Alpha+.1

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
The Fire Knight
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Alpha+.1

Post by The Fire Knight » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:29 am

The Fire Knight wrote:
Comments noted.
BTW... Do you know anything about France?
Do you perhap know that country suffered 483,000 deaths directly related to WWII. Will I must admit that that is less than the US (by a 1000), but when you compare the two's population - one being 41,000,000 and the other (guess which one) being 131,000,000, I'd think twice about posting a smiley face and an ignorant slam.
LH-o
Yes i actually do know a fair amount about them. And it was meant as a joke, but if you want to take it seriously then that's fine too. Also, i have a question as to why the escorts in strategic bombing raids get a first strike against interceptors. I guess it’s all depends on ones perception of how this air battle unfolds.
Imagine a group of bombers on a bombing mission. They have escorts. The escorts are in position to intervene against enemy fighters (interceptors) in an effort to keep the interceptors from doing damage to the bombers. The two pass one another (Interceptors/Escorts). Maybe they even mix it up… But remember this… One is hell bent to stop, shoot down, the other- call him the escort. The “other” is just as hell bent to get past the escort defense bearer and shoot down the bombers, their primary objective - he'd be the interceptor. Whose primary mission is not to shoot down escorts but rather to shoot down bombers and save their ICs and other facilities.

First off, this introduces possibility for beast luck from a gameplay perspective if you got all ones its like 50 ipcs down the drain for the defender and then you bomb them to oblivion.Dice? "Beast luck" can occur at any time with any game mechanic. I have lowered the hit points of both sides from their normal 3 for attacking fighters and 4 for defending fighters to 1's and 2's... that's about the best I can do. Plus, with damage being twice as much (plus the added one damage for bombers) do the attackers really need another advantage? I’m not 100% sure they do. I do know this, however, if the game mechanics governing this small aspect of the game are not made more attractive to players then the number of Strategic Bombing raids will continue to be extremely low. This would be a bad thing for many reasons. Also, from a realism standpoint it doesn't really make sense to me that attacking fighters should get first strikes. and bombers firing too at interceptors? hmmm... Sorry you feel that way. I does make sense to me, however.

LH-i

Wargamenut
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Alpha+.1

Post by Wargamenut » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:36 am

I think with the new SBR rules (specifically pertaining to escorts and interceptors), you are adding a level of complexity to the combat which doesn't exit in any other battles in the game. The game's complexity lies in the detail of the maps and the use of airbases and seabases (as compared to basic 42 ed/). I pulled out my 42 edition and we flew through a battle. I enjoyed the heck out of it because it was simple in rules. I am worried that the NOs are getting complicated as well. Just the fact that the 40 ed has NOs makes it a more complex game. I am totally for the added level of depth that the 40 eds provide but I don't want to see it go too far. To justify my perspective I will give you two examples. If you are not happy with me mentioning other product please just delete my post. Tide of Iron and Memoir 44 are two 'similar' games. The consistent message that comes from reviewers is that Memoir 44 is better because it is simpler. Then there is the age old example of chess. Simple in rules but deliciously deep. Based on some of your previous comments I believe that you tend to feel the same way about certain units (subs) having too many rules. My suggestion is simply thus, fix the balance issues but don't be afraid to say no when it comes to keeping it simple. You are the man Larry, these are your babies and at the end of the day the hardcore are gonna make house-rules anyway. Meanwhile we're gonna keep playing and someone is gonna keep complaining. Little bits of percieved inbalance can be rendered unimportant when the dice start bouncing around.
Just my thoughts.
p.s. Let me just say that Pacifc 1940 is my favourite of all. The challenge of trying to win with Japan is addictive indeed. I would really like to see this edition in a place where you are happy with it. Considering it is the oldest it should be seen to first. Unless you are happy with Alpha (for Pacific) in which case just say the word.

Carico67
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Alpha+.1

Post by Carico67 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:00 am

Wargamenut ---- don't know you, but like you already; great post.

Larry, will give you reports on the effects of the SBR system from some ongoing games soon I hope. People are complaining (some at least) that you crippled Italy, but I think those players need to think outside the box a bit. Game 1 Sea Lion test game... didn;t use POL ftr and sent him to S.ITA... now UK really has a tough choice of focus on round 1 to make. Send UK Ftr's to assist in ITA med annihilation? WHat does that leave on the homefront? When questions like those arrise in a players mind right away in the game good things are happening! Well done boss. I also have some concerns with the SBR system, but rather than complain will try to test and THEN discuss it with you :wink:

In regards to random techs, here's my opinion: I find that players who want "exact techs" really aren;t players, so much as 1 trick-ponies trying to find a way to utilize a game systems flaws for their own needs to win. Your best players can take a random tech hit, be pleased about it, and find a way to utilize it in their ongoing game strategy as an advantage tool. I'll have to really look the techs over again (book not with me) and will try to post further thoughts on the techs as they exist and costs/chips etc.
Carico67, Vice Chairman Axis and Allies Members Club (www.aamc.net)
email me for help or questions about PBEM; Carico67@hotmail.com

User avatar
questioneer
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Alpha+.1

Post by questioneer » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:07 am

Wargamenut wrote:I think with the new SBR rules (specifically pertaining to escorts and interceptors), you are adding a level of complexity to the combat which doesn't exit in any other battles in the game. The game's complexity lies in the detail of the maps and the use of airbases and seabases (as compared to basic 42 ed/). I pulled out my 42 edition and we flew through a battle. I enjoyed the heck out of it because it was simple in rules. I am worried that the NOs are getting complicated as well. Just the fact that the 40 ed has NOs makes it a more complex game. I am totally for the added level of depth that the 40 eds provide but I don't want to see it go too far. To justify my perspective I will give you two examples. If you are not happy with me mentioning other product please just delete my post. Tide of Iron and Memoir 44 are two 'similar' games. The consistent message that comes from reviewers is that Memoir 44 is better because it is simpler. Then there is the age old example of chess. Simple in rules but deliciously deep. Based on some of your previous comments I believe that you tend to feel the same way about certain units (subs) having too many rules. My suggestion is simply thus, fix the balance issues but don't be afraid to say no when it comes to keeping it simple. You are the man Larry, these are your babies and at the end of the day the hardcore are gonna make house-rules anyway. Meanwhile we're gonna keep playing and someone is gonna keep complaining. Little bits of percieved inbalance can be rendered unimportant when the dice start bouncing around.
Just my thoughts.
p.s. Let me just say that Pacifc 1940 is my favourite of all. The challenge of trying to win with Japan is addictive indeed. I would really like to see this edition in a place where you are happy with it. Considering it is the oldest it should be seen to first. Unless you are happy with Alpha (for Pacific) in which case just say the word.
Agreed, very true, I told Larry that he really didn't need HALF of this stuff to balance the game. However, the extra stuff he put in doesn't hurt the game as long as it will remain somewhat balanced- it seems to do that, though more playtests will tell. He didn't HAVE to, but he DID add the extras for the AAgamers. IMHO, he has made the game much more enjoyable. He spent the extra hours doing that just for us! A sacrifice that didn't have to be made, but did anyway. I could go on an on but you get my point...

Frankly, if you want a simplier game, play AA42 or AA50...that's what they were made for.

Larry, can you get WOTC to reprint the AA50 game??? That was a brilliant make and fairly balanced game with great rules. Maybe they could sell it as "AA Deluxe" or something. People have been demanding a reprint of that game for a while now. To me, this is the "real" base game.

Oh...and please get that one guy to remake Shogun... and add some sharks with lasers to this game... :wink:

Thanks for the AAgun change.

On tech, we may have to go that thread we had when we were coming up with the branch/tier system. I think I stemmed off of it an gave my version also...I'll have to find it. It was a long discussion though so maybe the "Alpha+1 Tech Ideas" thread should be made separately. Not a big proirity over playtesting of Alpha +1 though right now.

User avatar
Dave
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas

Re: Alpha+.1

Post by Dave » Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:34 am

Larry,

I'm a bit confuse by some of your posts about the sub pot-shot rule on transports. It IS still part of the game. Right?

In Alpha+ the following rule appeared:
2. Submarines no longer fire a special “sneak attack” shot at unescorted transports.

I pulled it in Alpha+.1... That would indicate that submarines can fire a special "sneak attack" shot at unescorted transports just as the rule presents itself in the Europe 1940 rule book (page 30) -Doesn't Block Enemy Movement

Frankly, the jury is still out on this.

I'm kind of interested in this approach (from WILD BILL).

For the sub pot shot rule why not just drop all the escort stuff and say that if a lone transport moves though a sz that contains an enemy sub it can't be ignored (allow the subs to patrol the sz). Give the sub(s) its one time pot shot (at 2) and be done with it. I would like to give the subs the option to attack all units (roll 2's) moving through. If you have three subs in a sz why can't they attack the enemy passing over? Say the UK is moving a cruiser and a transport though a sz containing 3 subs. Why would those subs just sit there and do nothing. I say in such a situation that there is no DD that you give the player controlling the subs the option to patrol the sz (roll a 2 for each sub you have at enemy ships). Make it a one round battle, giving the subs their preempt kill shot (no fire back), but surviving ships get to return fire. This wouldn't stop movement, because after the mini battle the enemy ships would continue on. You could say that a dd in the enemy fleet passing over cancel out this option for the subs. I want to discuss this with Krieghund before making any final decisions on this approach. It's not whether it's a good or bad idea... its's more about if it fits with all the other mechanics floating around.

LH-a

locke411
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:14 pm

Re: Alpha+.1

Post by locke411 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:41 am

After trying Alpha+.1, I've seen that the new SBR rules have significantly increased the value of bombing raids. Countries without the ability to get the interceptors necessary (Russia) are punished heavily. Those that can (Germany, UK) are not as harassed. In our game, if Russia wanted to keep its factories, it had to buy multiple fighters and in doing so, keep them on the factories, too far from the front. Without the escorts, the factory damage slowed them down so much, Germany had an easier time.

I'd say 1/1 repair/damage and maybe up the die roll to d6 +2 versus d6 + 1 and pay double to repair.

D6+2 - Yeah. This has potential. I'm waiting on some actual playtest feed back on the 2 IPC damage removal system before going there. Remember what we're doing here. We're trying to assure that SBRs are a (some what) appealing proposition in spite of all the risk and the return on the investment.

LH-e

MiGraine
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: EVERETT, WA

Re: Alpha+.1

Post by MiGraine » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:03 pm

I think that this is great. I like the whole rennaisance going on here.

I would like to propose something somewhat radical. I think cruisers are overpriced and are targets as opposed to fearful weapons of mass destruction I want to buy. All other ships have something special going on with them. CA's are just expensive single hit targets that can fire back and bombard.

What if....

Cruisers could behave like tac's and ftr's in a naval version of aircraft scramble?
Up to three cruisers, non engaged, adjacent to a friendly non engaged naval base, could rush on defense only to the rescue of an adjacent naval battle and be part of that batte?

What if....

this concept was supposed to represent night actions; meaning for the first combat round only, airplanes, subs, carriers, transports did not participate? 2nd round and on of the naval battle was considered normal with all units participating. However, the scrambling cruisers could break it off and withdraw back to adjacent to the naval base, after just one round of combat. Welcome Savo island off Guadalcanal at night with Japanese cruisers and other slot runs from a close naval base making a trip at night causing problems and then getting out of air range by next morning.

What if....

Cruisers, on both sides during night actions only, are allowed two hits to sink. In other words, they could be damaged and repaired like CV's and BB's; but only when that first hit was caused in a night action. Damaged Cruisers in first round lose option to withdraw after first round.

I realize that the faithful will consider this heresy; but is sure gives a reason to buy cruisers as it allows one to place expensive units at risk as they get two hits while at risk and they give a kind of zone of control influence due to this scrambling ability which enhances naval bases and cruisers. It makes one want to build a naval base at Rabaul. :wink:


hahhahaha This is some serious out of the box thinking going on here. I'm intrigued by the idea of scrambling cruisers. Not to intrigued by the night fighting separate and special rules, however. Hummmm, scrambling cruisers - certainly something to think about.
LH-a

User avatar
Infrastructure
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:29 am

Re: Alpha+.1

Post by Infrastructure » Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:56 pm

I think the cruiser fix is simpler, although not as exciting.
It is.. ..drumroll please,
Cruisers cost 11IPCs.

Thank you, thank you very much...

No, no Thank YOU, thank YOU very much... Why no trumpets?
LH-u

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests