New Weapons - "Units"

What do you want to see in an advanced A&A game?
Share your thoughts... Contribute to the ultimate A&A game design.
User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:55 pm

Ok i accept this conclusion , just please accept the fact that most of the public will be amoung other things be drawn to the new units to play with, so youll want to keep in mind that the new pieces that are included can be used into the other games as well. If you stick with only 3 units , then it would be nice to know what you want so your helpers here can develop rules to incorporate them into your new game concept. Another point is the "free- style" set ups can be done in an order that wont mess up another nation . For example , Russia can set up after germany, while japan will set up before USA. Also all naval units can be placed adjacent to complexes, while a number of ships can be free to be placed adjacent from controlled islands or territories. Think of it like Stratego. This will completly make for a more incredably unlimited scope of strategy that has never been realized. Then it will be more fun on the basis of volumes of new opening theroy that will be created. Robert Fischer has created random chess where the back rank of the chess pieces is changed so that new strategy will be injected and new games will result not based on the same tired bookish chess moves . This similiar approach will inject more dynamic life into the beauty of your game. The static approach of spending 30 minutes setting up pieces definatly takes away from fun times of playing. Perhaps each nation can simutaneouly place a specific mumber of ground and air units in a territory like milton bradleys "Risk" does. And naval units placed at only ports to start. Just a thought
Free style set ups would lose all resemblance of history. I have always wanted to somewhat capture the military balance at a given historical point.
If this is your approach then why are we commanding the army only after it starts rather than a week before so we can change setups. and secondly, if we maintain the historical path justly, it should include a Russian-japanese non aggression pact so japan can follow her own course of victory w/o having to depend on Germany. This hits the topic of national victory conditions that you know im in favor of. Thanks for listening to my rant.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

WanderingHead
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:45 am

Post by WanderingHead » Fri Dec 17, 2004 1:21 am

Larry wrote:As for “double” incoming – If I can put it that way… This issue could be easily dealt with. Simply not allow players to collect income for newly acquired territories. I’m not sure this is a good idea but this would certainly reflect a disrupted economic infrastructure that a war torn territory would offer. I do think this could slow down the game and certainly make for a less aggressive game.
Repeating an idea voiced previously, collecting income AFTER purchases but BEFORE combat movement solves this with no additional bookkeeping.

I myself said that it would make the lower income side less aggressive ... but maybe it would make the higher income side more aggressive, enough to compensate and keep the game from slowing down.
Larry wrote:I also like having to pay something to re-develop the IPC value of a given territory.
Something like this should also be applied to captured industrial complexes, or even industrial complexes that have just been in a battle. The unintended consequence of the latter would be players throwing in 1 sacrificial unit to disable the complex.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:00 am

I agree with Lobos last post.
We dont need more units.
But we need better:

Sub interdiction/ commerce raid rules.

Pro-Neutrals and Neutrals from Nova edition.

Combat air patrol from "Pacific"

Terrain rules. Units in mountain territory defend at 3 or less.

Better sub rules.

We dont need free set up, but maybe a "special 12 ipc cash advantage" from Europe ?

And as Larry himself stated, we play for entertainment. That means we want to look at a nice map, where water looks like water, and land looks like land, and all plastic pieces have the same high quality as present.

Now I may be radical, but I say lets get rid off all Weapons Developement and National Advances. A&A Europe and Pacific are perfect games, lets take the best from them.

But we need 3 more units.

Blockhouse from D-day, if the player want to fortifie special territories, like Maginot Line, West Wall, Atlantic Wall, Stalin Line, Corregidor, Siegfried Line and so on.
(But the piece from D-day is too small, it should have same size as a tank)

Dive bomber/Stuka. This air unit are for carriers, and attack ships with a high factor. Now, fighters cant land on carriers.

Must abort, the price of having a big family.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:23 am

Back again, with the

ONE TO ONE UNIVERSAL RULE.

*All units can only affect one matching unit.

*No opening fire step, all units fight simultanesly.


One Anti-Air gun roll one dice (they can be stacked as other units) and one hit kill one matching aircraft.
(No more 1 AA-unit kill 7 bombers.)

One artillery increase one matching infantry in attacking.

One destroyer abort one matching submarine from submergeing.
(No more 1 DD abort 100 subs)

One Battleship shore bombard need one matching land unit in the assault.
(no more Diepperaid with 3 BB's and 1 inf.)

One carrier take one fighter.
One tranny cargo one land unit.
(not sure with this)

And for new options:

One bomber increase one matching tank in attack.
(Blitz-krieg consept, tanks working in conjunction with bombers)

One bomber increase one matching destroyer in combat against subs.
(UK's hunter-killer groups)

This will simplyfie the game, for sure, and still be close to real world.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2666
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:37 am

I agree with Lobo 95%. The only thing I'm not sure about is terrain rules. That depends on the map scale you end up with. I like the impassable areas in Revised, but I'm not sure you need to go beyond that unless the scale is smaller.

You have some interesting ideas about unit interaction, Adlertag. I agree that one destroyer should not negate several subs, but matching everything one-to-one is taking it a bit too far. One of the things that has always bothered me is that 10 infantry units can attack one all at once. There has to be a nice, simple way that the ratio of units firing on other units can be limited. Perhaps something similar to the way Attack! does it would work. Bring units into the battle in groups round by round with the rest waiting "in reserve".
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Guerrilla Guy
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Texas Baby!

Post by Guerrilla Guy » Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:56 pm

Larry wrote:Imperious leader –
6 to 10 new units is too much and with the Axis & Allies strategical scale I can’t imagine what those units could be. Think of it as needing different animal types not different colored birds of the same flock.

Free style set ups would lose all resemblance of history. I have always wanted to somewhat capture the military balance at a given historical point. I don’t want to lose this aspect. Not only that but a free style set up would take about 7 days with some people I know and play with. That would be the entire game. “Who set up the bestest?”

The submarine is an example of an over complex unit. It gives a terrible return on invested effort. I should have simplified it. I think I made the mistake of getting deep into its attack and underwater uniqueness. It should be handled with some distinctive characteristic (like all the ships do) but not as much as it presently does.

YOU GAME as you call it, is just that… Axis & Allies the way you'd like it. Everybody does that, its called house rules. Yours are quit elaborate, I must say. I’m certain it fits you and your appetite for detail to a T. I encourage you continue this. In this case there is no right and wrong. The issue is, I’m trying to design for thousands and you are designing according to you personal likes and dislikes. I see no problem here. Just different objectives. My point? My point is ... use some of you creative energy to help me design a better game. An Advanced Axis & Allies game. And remember... it's not just for you.
Actually Imp Leader I agree with Larry on this one... we have to remember we "over-crazy-add-everything" Grognards comprise of only half of the people that enjoy AaA... the other half enjoyed it as a game that is a little more complex then Risk (add long winded Disclaimer of your choice) and kept moving a steady rate... that is why he needs to make it more tasty instead of adding more dishes to eat from... although Larry you might want to add like Simple and Complex rulebooks and then have players choose what they want to go for... and I know you probably try to keep it at a particular price but I wouldn't mind going for a $75 + dollar game... but that is jusst me...

GG
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."

Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne

Games are like my Avatar...

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

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:55 pm

Well ther has to be some new units to be sure.. can larry posst what they are to be so we can work them into the rules rather than speculate why one type is better than another. We have to have some guidlines here so we are not pushing dirt around like gomer pyle. Three new units is fine but are they to be molded individually for each nation like europe or pacific was done? or the same mold for all nations? Plus how does Italy fit into this? Are they too forsaken as a casuality of another piece battle with management? I just want the very best effort possible, not another recolouring of pieces to make things look different.. Once we know what were working with it will be so much easier to present material and ideas rather than shooting blanks.
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...

idea for setups

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:17 pm

I just had an excellent idea on setups while watching my favorite war movie "the longest day" . Do one of two things :
1) print on the map with small icons or abbreviations what pieces are to go where (similiar to d-day)
or 2) If you dont like that asthetic, then provide a smaller paper map that we can use that does have the territories with icons showing what goes where. This paper could also be used for strategy. Perhaps the game can come out with a large pad of paper with one side being the map with the setups and the other side a log sheet so correct management of a players IPC level could occur. The old method of using tokens on a cardboard square is not as effecient due to things getting moved inadvertantly or by cheating.

So what do you think??
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest