Harris Game Design Forums

I like the negating the Bombardment ability idea. Simple, adds to the naval bases abilities (which it needs something since the new scramble abilities given to air bases) and gives you another reason to buy one.

I guess you can assume the naval base has some small ships and shore guns(PT boats etc) which help to occupy the Battleships, Cruisers so they can't offer much support to the amphibing land units.

Whackamatt wrote: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.

Well Kamikazes can't hit transports, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say the shore battery can't hit them either. I think it would help Italy the most actually since they need all the help they can get protecting their navy, in the first round and beyond.

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.

Remember: you claim your income basis at the end of your turn, so you don't lose income unless you can't reclaim lost territory. Also, with the new rules restricting the major IC the defender is getting an advantage since he can get to the front faster and recover any lost ground.

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.

Some of the NO's do represent this in fact more than a few do this. I do agree that the value of the oil rich areas should have a greater value, but the map is already made. However, the roll D6 and lose accordingly each turn where you lost the most important resource areas might be a good fix. The Siberian value was the factory which got moved and were out of range of Luftwaffe.

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.

Well certainly a way to go. Id rather just find a solution that does not add alot more money and most of the NO's just do that. I do agree that the map is not done correctly,some of the Russian areas should be void of value and others get more value ( e.g. Moscow and Caucasus) due to communication/ rail network and oil.

Quote:
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?

I am glad you enjoy 12 hour games, but it would be nice to have a 4-6 hour game too and to make that optional. Some people don't have that much time. AA50 gave us 2 scenarios, so why cant global 40?

Id like a scenario that was about 12/41, so we can cut out all the "attack early" glitches and Germany would be in Russia.

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.

Well you know how it is, the new game gets played too death. The last game is what we like to play and have suit our needs. Of course i play AA50 and AA42, but think a shorter game of G40 might be a good idea too.

Quote:
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.

I was not saying you stole the idea, only i am the only one who can prove that with a public post made in 2004. Of course many people can have the same idea, but in terms of where the idea was first presented in the AA community, well that was back in 2004 AARHE. I am glad you saw this need as well. I hope the rule can be standard in G40.

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.

yes agree.

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.

Well its more than that, we made it part of our ruleset which won an award on the internet at "gone gaming awards" ( runner up) this was published back in 2004 and created by over 60 people who made it happen. Its more than just a rule a small group of people made and never declared it to the public. AARHE was downloaded like 20,000 times since 2004.

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.

ok sorry.

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.

yes thats fine, but why the adjustment? Why not have a consistent rule at all times
But i do see you want minimal impact and just to fix the turn one issues regarding sealion.

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.

Well the idea does not go far enough. Really, NB should protect ships in port from naval combat, but not planes. In terms of your proposal you want an infantry boost if the attacked TT contains a NB? I say you should not mix different types of units in assigning bonuses. NB should have an effect to defend naval units, like your +1 idea...at a minimum. or take double damage to sink ( e.g. if a BB takes 2 hits, it now needs 4 hits to sink in NB)

Remember: you claim your income basis at the end of your turn, so you don't lose income unless you can't reclaim lost territory. Also, with the new rules restricting the major IC the defender is getting an advantage since he can get to the front faster and recover any lost ground.

I realize this, but more often than not, all of your units within range are already parked on the valuable territory. There are rarely stacks of infantry behind Caucus waiting for a follow up, at best just a few stragglers that couldn’t make it in time. But the defender loses much of the advantage under the new rules by being penalized for losing territory under the suggesting NO wording.

I am glad you enjoy 12 hour games, but it would be nice to have a 4-6 hour game too and to make that optional. Some people don't have that much time. AA50 gave us 2 scenarios, so why cant global 40?

I’m glad I like 12 hour games too, or else I wouldn’t’ be able to play Global. Lol.

I think you’re asking for two different things. Or to clarify, do you feel that in AA50, playing the 41 or 42 set up led to different playing times? We didn’t experience that at all when we played. Both games last about the same amount of time, regardless of scenario. Staring in the 42 scenario didn’t mean that the Axis win faster, or in 41 that the Allies won faster.

Maybe that’s why I’m confused. To me, offering a different or alternate set up for Global wouldn’t shorten the game any.



I definitely think that NBs need some other bonus. Allowing for an extra movement is nice, but not enough for most countries to buy them. Pretty much Japan as all I’ve seen. Maybe the US cause they have money to burn. But if they were more useful for protection, then we might see more of them.

In my mind, they need to do one of these two things: make it harder to attack the land/island (attacding units rolling for less than their value for a round) or harder in the naval battle (A free two rolls at a two, or perhaps they roll a 2 every round until the attacking navy can score enough hits to disable the base.)

Make the NB a non-moving unit, in essence. Although…again, that would screw Japan in any attempt to try and take India or AUS.

HOWEVER! Making a NB a tough unit may lead to increased strategic bombing raids in an attempt to disable the base before an attack happens.

I realize this, but more often than not, all of your units within range are already parked on the valuable territory. There are rarely stacks of infantry behind Caucus waiting for a follow up, at best just a few stragglers that couldn’t make it in time. But the defender loses much of the advantage under the new rules by being penalized for losing territory under the suggesting NO wording.

Caucasus contains a factory, so taking it is gonna be a big deal anyway if they lose it. Of course now battles over these will have more meaning admittedly, but we already have used and play this way, so we do have some experience to back up my claims. I would be referring to Global 1939 which contains No NO's and has about 40 plays just from our group. Of course it has been downloaded like a few thousand times but i don't have all the info on these games.

The only difference is the oil loss is a one time thing but the dice you roll are
( dice X IPC) so in Caucasus its a one time deal of 3 dice loss from Russian income. It seems to make the flavor good since the Soviets don't want to lose this money. The good thing is it forces the German player into a more or less historical choice: go for Moscow, or try to weaken the Soviets by taking the Caucasus.

Quote:
I am glad you enjoy 12 hour games, but it would be nice to have a 4-6 hour game too and to make that optional. Some people don't have that much time. AA50 gave us 2 scenarios, so why cant global 40?
I’m glad I like 12 hour games too, or else I wouldn’t’ be able to play Global. Lol.

I think you’re asking for two different things. Or to clarify, do you feel that in AA50, playing the 41 or 42 set up led to different playing times? We didn’t experience that at all when we played. Both games last about the same amount of time, regardless of scenario. Staring in the 42 scenario didn’t mean that the Axis win faster, or in 41 that the Allies won faster.

Playing depending on many factors: no NO's or tech, weak or strong players, optional rules or not. But definatly it was shorter on average. The set time alone is like 40 minutes, plus you got all these other nation turns to deal with in separate sequences. The other thing is the number of sea zones is like double and the land areas is like 60% more, while the movement of forces didn't change, so it must take longer

Maybe that’s why I’m confused. To me, offering a different or alternate set up for Global wouldn’t shorten the game any.

I definitely think that NBs need some other bonus. Allowing for an extra movement is nice, but not enough for most countries to buy them. Pretty much Japan as all I’ve seen. Maybe the US cause they have money to burn. But if they were more useful for protection, then we might see more of them.

I don't mind if the NO's were one time events to model some political situation, but i don't like the possibility that you can constantly flip areas for the extra income. It is just the same problem as collecting income at end of turn, you constantly trade back and forth the same areas just to get that money, which in turn makes the game last alot longer. The NO's that model some aid are fine, except they are too high. The income assigned to some of these is inflated.

In my mind, they need to do one of these two things: make it harder to attack the land/island (attacding units rolling for less than their value for a round) or harder in the naval battle (A free two rolls at a two, or perhaps they roll a 2 every round until the attacking navy can score enough hits to disable the base.)

Make the NB a non-moving unit, in essence. Although…again, that would screw Japan in any attempt to try and take India or AUS.

HOWEVER! Making a NB a tough unit may lead to increased strategic bombing raids in an attempt to disable the base before an attack happens.

Yes thats what it should be, but ports should offer some measure of defense against naval attack, this could be a simple idea like "all units must suffer double damage to sink while in ports.

Also, not unlike AB, ships adjacent to ports should be able to "scramble" to adjacent sea zone is desired.

Imperious leader wrote:AA50 could be finished in under 5 hours, Global is more like 7-8 hours

HOLY COW you are fast!!

Anyway, I strongly believe that the addition of supply lines would go a very, very long way toward realism. To do so, simply trace a line of uninterrupted friendly territories and/or sea zones from one's capital to one's units. Units to which supply was successfully traced can move and attack. Those that couldn't--like being cut off in Novgorod (Stalingrad), for example--may not move (and thus can't attack).

This rule makes stable front lines as pressing a concern as it was in the real war. (It also would've saved the original A&A: Europe from oblivion.) It'll also cut way down on strangeness like the Italians marching into India, etc.

I don't like a NB giving ground units some kind of boost. A NB should have more to do with ships. Making a NB into some kind of fortification for land units just doesn't seem right to me. A NB effecting shore bombardment because of other defenses it would have seems better, or some type of shore defense (big guns) against ships seems more in line. There are many cases where they took BB/CA turrets (from disables ships) and mounted them in harbors to defend against enemy ships attacking from the sea. I'm not sure how effective it was and if you should roll multiple dice for one round, or one dice for each round or if a roll of say two is the right # etc... I think big ships coming into harbors to attack the enemy gave way to air attacks for the most part. Most naval battles happened at sea, not near harbors.

I know this is thinking a little out of the box, but how about a NB allows your BB & CA to fire an AA type shot (3 ships max). You get one round of AA fire. They don't fire at all the planes, they just fire up to 3 shots @ 1 (depending on how many BB/CA you have in the sz). I know IL has been looking for a way to get AA for these ships for quite some time, at least if they are next to a NB they would get it. You could also allow the AA type hits to be absorbed by ships, saying that it was a combo of the long range guns of the BB/CA or turrets mounted on land. In this case give a NB one of the shots (or allow an AA gun in the tt w/NB one of the shots, giving them a dual purpose), and up to 2 other shots for your BB/CA's. I think the later just complicates a fairly simple rule however.

CA should get ASW capability and a one shot AA roll at start of naval combat. One shot per CA, and not one shot per plane.

This might be a new tech for cruisers and you might even call it 'Heavy cruisers', giving the Cruiser a 2 hit capability but increasing the cost to 15.