ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
Eagle
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Norway

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by Eagle » Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:40 am

turner wrote: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?
I think that a Naval Base also should represent some kind of fortification with big guns, that protect the ships at harbour. If we look at Pearl Harbour and Taranto, we see that the attacker could not use battleships because they were afraid of the big fortification guns, so they choose to use aircrafts, and that turned out to be clever.

Its two ways to do this. Let the Naval Base itself have big fortification guns inherent, and fire at surface ships in the adjacent seazone. It roll one die every round of combat, and 2 or less is a hit. Then we should ask if enemy battleships can damage the Naval Base like the Bombers do in SBR ?


The other way is, that a Naval Base allow 3 artillery units fire at ships in adjacent seazones. Just like the Airbase let 3 figthers scramble. And if the Naval Base got more than 3 damage, then no artilley may fire. I dont know how this will effect game balance, though

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

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by mantlefan » Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:52 am

Eagle wrote:Its two ways to do this. Let the Naval Base itself have big fortification guns inherent, and fire at surface ships in the adjacent seazone. It roll one die every round of combat, and 2 or less is a hit. Then we should ask if enemy battleships can damage the Naval Base like the Bombers do in SBR ?
I love this one. I was thinkikng of an NA to allow AA guns or Artillery to do this, but your version is a ton simpler, way more easy to regulate, and is just darn cool. Not with offense to anyone else's idea, but this is the best idea on the thread.

Another great one:

"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."

I would recommend though to change it to allow the power who controls the 5 at the start of their turn to build ONE air or naval base for free per turn on one of those 5 islands.

Or you could do something like allowing them to place 8 IPCs worth of units onto or next to one of the Islands.

I like a lot of the IPC NOs, but 5 IPCs isn't enough for either side to pursue this particular NOs requirements.
“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 12:32 pm

Yeah, Mantlefan my original idea was to let them place one base for free. But I wondered if 12ipc for free was too much for that NO.

If the naval base movement boost only occurred when moving from one controlled naval base to another controlled naval base then that also would encourage fighting in this area. I would say if both the naval base movement bonus, and the NO were changed then the islands would see a lot more action.
It would also make the distance from Hawaii to Japan two turns.

Eagle, good idea. What about if the shoreguns acted just like AA guns. Fire once at each ship at the beginning of the battle at a d6 roll of 1? They could even kill off a few units on Amphib assaults maybe.

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

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by mantlefan » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:53 pm

turner wrote:Yeah, Mantlefan my original idea was to let them place one base for free. But I wondered if 12ipc for free was too much for that NO.
I think you had it right the first time. That NO is pretty hard to get, and is a waste of the resources in most cases. By making it free it will encourage people to actually try to get these historically important islands.
turner wrote: If the naval base movement boost only occurred when moving from one controlled naval base to another controlled naval base then that also would encourage fighting in this area. I would say if both the naval base movement bonus, and the NO were changed then the islands would see a lot more action.
It would also make the distance from Hawaii to Japan two turns.
Yeah I definitely like the Naval base to Naval Base move. It encourages more movement, since Australia, Hawaii, and Japan are all no longer within one turn's attack. It might take longer to make an attack, but there's a lot less big fleets just sitting in one place till somone feels like attacking
turner wrote: Eagle, good idea. What about if the shoreguns acted just like AA guns. Fire once at each ship at the beginning of the battle at a d6 roll of 1? They could even kill off a few units on Amphib assaults maybe.
I think that might be a little too good for Naval Bases. I think making them part of the naval battle, where they roll at 2 every round, may be taken as a hit (which gives them 6 damage). Maybe that's too complex. I think maybe having them fire in Naval Battles or Amphibious assaults 2ish shots at 2ish would be ok and sort of similar to scrambling.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

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

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by mantlefan » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:18 pm

Imperious leader wrote:
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
IPC is any event represent what nations use to buy units, to exchange one bond, credit, or other instrument into a war making weapon since thats the only thing you have to use to get new units. An exchange of one thing to get another for all intents and purposes is CASH. Sorry you don't like it but its true.
And this comment completely ignorant of everything Larry has said has shown me once and for all that since you cannot answer a simple question without bending, misrepresenting, using non-sequitur to justify a viewpoint that is inherently inconsiderate of anyone's wishes for the game but your very own that you have nothing legitimate to contribute in any facet. If you honestly cannot see that IPCs have been redefined to include notions of psychology, prestige, and propaganda, you are beyond help. It's impossible for you to view the game as the abstraction that it is and you equate the handing of IPCs (at least in old games) to the bank to get plastic figures with handing the cash to the dealer from whom you buy the mind-altering substances with which you write your asinine posts. (If your posts are not made while under the influence of banned substances, I pity you). I have presented amazingly simple questions to move the discussion forward, but it turns out the most productive thing you have done was to call me an idiot. It's productive because now I know your ridiculously stupid, complex, short-sighted and ignorant-of-in-game-reality ideas will never be implemented in AA games anywhere near like you want. Now that I know that AA development is in very little real danger from your monumental ignorance, there’s really no need to point out the stupidity and ludicrousness of your ideas. Everything about your posts proves the worthlessness of your contributions, and I wish I would have seen that sooner. Have fun posting idiocies that only fall on deaf ears. Now that I’ve blocked your posts, I can move on and start helping this game improve rather than try to point out to you that many of your ideas, if implemented would ruin the game. The sooner everyone puts you on their ignore lists the better. I suppose until you get really out of hand and get yourself banned, you have the “right” to be here, but you’d be doing everyone a favor if you left. It’s gonna be nice now that you are on my ignore list to see threads that are not half-consumed by your absurd ideas based on a narrow and ignorant view of the game.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

Whackamatt
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:49 am

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by Whackamatt » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:30 pm

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

IL, What this doesn’t take into account is the proximity of major ICs. Any cash Russia has can be placed in Moscow, much closer to the lost fight. If they have less money, they have less to get back into the fight. However, giving Germany more money doesn’t help them prolong the fight. They have to place in Germany and truck it back. I suppose that with the new factory in Ukraine it doesn’t make much difference.

What I don’t understand is the need for a NO to represent oil at all. Having an Axis only VC for Caucus, et al implies that only the Axis need oil. Didn’t Russian benefit from it as well? Why not just increase the IC value of the oil fields? Make Caucus worth 8. If that +5 would give Russian too much money, subtract 5 from various territories. It seems unlikely that every space in Russian had some production value up in Siberia.

This would reward players for success, but make it equally damaging to your opponent. The current NOs might not do that. Germany wants it for +8. Russia might not care because it’s only -3 for them. Conversely, if Caucus was only worth 3, I personally wouldn’t waste my time going south as Germany. Blitz and take it for free, maybe, but it’d never distract me from Stalingrad.

So what is the upper limit on time to play? You don't mind 12 hour games?
I set aside a weekend to play any A&A game. And over the course of that weekend, hope to finish 2 games (or 1 Global). It’s the perfect gaming weekend. I love the evolving strategy required by the game, why would I mind if it takes 12 hours? Isn’t that 12 hours of bliss? I don’t understand the impatience with it taking so long. Are you the player constantly demanding that everyone “hurry up” so it’ll get back to your turn?

That aside, I don’t have the chance to play very often, as a whole weekend dedicated to gaming is rare, but I remember EVERY single game I’ve played because of it.

For me the upper limit is Global. If it lasts any longer than it currently does, I won’t be able to play it. If there’s another A&A game down the line with even more spaces, money, etc, I simply won’t play. I won’t vie for people to shorten the game, because I’ll still have Global. I haven’t heard any complaints from my A&A friends about how the game takes too long, and we’ve played several games so far.
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.
And I openly acknowledge it takes a long freaking time, but to me, that’s not a problem. Did you expect anything less with the sheer size of the board and total incomes generated? A shorter option would be nice, but not if it affects the current rules & set up to such a drastic degree. I personally love all the money.

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.
Sorry, IL, but two people can have the same idea independent of one another. You don’t own a monopoly on thinking about A & A here. I haven’t been on the boards since 2004. If you had the idea back then, I could care less. My friend and I came up with it on our own, without input from you. There was no intent to “steal” your idea. We just think it’s a good rule that should be included. If you agree, congrats. Did you post it on the boards first and think of it before me and my friend? Sure. I don’t’ really care. We thought of it too. Don’t discredit another person’s thinking simply because you’ve already had the same idea.

It is very egotistical to assume any A&A idea someone comes up with is really just another person stealing your ideas. I’m sure we both think about A&A a lot, and I’m pretty sure this won’t be the last time other people come up with the same ideas independently of one another.

There are better ways to state: “I had the same idea back in ’04.” Rather than claim someone is stealing from you. Should I apologize because I made a post about a rule my friend and I want included in the game because you had already thought it up 6 years ago? Clearly it didn’t stick because that rule isn’t in the game yet.

I guess I should stop trying to improve the game because you’ve already thought of everything. That’s what these kinds of statements imply.



New ideas:

TECHS:

What about techs apply on your next turn ONLY IF YOU succeed on the very first roll? Beyond that, people know what you’re trying to develop anyway. This would stop the stack some bombers, then hope for heavy/long range, spend all your money on a single turn on development, then immediately implement it.

NAVAL BASES:

I like the idea of NB giving some kind of defensive bonus in the case of an amphib. Say infantry roll higher for a turn? All attackers roll at a 1 for a single turn? It would make fortifying islands more attractive, which there is very little of at present. Leaving an INF or 2 behind will die with offshore shots alone.

What if having a NB negates offshore shots, or those offshore shots must first damage the naval base before they can take casualties? Then the attacker would also have to repair the base to use it next turn. It’s not too far fetched that a NB would take damage during an invasion.

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

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by mantlefan » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:37 pm

Whackamatt wrote: I like the idea of NB giving some kind of defensive bonus in the case of an amphib. Say infantry roll higher for a turn? All attackers roll at a 1 for a single turn? It would make fortifying islands more attractive, which there is very little of at present. Leaving an INF or 2 behind will die with offshore shots alone.
In another thread we were talking about considering naval bases to have Coastal Artillery, where, triggered by the same situations that trigger a scramble, the Naval base could fire 2 or 3 (probably 2) shots at 2 into the sea zone.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

Whackamatt
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:49 am

Re: ALPHA +.2 THEORY CRAFTING THREAD

Post by Whackamatt » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:52 pm

I'm not sure about naval shots, though. Maybe vs. the land units? If NB could hit boats, it would hurt lone transports taking islands. Although the juicy islands don't start out with any. I'm still not sold, it sounds like a rule that would mostly hurt Japan or Italy over other nations. most of the Atlantic fleets are massive with plenty of hits to absorb damage.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests