ATTACK AND DEFENSE NUMBERS: Land Based

Thanks for your input todate. Here is a collection of my thinking at this point. Please feel free to participate in this on going discussion. Your contributions are appreciated. Tell your A&A friends about this so they have a chance to voice what they want in A-A&A. I'll update the the original posting as changes and new ideas are adopted or contemplated.
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 » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:46 pm

Ok please note that this list is the second list and has some changes from the first list. It is more refined. This list above was the one i was referring to. There is about 8-10 different changes (more like corrections- based on further study)
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Guerrilla Guy
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Texas Baby!

Post by Guerrilla Guy » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:17 pm

IL, could you clarify that the list is

Cost
Attack
Defense
Range?

GG
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."

Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne

Games are like my Avatar...

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 » Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:24 pm

It has been done.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:14 pm

ok, will modify the list using your new values, and will game them during our next game...
-The evil Bert & friend

oddman
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:48 am
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by oddman » Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:38 pm

Differentiating by country seems needlessly complex to me. The German tanks were better, granted, but the Allies simply had more. It's just a question of resource allocation. On a strategic scale, the commitment is about equal. Same with German vs Russian infantry: sure, the germans were better trained but the Soviets simply had more men. Same resource cost.
Differentiating by terrain is a better idea.

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 » Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:33 pm

I think both will eventually have to be done. Nation specific units is not complex. Its just more acurate to have nations buying units that played to their strengths, so Japan wont be making 50 tanks to assault moscow from the east, and Germany will buy more tanks,while a real pacific battle will be more than just a "two hit fight" (e.g. one hit on japans navy on US turn 1, with the second hit when the Japanese navy hits the bottom of the ocean once america spends more then a few IP in a given turn). The prices are cheaper to reflect not only the avalibility of resource, but also manpower availibilities. If a nation built a lot of them during the war, then they would be cheaper to make etc. Its just more fun having unit diversity so a player can pursue his own nation strategy, that may not work for another player because that second player does not have the same equipment values.
Lastly, its just more realistic not to make the units all mono, why then do we bother to have different molds? just make another lame Attack! game and open your comics from 1972 and drool over Helen of Toy games that are so adstracted that you might as well be playing milton bradleys battleship-- :cry: :cry: :shock:
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

The Old Soldier
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:10 pm
Location: Cincinnati Area USA

Post by The Old Soldier » Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:05 pm

oddman wrote:Differentiating by country seems needlessly complex to me. The German tanks were better, granted, but the Allies simply had more. It's just a question of resource allocation. On a strategic scale, the commitment is about equal. Same with German vs Russian infantry: sure, the germans were better trained but the Soviets simply had more men. Same resource cost.
Differentiating by terrain is a better idea.
I agree. Many of the difference between countries could be handled by the combining of NA with the tech tree. Germans could have a advantage in training, and or tanks, which could be a starting tech, while other nations must attempt to achieve it. American had both, industrial, planes, and or logistical advantages. Each nation could start with one advantage and or have a edge in gaining certain advantages during the game. Japan had Fanatical troop advantage, Russia had National Will, as did Britian. Just example of how you could combine different stats with tech and NAs all rolled into one simple system.

In a way this is a compromise between your views and ILs.

Sean

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 » Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:24 pm

I dont think that the abilities of a nations troops should be mixed into the "Tech problem" Only those inventions that helps a nation wage war should be included. This would simply be hardware like jet fighters or V2 . The idea of say japan having better troops should not be mixed into the tech tree. All nations should have their own nation specific values at start, and possibly some of these units get an increase latter in the game to reflect some material advancement. Some rules should apply as these changes come about, but that would establish a timeline or establishing certain turn schedule, of which larry does not want (as per his posts).
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests