Keep It Simple!

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

Post by elbowsanchez » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:04 am

i agree with simple, but lets look at it this way...

the concept of this "new" game implies that "we" already know how to play axis & allies *.*

complexity adds to the ruleset, but the foundation of the rules should already be known with this version...

if not, then aamb, aae, aap, aar, d-day are the games for those folks...

thus, im not asking for a war & peace size of rules, but i think we can handle 20 more pages...

just like there is D&D, with advanced D&D...look at it that way...i dont see many 12 and under here...larry has made games for those folks...its time for a more adult version, folks who can handle some advanced concepts that larry couldnt use for his other marketing target...kids...
Last edited by elbowsanchez on Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-The evil Bert & friend

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 » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:53 pm

right i second that.. dont make Advanced axis and allies simple. Just something that adds the missing ideas that were abstracted and made for the toys R us crowd.

add some new concepts:
weather
terrain
new units
new naval combat
neutrals
other scenarios
nation specific unit values
modified tech rules
political rules
nation specific victory conditions
d12 dice system
historically accurate board
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 » Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:19 pm

I have to respectfully disagree. New playing pieces, do not advance the game. It adds really nothing to the game except more of the same. I prefer instead to hone in on the things that can make the player think in a more strategic manner. Maybe I'm just not smart enough, but I do not see how more playing pieces equal a better game.

Maybe I see the pieces in a different way than others. When I see a aircraft carrier piece, I think of a carrier group with all the DDs, sub screens and other ships that would go with it. Same is true of the battleship. The DD represent dedicated ships for protection against subs, and planes (they include cruisers). The subs represent dedicated wolf packs, and convoy hunters. As for the land base pieces I see the infantry as not just foot troops but also the trucks and attached mechs along with lt. tanks and infantry guns that go along with them. Tanks are tank divisions along with the mech infantry attached to them. Artillery are the medium and large guns that operated in regiments, while planes can represent all types of aircraft needed by the high command. Bombers are large flights of planes that included the escort fighters.

Sometimes I think the players think of each type as only what they see, maybe that is the reason for more and more pieces being wanted. Even though I know most likely it will not be added, the different battle board would provide the variety without adding new units.

Whatever Larry decides, I will be fine with, but concentrating on a better map of the pacific with bases and possible air field, a more varied victory objectives and or points, a CAP system, inclusion of Italy, a way to handle combined arms with targeting, different battle board for different theatre of operations, a better tech tree or a removal of it, a removal of national advantages, or a improved one, a proper way to handle subs and thier effect on convoy routes are to me the most important things in the game. A&A is a decent game, A&AR was better, but this game could be great with the above enhancements.

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 » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:05 pm

Yes but Artillery units are "inside" of infantry/armor units and yet artillery pieces got their own mold. Anti- Aircraft guns got a mold and no nation had divisions of these guns just set up for anti air combat. But is both cases these units DO add additonal rules and complexity to the game and i doubt anybody would play the other games w/o them. So when we add a few more pieces to a 50 x 30 map we are enriching an established game with a few new "characters". Its only 3 new units so dont worry (one land, air , sea unit) complete with new rules (longer script) that will make them have impact on the overall game. Funny how you left out the other points i made about how to make the game better, and focused on the pieces again. I guess you really like second edition then? All mono molds and nothing done to make the pieces look nation specific ( except infantry)
Good just make Advanced game with one square block for land ,sea ,and air since differentiation and different pieces types add nothing to this game. I agree with you old soldier. excellent !

Battleships now can be the sole naval unit- they obviously contain cruisers, destroyers , supply ships, tankers and tug boats

Infantry are the sole land piece (only one mold-the same mold)- they contain artillery and some armor too

Fighters are the new air piece- They of course contain divebombers, torpedo bombers, and bombers, and jet fighters. They also include airlines and air transport and training planes for the pilots so they can logg in many hours of training before fighting the enemy.

In fact make the board basically ignore neutrals by not allowing anybody to move into them so we dont have to worry about them ever again.

Adding more territories to any nation will do nothing to add to the game , so just make all 6 nations just one territory that you have to fight in . while were at it dont use dice . Use the rock , paper , sissors method of combat : plane beats infantry, infantry beats boat , and boat beats plane? Excellent this new game will really be something... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
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 » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:39 pm

IL wrote: Yes but Artillery units are "inside" of infantry/armor units and yet artillery pieces got their own mold. Anti- Aircraft guns got a mold and no nation had divisions of these guns just set up for anti air combat.
If you noticed I did state that artillery represented the large divisions of medium and heavy guns found in them. As for AA, they are not combat pieces but represent the guns dedicated in stopping large raids.
Its only 3 new units so dont worry (one land, air , sea unit) complete with new rules (longer script) that will make them have impact on the overall game. Funny how you left out the other points i made about how to make the game better, and focused on the pieces again. I guess you really like second edition then? All mono molds and nothing done to make the pieces look nation specific ( except infantry
Good just make Advanced game with one square block for land ,sea ,and air since differentiation and different pieces types add nothing to this game. I agree with you old soldier. excellent !


I do like A&AR, it is a good game with a few minor problems. BTW, my answer was to ElBS. What I think is funny is why you feel you must defend or take offense at what other state is their preference. You make yourself look childish in your sarcasm of what you PRECIEVE is my view or thoughts.I think you have great ideas, I just do not think they are necessary to make a better game. I'm not saying the game couldn't have new units only I don't think they are needed.

As I mention before when I was writing this you had not posted your response yet, so I WAS addressing ElBowS. You really need to lighten up and not think every answer and post is about YOU. I do like many of your ideas. Like:
weather
terrain
new naval combat
neutrals
other scenarios
nation specific unit values
modified tech rules
nation specific victory conditions
d12 dice system
historically accurate board

So can you stop with the insults and focus on the game? I respect your opinions, so do the same. I think aldertag is rubbing off on you.[/quote]

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

Post by elbowsanchez » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:33 pm

hi TOS!

i am beginning to agree with much of what your saying...i do have to say that i wasnt for one wanting all these extra units...i thought it would be cool to have the technology units, but i guess i can buy my own if i want, and i have...

i think the main purpose of this think tank is to take all the ideas, provide them to larry, and let him decide...which he will do anyway...just because im moderator here doesnt give me any additional clout with conversations with larry, i really dont get much more than we get here...

he did send me pictures to post for him, but thats about it...

i think with a more advanced map, and other things that have been described by your post makes sense to me...

one of the things that lacks, and was described brilliantly by don moody was the navy caldrom...ie nobody will build these huge armadas to occupy sea territories if they are not worth anything...this is a game of supply and resources...

what i have found, even using Il's unit values, are basically the same senerio, allies can buy navy, axis has little or no income to afford them, even with a lesser cost...(thats what we see anyway) and its even worse with italy in the mix...

i know i will catch hell for posting this, and at the same time im eager for april 4th so we can get back to work...

i still plan on being open to all ideas, silly or not, because im a fan, and think all this is worth it to our community...

elbow
-The evil Bert & friend

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 » Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:14 pm

So can you stop with the insults and focus on the game?
there no "insults" in that post just the necessary consequence of what your ideas entail. Namely: the idea to create three additional units would not for the reasons you stated fail to add fun and "something" to the game. They in fact add alot and solve a few problems/issues that have been combined in the adstraction of the other units. For the very same reasons why Larry brought aboard destroyers and artillery, we now propose to add further units so that your forces become more differentiated as they were represented historically. I use Adlertags comic approach to make my point clear, which resulted in your defensive attitude but it was really meant to be read by people on the fence with this issue and who have not made an opinion or stated one. I wasnt really focused on you, but the general group ( griffey, you, drax and too a lessor extent moody) who all form the Anti- Piece block of this forum.
If your ideas entail that in general all the pieces have "other pieces within them", then you can make the case for not having any specific units and dont need artillery or destroyers since both are contained (or were contained in Infantry/battleships) previously. The case you present must then be extrapolated to effect any new tactical variation of units that have been proposed. So now it can argued that we dont need mechanized infantry since they are IN infantry units, and Fortification units are IN the basic defense of Land units, Torpedo bombers/ divebombers are IN fighters, while cruisers are IN battleships. Clearly we can use this form of thinking to minimize the variety of units in any wargame. However, every strategic level wargame nearly has a similiar variety of units that represented except in their case even more units showed up (paratroopers, escort carriers, SS units, partisans, battlecruisers etc.)
why cant the same be in this game? Advanced a/a has to be MORE in all levels not just rules, but components as well.
In case you missed the point, im pointing out that your own arguments to NOT make any new pieces can easilly be used to question why your comfortible with the pieces we allready have. The sarcasm is a good why to point out the problems with this line of thought.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

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 » Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:36 pm

what i have found, even using Il's unit values, are basically the same senerio, allies can buy navy, axis has little or no income to afford them, even with a lesser cost...(thats what we see anyway) and its even worse with italy in the mix...
ok what specifically happened in beta testing on purchases? The report will allow me to make modifications to remedy this.. Also how does italy make it worse? lastly, what total national values did you use .. perhaps the ratio od axis and allies was out of balance or the map had features that allowed one side or another to take IP quicker, which would be a contributing factor in what was built. So basically what happened?
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 2 guests