OK continuation of reply:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.