ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: ALPHA +.2

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:21 pm

But not in IPCs. Remember, NOs are National Objectives. Completing the objectives should make you more able to fight a war. Once you finish one, you can focus more on the others. They are already VCs, sure. But VCs don't matter until the game is over. Until the game is over, there is lots more war to fight. This NO resembles not only German success but Russian failure and disaster.
It does not model Russian failure, because they are not effected beyond the loss of the territory, while the new occupier is rewarded far above the value of the area.

Look at Sweden. Germany gets 5 IPC which is worth more than Sweden is! And the NO is supposed to represent Iron Ore going to Germany. It could never be greater than the economic value of the nation supplying aid.
You miss the point completely. You yourself have said Larry is the one that makes the decisions. You have said it.

Now, We have people being rewarded IPCs for psychological, hegemonial, and strategic reasons. Larry has redefined NOs. They are not just about physical resources, and definitely not just about money (cash).
So if larry added Godzilla to the game we will just call this "redefined"?
You mistake what has already been designed and totally invalidate any value in coming up with CHANGES BY THIS THREAD. This thread is about what ideas can be used to improve the game, including changes to what is defined or redefined.

If you assign IPC to reward objectives and IPC represent any resources, manpower , etc... this is CASH because it is the only means to buy things to fight the war. All the things you listed are some manner of addressing and effect the income level of a player are ....CASH, whether you want to admit it or not the way they effect a player is by giving them more buying power to fight the war and buying power is a credit against resources to get more war making material.
It's not a matter of opinion. You are wrong. Don't get mad, offended or annoyed. Being wrong doesn't make you stupid, nor does it mean that other things you say are automatically wrong. It's simple. Read the NOs. It's right there in black and white. Regardless of whatever IPCs have ever been about before, NOW, regardless of your opinion, they represent a concept beyond just cash. Larry has decreed it. I would think that someone who posts as many suggestions for changing things as you do would be more receptive to changes in the definition of IPC.
Alas, this thread is about changing these notions if anything. If everything was set in stone then Theory crafting thread would have no future. Because something is already whatever you say does not mean it can't be changed. Because it can be something better does not mean the new idea is wrong and another right.

So you got this all wrong by labels like right or wrong because their are no set answers and what we have now is only an interpretation of what seems to work now. If a new idea shows itself greater then CHANGE CAN OCCUR, which is the real point of this thread.

This thread is not about "these are the rules and they are unchangeable and unmovable and their is no use in tinkering with them. because larry said so"

Sorry but thats not working and why larry asked us to come up with ideas to improve the game.
So you say NOs are too complex, but you want to add die rolls? Conceptually Germany has access to Oil. They shouldn't get rewarded?
You keep rewording what i actually say so it fits your argument. Not a good idea.

I said the current NO's have a minor issue of being a somewhat larger number of things you got to deal with. I never said they are complex. I just prefer less chrome in games and not all types of various "hey you take X, Y, and Z and you get 20 bucks, how bout it?" NO's are not complex, they are easy, but arbitrary modeling used universally in the same manner to solve every conceivable issue.

I expect different or dynamic solutions to model all the things that NO's currently do model.
So the only thing that matters in war is material? Propaganda and psychology are irrelevant?
They matter but not in any terms that this game can describe. it it was alot more elaborate it might have a national morale track that effects the VC conditions.

The OOB solution is to universally use the SAME exact fix for many different problems, which is IPC and that is not the way to go. Rather various means of what this entails should have different effects on players.

Examples have been posted earlier on how to do this.
Please. This needs to exist just to try make sealion viable. It's been stated in multiple threads that taking UK doesn't last very long and that if Germany goes Sealion, they are in trouble from Russia
Please. so you say Germany is going to attack UK to claim 5 IPC? NO. It means that Germany is going to possibly invade UK in order to knock them out of the game. The NO is a complete waste. Sealion is not much less viable due to some set up changes.

If anybody actually made a decision to take UK so they can score 5 IPC and NOT anything else, they are not good players.
That really only adds complexity and time. The allies would need to decide how to split up the IPC loss, which sometimes takes a minute or two, rather than a nearly instantaneous 1, 2, 3 counting. If you're gonna argue to change nearly everything, it helps not to contradict the ideas of quicker games and simpler NOs that you presented only hours earlier
I guess you don't play AAE then? The rule does not add time to the game. Its simple. Usually its not Russia that pays, so UK does. When it happens more than once they usually already have a standard effect in mind.

Anyway the idea of the rule is what i'm after. IN global 1940 the original controlling player would just suffer an additional loss, which is UK...so no arguments. UK loses if the middle east oil is cut off from allies. Soviets already got oil in Caucasus and would have a different effect for this.

UK: Persia, Middle east
Soviets: Caucasus
Germany and Italy: Romania
Japan: DEI, Borneo

see easy.
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...

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:07 pm

OK continuation of reply:

National Objectives
I think the NO are pretty good as they are in .2. The idea for the cash model was deferred to as PR and national prestige which makes countries work harder and such, which would give production a boost. I appreciate what they try to do without making the game even more complicated. Most player can understand a +5 income for 5/7 islands in a group. As long as the game takes to play, I don’t want to add time to it. Changing the NOs to more specific bonuses like extra defense, cheaper production of a specific unit, etc. would only be lost in the shuffle during a game. Checking the NOs once per turn during Collect Income is manageable. I’d hate to have to check a reference chart every time I purchased, moved, and rolled for attack or defense due to some country-specific NO. Beyond straight money, any NO that’s more specific has more of a “House rules” feel to them.

I am not arguing about them being complicated, but just that they take every issue and apply the methodology of solving them with the same answer. ( they fix every unique modeling problem with the same solution).

I don't advocate a cheaper unit solution, but i do advocate different historical modeling to solve different problems, while others could just be eliminated.

Everything is being 'fixed' with the same solution...CASH REWARD. Id like a solution that does not involve "giving money to play so he can buy more stuff" which is what every NO is doing.

I advocate less is more approach. Some of the NO's can stay, but most should be changed and the ones that are decent should be reduced and not this 5,10,15 IPC solution. Whats wrong with 1,2, 3, and 4?

Some nations can effectively double their income, but compared to the actual IPC value in IPC, you could gain double the income in these bonuses because they are too much.

I feel the same about National Advantages. While they all sound nice, checking every countries NA every turn before I move, attack, etc. would be very cumbersome. Part of what makes the game so appealing is the universally applied attributes and costs of units, barring development.
NO sire. NA's were quickly remembered because they applied to units and you use units every turn. You don't take 4 different island groups every turn. The frequency of having NA's is a much quicker study. If you are UK and the NA says your AA guns defend at 2, you will never forget that because Germany is SBR you every turn, but every turn your not taking 3 out of 4 Mideast nations.
Global feels as close to the perfect game as anyone will ever get. I want simple refinements from this point on, not added rules for the sake of history and/or complexity, or in an effort to reduce the game.
Thats fine if you believe that, but if it was then it would not require months of changes, when something like AAR or AA50 didn't require errata and many changes, because i believe that "complete game " refers to how it holds up under play and Global 1940 has had many issues. I would claim Global 1940 is the most incomplete game ever made in the AA line.


Quote:
Germany gets a surprise attack on Russia on the first turn of her attack, perhaps just the first round.


But how effective would that really be? Wouldn’t the Russian player just pull back and place a 1INF buffer in every bordering territory? The only benefit I could foresee is if they amphib Leningrad.
Russia would have a fixed and variable set up. I did say before that for neutrals this is what i favor. USA and Russia should have some fixed units in place, while others not movable, so it looks more historical when the enemy attacks.

This is consistent with how the war went. Hawaii was stocked with ships, though code breakers knew Japan was going to attack, while UK told Stalin that Germany was going to attack and Stalin left every army in place ... to get mauled.

Quote:
Remove the OOB rule that if you attack a pure neutral the entire world of pure neutrals are now at war with you. Remove this domino effect in the game.


Sounds like a house rule to me. But I do agree, with the current domino effect, strict neutrals are never attacked, which eliminates some fun possibilities.
Yes it gives players less options, but their is nothing wrong with a house rule being a standard rule.

Quote:
If Japan loses DEI they suffer income loss

If Soviets lose Caucasus they suffer income loss.

This forces players to try to get it back. IN the game players are busy trying to turn on all the bonus and not necessarily fight over them because their are so many to go around, conflict is minimal.


It feels like you don’t care for the longer duration of Global play. Perhaps AA50 is the right length for you? I love the current amounts of money, which while that does make the game last longer, it also leads to more epic battles and allows for the pricier units to come out for larger naval battles. If NO only subtracted money, we’d see less carriers, less battleships, less tanks and mechs on the board.

I don't care for 12 hour games, no. I think its wise that a version of the game that makes for a quicker play is a good thing if its possible it should be tried.
The current NOs reward you for being aggressive and attacking. I dislike ones that penalize you when you’re already losing. If Germany takes Caucus, isn’t Russia already doing badly enough? These negative NOs would make for “tipping points” that would hasten a country’s downfall. There would be no coming back for Russia, etc.
This would need playtesting, but then again this is not Rocky. If you lose the most important part of your nation you probably should not get any more chances and thats what the dice do every time you roll. if you lost a large battle you might have lost the game, so why should it be different with losing a few bucks, besides lets make an example:

Germany take Caucasus and gains 5 IPC plus VC point
Russia gains nothing but loses Caucasus
Net German gain 8, Net Soviet loss 3

net result is aggregate gain of 5 IPC

Under new system Germany take Caucasus and gains 3 IPC
Plus gets additional VC requirement, and Russia rolls D6 and loses average of 3-4 IPC..This income is lost and does not go to Germany.

net result is aggregate gain of 6 IPC

So you got more or less the same result but only added 3 more IPC to any player

The bottom line is you added less time to the game since these extra pieces are not buying more stuff to fight with. Russia must defend these areas but the difference is less pieces on map.

I agree that they would shorten game play, but that’s something I don’t want.
So what is the upper limit on time to play? You don't mind 12 hour games?
I disagree that making NOs negative will make players want to take territories back any more than they already do. The money game is played in absolute terms. Denying Germany a +8IC gain works out the same as trying to counter a -8IC loss as Russia. Only in the negative scenario, I’m harder pressed to actually take it back due to the diminished income.
No because you don't count income till at the end of your turn. That brings up another problem.... income should be counted at the start of your turn, not the end. Double income collection has always been a AA problem.

If you retake back you don't suffer since effects take place only after your turn ends.
I think negative NOs would lead to less fighting because there would simply be less pieces on the board.
Yes i like that, less piece density.
On every turn you should be aware of your opponents NOs and trying to stop your enemy from acquiring them. That’s what happens in our games around here. The current NOs lead to more fighting for us, not less. And with more money, the battles have a more epic feel to them.
Well thats what happens admittedly, but you know it does not effect the bottom line. You still are not effected till the end of your turn.

As for changing NOs:
Making NOs optional, i.e. taking them out if the players so wanted, would require a set-up change. The current balance of the game is somewhat dependent on the players battling it out over those extra resource territories. So if Japan doesn’t get a bonus for the DEI or being at peace with the US, they should get more units to compensate for the lack of expected income. The Russian and Japanese borders would both need to be beefed up to replace the loss of 12ICs if they are attacked by one another, etc.
Yes i think so too, but not a bad idea. we need another scenario like AA50 had.
Changing the NOs to = extra VCs.
I’m not sure that this would work. Some of the NOs can’t really be stopped. Japan can take all of the DEI if they so choose, and they’re probably going that direction anyway. They pretty much have to at some point. If they gained an extra VC, it eliminates the need to take Hawaii or Australia. I don’t think that expands gameplay, but rather narrows it. A consolidated push for India wins the game, where currently it would not.
well its just one idea, and not the only one. I think some of the one time NO's are fine, while others not really needed.
So too with any of the others. If Germany takes Caucus and eliminates the Russian player, it won’t matter if they lose Paris or Italy doesn’t take Egypt? That doesn’t make too much sense. It feels like it would play more into an “All in” strategy by Japan or Germany, and leaving the Allies with little chance of countering it.
I don't know how to answer this except with playtesting.

Quote:
1. In addition to cash NO's, it's an NO that allows that if territories A,B,C... are controlled by one side, a Strict Neutral in the area switches to be pro-one side.

The example given was if Axis controlled Syria, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Persia, and maybe a few others at the end of a round, Turkey would become Pro-Axis. There's a few others that could apply to as well.

yes sure

While I like the idea, it feels more like additional rules that would only come into play when the game is already a foregone conclusion. The Axis have enough bonuses for taking Iraq, etc. Do they really need to be given a +8inf on top of the +6ICs they get for the current NOs?

Or would such an idea REPLACE the +2ICs for oil?
Well you got one NO's which is "if Germany takes UK, they get 5 IPC" The game should also be over if that happens with the new changes of alpha 2+

I have a new idea!!

if Germany took the Caucasus, perhaps you make specific Soviet units cost +1 to reflect the oil loss?

The same would be for Germany if Romania fell. +1 cost for tanks, planes, and mech?

I like that idea alot.


Tech
No one uses Tech in the current incarnation in my group. 5ICs for a single roll? Who has that money to waste? What I LOVED about the AA50 token system was that you weren’t gambling on IF you’d get a tech, but WHEN. There should be no waste of money. And it’s still a gamble, as a tech that you don’t get for 5 rounds was wasted money.
Yes i prefer AA50 techs too.
It’s even more of a waste after reading the revised techs. Flat out, only 2-3 are worth vying for. Some are marginally useful at best. You run the risk of spending a ton of money for mediocre techs. Not worth it. However, if it was a token system, even Italy might be tempted to throw out a fiver now and again.
yes agree.
If the worry is that the US or some big-dollar power might get all the techs, let them. It’s money not spent on units, and besides, so very few of them are “game-changers” anymore. A power can only get 1 tech per turn, so I don’t see the problem anyway. As the Axis, I would rather see the US throw away 30ICs or so a Round just to get paratroopers or improved mechanized infantry.
Well i think one of the techs should be a tech that makes them cheaper or easier to obtain. I also prefer techs in categories, where they are randomly assigned into land, sea, and air, and political/economic





Quote:
It makes more sence to just balance the game first w/o them, then latter add in another layer of stuff and see how it effects the game. Appealing to the OOB setup is not wise since neither game offered a balance of forces and why we are in this predicament in the first place.
No, it doesn’t. Since NO are NOT optional in Global, there’s no way to balance the game without their inclusion.
They were balanced in AA50, why not here?

Quote:
IN fact, most people view the inclusion of NO's as more imbalance citing AA50 as a case in point. The axis had more favor with them in that game.

I disagree. NOs were awesome in AA50, added a whole lot of fun to the game, and in only one setup did it feel like the Axis was close to having the advantage.
Well in my experience 1941 with NO's is much easier for axis to win that w/o NO's
Quote:
The time it takes to play AAR or AA50 is nothing compared with Global 1940. Most AA games are under 5 hours, but can last longer. Global 40 is nothing less than a all day thing and that makes it less attractive,


I disagree here too. Every A&A game I’ve played has been a 7-8 hour affair. Unless your playgroup always does the same moves and buys, thus making it an effort in dice rolling, I don't see how it could be 5 hours. Or perhaps a new player was given a key power with no guidance and makes some rookie mistakes taht speed up the game. Maybe we just drink too much when we play. Lol.
the point is not how many hours it takes to play, but the acknowledgment that Global 1940 is a MUCH LONGER GAME THAN ANYTHING BEFORE IT.

Quote:
Because the game w/o NO's can lead to a shorter game and alot of people do not prefer a 8-12 hour game.

Then you shouldn’t play Global. Don’t change the rules because you’re trying to make this game something it wasn’t meant to be. I have no problem with a 12+ hour game. Optional rules for shorter game play are fine, but they should NOT be mandatory. If I want a shorter game, I’ll play a different version.
I am asking for these to be optional rules so that a shorter game is possible. Right now its not at all.
I think the VC changes you propose would not shorten game play, IMO. It would lead to way too much “Wait…wait. How much is this city worth again?” And a lot of stopping and adding up the weighted costs of each city.
You are referring to my earlier post on that. Its very simple. the IPC of the marked VC area IS its point value, so nothing complicated. You just add up and divide by 10 to score the result. gain a +5 advantage as axis and you win.
IL, I think it was my idea in another thread for strat bombing to allow the defenders to bring in planes for defense if an adjacent land territory has an AB.
It is not, i designed it back in 2004 with AARHE. Thats why sometimes i need to claim my idea back, because i post it and nobody reads it, then years latter claim they invented something when they really just read my post but didn't want to admit i created the idea before. One of the reasons why i repeat myself like my idea that Italy should be neutral at start till her own turn, or that Norway is a glitch since USA can build a major factory and end the game for axis.
I’m not sure why it would include sea territories, as AB adjacent to the see can scramble against amphibs already, and planes can’t start in the seazone (unless on a carrier), and there’s nothing to strat bomb in sea zones anyway.
If you got an AB, the defending planes should be able to help out in any adjacent area no matter what.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: ALPHA +.2

Post by mantlefan » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:54 pm

Imperious leader wrote: Alas, this thread is about changing these notions if anything. If everything was set in stone then Theory crafting thread would have no future. Because something is already whatever you say does not mean it can't be changed. Because it can be something better does not mean the new idea is wrong and another right.

So you got this all wrong by labels like right or wrong because their are no set answers and what we have now is only an interpretation of what seems to work now. If a new idea shows itself greater then CHANGE CAN OCCUR, which is the real point of this thread.
OK. So it’s clear you WANT IPCs only to represent cash.

But, Looking at Alpha 2, ARE (not should be) IPCs ONLY representative of cash? It’s a yes or no question. In AA Global 1940, do IPCs only represent money? It would be really easy for you to quote the question and then type “yes” or “no” under it

(If you want that to change, fine, but If you don’t understand how it stands now, how do you have any justification to change it?)
Imperious leader wrote:
So you say NOs are too complex, but you want to add die rolls? Conceptually Germany has access to Oil. They shouldn't get rewarded?
You keep rewording what i actually say so it fits your argument. Not a good idea.
Absurd. Look what you wrote! Take responsibility for what you write!
Imperious leader wrote: I actually said it is a minor issue as to their complexity of volume.


So it goes from a minor issue to no issue at all? It’s pretty annoying how you keep changing your stance just to disagree.
You say, that (even though its minor) that NOs are too complex. Yet die rolls somehow do not add complexity? Also, why should Germany not get rewarded for gaining oil?
Imperious leader wrote:
Please. This needs to exist just to try make sealion viable. It's been stated in multiple threads that taking UK doesn't last very long and that if Germany goes Sealion, they are in trouble from Russia
Please. so you say Germany is going to attack UK to claim 5 IPC? NO. It means that Germany is going to possibly invade UK in order to knock them out of the game. The NO is a complete waste. Sealion is not much less viable due to some set up changes.

If anybody actually made a decision to take UK so they can score 5 IPC and NOT anything else, they are not good players.
Talk about misrepresenting. Where did I say the 5 IPCs are the only reason to attack England? Where!!!? Germany needs lots of help if Larry thinks sealion should be viable. The issue with sealion is that it only knocks UK out of the war for a few turns, and Germany can’t afford to reinforce it fully while fighting against the Russia that got strong because Germany went sealion. Sealion, from other people’s posts (which you clearly don’t read), is a death sentence for Germany on the Russian front often enough to give a bonus for taking London.
Imperious leader wrote:
That really only adds complexity and time. The allies would need to decide how to split up the IPC loss, which sometimes takes a minute or two, rather than a nearly instantaneous 1, 2, 3 counting. If you're gonna argue to change nearly everything, it helps not to contradict the ideas of quicker games and simpler NOs that you presented only hours earlier
I guess you don't play AAE then? The rule does not add time to the game. Its simple. Usually its not Russia that pays, so UK does. When it happens more than once they usually already have a standard effect in mind.
Actually, AAE was my first and most played game. The fact that you have UK pay the middle east IPCs and not the USA suggests that it might be you who does not play it, or at least not very well.

How can you honestly sit there and tell me and everyone else that a system of distribution that requires the cooperation and concurrence of THREE powers on how up to EIGHT IPCs are distributed is simpler than the AUTOMATIC granting of IPCs that are already tied into the NO system and about which there is ZERO room or need for discussion and cooperation? In AAE USA pays it 90% of the time, sure, but there are those times where USA has a specific buy in mind and needs UK to pay a few. UK might not always agree. He may need some convincing, or maybe a small argument will ensue.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

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

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by Imperious leader » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:38 am

OK. So it’s clear you WANT IPCs only to represent cash.
No its clear that in terms of the game the only mechanism that players have to buy or purchase units is with IPC, so it stands to reason that using the word CASH is exactly appropriate. To have a purchase phase means to exchange goods with credits. CASH is a 'marker' to indicate this.
But, Looking at Alpha 2, ARE (not should be) IPCs ONLY representative of cash? It’s a yes or no question. In AA Global 1940, do IPCs only represent money? It would be really easy for you to quote the question and then type “yes” or “no” under it
Question answered above.


Imperious leader wrote:
Quote:
So you say NOs are too complex, but you want to add die rolls? Conceptually Germany has access to Oil. They shouldn't get rewarded?


You keep rewording what i actually say so it fits your argument. Not a good idea.


Absurd. Look what you wrote! Take responsibility for what you write!
I did, read what i posted. Please stop taking things i didn't say and claim they are my arguments. I never said NO's were "hard to understand" I did say they were another layer of rules or chrome that you have to deal with and that it is a minor issue, but one that is somewhat an issue to keep track of. The rules themselves are very easy.
Imperious leader wrote:
I actually said it is a minor issue as to their complexity of volume.


So it goes from a minor issue to no issue at all? It’s pretty annoying how you keep changing your stance just to disagree.
You say, that (even though its minor) that NOs are too complex. Yet die rolls somehow do not add complexity? Also, why should Germany not get rewarded for gaining oil?

Its pretty annoying that you mistake what i am saying to make an argument based on faulty assumptions.

1)Rule itself is not complex. How easy can it be?
2)Having many various NO's is a layer of rules that you need to remember is a minor issue of dealing with.
3) Die rolls add complexity and since you are not rolling a bunch more dice in combat due to having like 40% more units on the map due to NO's, yes complexity by that definition may be increased. Good point. Having less die rolls is better and my solution allows that. If you compare all nations having to make many more rolls in combat due to all these new pieces, vs. another solution which in a few cases means money is lost to the player because he lost his crucial strategic location, what you effectively done is reduce "complexity" By your definition.

Big difference and please get it right.

Imperious leader wrote:
Quote:
Please. This needs to exist just to try make sealion viable. It's been stated in multiple threads that taking UK doesn't last very long and that if Germany goes Sealion, they are in trouble from Russia


Please. so you say Germany is going to attack UK to claim 5 IPC? NO. It means that Germany is going to possibly invade UK in order to knock them out of the game. The NO is a complete waste. Sealion is not much less viable due to some set up changes.

If anybody actually made a decision to take UK so they can score 5 IPC and NOT anything else, they are not good players.
Right so we can agree that the NO serves no purpose. If UK fell it would and ( should) be catastrophic for the allies. Actually, it should not be allowed to happen.

Talk about misrepresenting. Where did I say the 5 IPCs are the only reason to attack England? Where!!!? Germany needs lots of help if Larry thinks sealion should be viable. The issue with sealion is that it only knocks UK out of the war for a few turns, and Germany can’t afford to reinforce it fully while fighting against the Russia that got strong because Germany went sealion. Sealion, from other people’s posts (which you clearly don’t read), is a death sentence for Germany on the Russian front often enough to give a bonus for taking London.
I did not say you did. Where did you get the idea that i was? I was making a point regarding NO's using that one as an example. Sealion should not be possible and i was the first one to declare it was, when the game came out though it was not the final way that another poster discovered it being on G2, while i was looking for a G2 solution.

And please leave out your personal attacks which seem to keep creeping in your posts. I notice how your treating other posters as well and i don't like it.

Don't need "which you clearly don't read types of comments"

Again, if you don't see the merit of something stop trying to argue with people to death about it and move on. If you got a positive idea post away. Criticism can be used in a manner that is less of "Hey since you can't spell i won't respond" or "Hey lets write 20 posts dealing with what complexity means to me and you"
Imperious leader wrote:
Quote:
That really only adds complexity and time. The allies would need to decide how to split up the IPC loss, which sometimes takes a minute or two, rather than a nearly instantaneous 1, 2, 3 counting. If you're gonna argue to change nearly everything, it helps not to contradict the ideas of quicker games and simpler NOs that you presented only hours earlier


I guess you don't play AAE then? The rule does not add time to the game. Its simple. Usually its not Russia that pays, so UK does. When it happens more than once they usually already have a standard effect in mind.

Actually, AAE was my first and most played game. The fact that you have UK pay the middle east IPCs and not the USA suggests that it might be you who does not play it, or at least not very well.
But you said there would be arguments about who paid it? You said it would bog down the game because of the lengthy discussion regarding same So now you say USA is paying it and since this is what you want to say, then i guess your last point is really weak since most players do as you say ( the good ones) and just have USA pay it.

Perhaps spend less time dealing with details that have no merit in the overall discussion since they don't usually fair well for discussion purposes?

The real issue is that game is broken unless Germany has some serious restrictions ( tanks, Leningrad invasion).
How can you honestly sit there and tell me and everyone else that a system of distribution that requires the cooperation and concurrence of THREE powers on how up to EIGHT IPCs are distributed is simpler than the AUTOMATIC granting of IPCs that are already tied into the NO system and about which there is ZERO room or need for discussion and cooperation? In AAE USA pays it 90% of the time, sure, but there are those times where USA has a specific buy in mind and needs UK to pay a few. UK might not always agree. He may need some convincing, or maybe a small argument will ensue.
I am not telling you anything. In fact, i was not responding to you in that post. In terms of that referenced post, it is very clear based on the net gain in income vs. each system that losing some money is not the crisis issue that the other poster was trying to say. The example was one case where in Caucasus or Middle east either UK or Soviets would be losing money....not all three powers.

Again you didn't read it correctly and is all to anxious to just pounce on people and not even get the example right.

You are mixing two different examples that were used in different posts.

I advocate each power having one special strategic location where if it was captured would cause that player to face an income loss. It is not the case where all the players of the coalition would decide who would pay. In another post, i demonstrated the idea and referenced how they had a idea similar to it and this second example was in our discussion.
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...

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by Imperious leader » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:47 am

Forget to mention:

Technology achievement should apply on your next turn. This gives the enemy some preparation. Historically, most nations already had some information ( by way of spy's) of what was being developed.

Case in point: Jet fighters or long range aircraft used in sealion.

A possible "split the difference " for those who hate this idea, would be to have techs in categories : land , sea , air, etc and you disclose only that you have one of the techs in the category and not a specific one.

This might be a bit of a poker move, allowing the player to try to defend, but you really got a tech that he didn't prepare for. I like this bit of uncertainty, but at least its not like before where you are basically stuck and SOL.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: ALPHA +.2

Post by Caractacus » Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:06 am

[quote="Imperious leader"]Look at Sweden. Germany gets 5 IPC which is worth more than Sweden is! And the NO is supposed to represent Iron Ore going to Germany. It could never be greater than the economic value of the nation supplying aid.[quote]

Hey IL, that last comment was a bit rushed, I assume, as that simply isn't true.

I know that it seems easy enough to make a statement like that, and I agree that making enormous differences between the value to the original nation and the new owner may well not be justified, but quite frankly it isn't hard to find situations where nations had more of Resource X than their industries can or want to use, whereas other nations had the need and the capacity to use it.

Naturally, this does not apply to manpower or currency reserves/bullion etc, but to certain forms of resource, it does. I would suggest tungsten as one example, but it could also apply to nations with abundant quantities of more 'normal' resources - coal, iron and oil would be appropriate here.

I am sure you'd agree that if any or all of the DEI had been independent at the outbreak of war, that their military production shouldn't have been equal to the current IPC value...
Caractacus.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by mantlefan » Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:58 am

Imperious leader wrote:
OK. So it’s clear you WANT IPCs only to represent cash.
No its clear that in terms of the game the only mechanism that players have to buy or purchase units is with IPC, so it stands to reason that using the word CASH is exactly appropriate. To have a purchase phase means to exchange goods with credits. CASH is a 'marker' to indicate this.
Yet of course (since you never actually address simple questions), that does not answer the question. In Alpha +.2, is money the ONLY concept that IPCs represent? Yes or no? Not what word works as shorthand. In Alpha +.2, is money the ONLY concept that IPCs represent?
Imperious leader wrote: Die rolls add complexity and since you are not rolling a bunch more dice in combat due to having like 40% more units on the map due to NO's, yes complexity by that definition may be increased. Good point. Having less die rolls is better and my solution allows that.
One cruicial differerence you are ignoring:

There is a difference between adding an eniterely new type of die roll into a phase that it has never been, and tacking on a few extra rolls at 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Imperious leader wrote: Right so we can agree that the NO serves no purpose. If UK fell it would and should) be catastrophic for the allies. Actually, it should not be allowed to happen.
Why? Because you say so? Do you really want to limit strategic options because of what ended up happening in the real war? What other reasons do you have? Germany should be FORCED to go after russia immediately?? (If they are not allowed to take UK, this is what happens)
Imperious leader wrote:
Where did I say the 5 IPCs are the only reason to attack England? Where!!!?
I did not say you did. Where did you get the idea that i was?

Take responsibility.
Right here in black and white:
Imperious leader wrote: Please. so you say Germany is going to attack UK to claim 5 IPC? NO.
Imperious leader wrote: Don't need "which you clearly don't read types of comments"
Oh the severe hypocrisy:
Imperious leader wrote: I did, read what i posted.
Imperious leader wrote: But you said there would be arguments about who paid it? You said it would bog down the game because of the lengthy discussion regarding same So now you say USA is paying it and since this is what you want to say, then i guess your last point is really weak since most players do as you say ( the good ones) and just have USA pay it.
So you can ignore the next part in that post where I say USA pays it 90% of the time but sometimes needs to consult with UK.... because it hurts your argument?
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by turner » Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:52 am

Gettng back to possible changes in the NO's.
I have been thinking about this one and it seems like a good fun idea:

If Axis/Allies control 5 of 7 Pacific Islands (Don't remember which were listed and some could be changed or added to make it a better idea) Japan/USA can build Air and Naval bases on the islands (in the stated group) that they control at a cost of 5 ipc each.

So if Japan controls 5 of the islands including Guam. They can build a naval base on Guam for 5 ipc. Of if one of the islands had nothing on it they could build an air base and a naval base for 10 ipc. Anyway instead of getting IPC resources for general use, you would be rewarded with cheaper bases, bases being the historical reason the islands were fought over in the first place. This IMO gives more historical flavor and context to the game and helps to enhance the fight in the Pacific.

Speaking of Naval Bases - they seem under powered compared to Air Bases.

Air Base - scrambles planes, increases plane movement. (scrambling ability vastly improved with new scramble rules)

Naval Base - repairs capital ships, increases ship movement. (No improvements for the naval base so far.)

What if the Naval Base's AA guns fired at attacking aircraft in the adjacent sea zones? Would this bring them up to par with Air Bases? Other ideas?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests