic. It did not cover the whole ocean, there was a big hole in the middle. That was because of fuel constraints. Yet I don't think they had problems flying those same planes from New York to London. Maybe I am wrong about the latter.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:42 am

in combat yes your correct. but i think we were talking about strategic redeployment of naval and SEA units following non-combat. The movement in combat should be very close to 4 for fighters and 6 for bombers , possibly 8 for heavy bombers. If their is to be any increase in the combat movement it would only be reflected in the fact that their are twice the number of territories to get to the same distance.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:16 am

I think quicker unit movement could speed up the game. I have been thinking about rail movement for sometime now. At the same time I’m not at all sure quicker (greater) unit movement would speed up the process. So this needs to be determined.

It is very possibly correct in suggesting that game time is not a real factor in an advanced A&A game. I think we agree that what’s important is to not make the game any longer than it already is. Home turf movement advantage is an interesting idea.

MORE SPACES on the map… There probably should be more spaces in an advanced game.

Along with new ports and air ports we could have railroad stations…

Lobo
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:10 am
Location: Texas

Post by Lobo » Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:15 am

I'm working on a post about this, but for now will say that the factors affecting game length are:

A-Number of territories
B-Number of different units to choose from
C-Amount of money available to players to purchase units
D-# of units on the board (result of C)

Most people agree that Revised is a longer game than Original, this is due to A and C.

I think we can limit game time growth by keeping a limit on the IPCs available. Maybe by spreading them out more and having territories with zero income.

More spaces on the board is a MUST and should not be compromised in the interest of saving time.

Series

Post by Series » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:33 pm

Hey larry, first time on this site... anyway, in case you didn't know, i've been creating several axis and allies concepts, and testing them. I think I know a way where it would be much faster, however it may hurt the axis a bit:

The way I see it, if 1 turn takes 10 minutes, a round will take 50. But, what if there were only 2 turns in a round?

I say all the Axis and all the Allies take their turns simultaneously. That means Russia, America, and the UK would be purchasing, then moving, then fighting, all at the same time. Then the Axis get a go.

This would lower shifts in turns by 60%. What I mean is, if one side is moving at a time, they only accomplish goals for their nation. If the allies all move at the same time, these goals are accomplished 3 times as fast! Of course, some phases (combat, for example) would take about the same time, but yet, it would cut I'd say a good 15 or 20 minutes away from a single round. Not only that, but many of my friends find A&A boring because they have to wait 40 minutes before they get a turn. With these rules, it would be more hands on.

Of course, there are cases that would need testing (such as, what if Russia refuses to move until they see what USA does), however, I think it will make a better game overall.

Thoughts?

cousin_joe
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:58 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

Making the Playing Time shorter

Post by cousin_joe » Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:43 am

Hi Larry,

I'm really excited about an Axis & Allies: Advanced, and really wish to thank you for taking the time to gather our input. :D

If you're looking to shorten the game, here are a few ideas off the top of my head.

1. Consider Combining the Combat and Non-combat Moves

-someone actually posted some good ideas on the AH board for this in the past and I'll see if I can dig them up for you
-when we play A&A FTF, we typically do all of our Combat and NCM together and it really speeds things up. You're not having to think about things twice, instead, you just do your NCM as you plan your Combat.
-if a battle goes horribly wrong, or unexpected, we typically allow the player to adjust some of their NCMs that depended on that battle, but as long as everything goes as expected, it's simply a matter of landing the planes, collecting the income, and placing the units afterwards.

2. Add more Industrial Complexes or Consider Allowing Building Units on Any Territory Worth at least 2IPC. Also Cheaper ICs

-what makes A&A a long game is having to get units all the way from your capital, all the way to the enemies capital. This is a very long supply line.
-If you had an IC in let's say Karelia, you shorten your supply line to some degree, and can get a few more troops to the front quicker.
-All of the above ideas in the heading will help to do this

3. Better use of Victory Cities

-one big problem with Revised was the fact that to win, the Axis NEEDED to capture Moscow (min 9VC game). Taking a capital takes a very long time, as you have to exploit your economic edge over many, many turns, to eventually overcome the enemies strongest stack (ie. right at the source).
-15VCs is a very popular option, and actually makes capital capture unnecessary, while still providing a conclusive win for either side. The 3 VCs are Stalingrad, Hawaii, and Australia. Axis need 10, Allies 11. This also has the benefit of encouraging a Pacific theater which is sorely missing in the majority of Revised games.

4. Increase the power of Offense, Decrease the power of Defense

-units stronger defensively, like 1/2 INF, 3/4 FTR, 1/3 AC really encourages a stacking style of play. You need to make the game more dynamic and encourage players to play an agressive attacking style. Things to consider would be reducing the AC to 1/2, consider a 4/4 FTR, a 4/3 TNK, or a 3/1 SUB, make BMBRs heavy as standard, etc. Overall though, offensive units need to be stressed just as much as defensive units.
-This could be done quite effectively while incorporating the 10-sided die system.

5. Stronger Emphasis on Axis Military Might vs. Allies Economic Edge

-this is another reason why Revised is a longer game, by allowing the Axis to equalize income, you get a smaller advantage for either side
-the game must be a race. Can the Axis get to 10VC before the eventual Allied Economic Edge destroys them? Make the incomes more drastically different, with less ability for the Axis to equalize, but give the Axis more ability to destroy early Allied income, via Economic attacks for SUBs, RCKTS and BMBRs, and also more Military Might with stronger units early on (while Allies get logistic benefits, to help their mid and late game)

I think all of these ideas are rather easy to implement, without being too extreme to the game's basic structure. Hope they help :D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests