Must Have's

What do you want to see in an advanced A&A game?
Share your thoughts... Contribute to the ultimate A&A game design.
Orillian
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

Post by Orillian » Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:27 pm

Ah, crap AH boardheads are showing up. ;)

Welcome aboard fellas! Was wonder how long it would take for you all to find your way here!

Personally I think we should worry more about trying to keep A_A&A like A&A and not making it into World at War. As interesting as World at War is...it's too dang long. Allot of the last couple ideas take WAY to much time in play terms. A_A&A does not NEED to be so complex that gamers never have a chance to play because they can't find 6 weekends in a row to go back to the same game! Keep it playable over a SAT Evening type thing. K.I.S.S.

I do agree subs need a major overhaul, and I think Larry already has some ideas for that one...as for air combat...I do not think it's necessary to make it it's own theatre. There are so few units that would be represented, it seems a waste just to add a bunch more complexity to the game. Fighters and Bombers work well inside the context of the game as they are now! They are support units for regular land & sea battles. (Even though I personally don't think bombers should be able to attack ships.)

As for stuff like the A-bomb.... every time I see people chat about it they create a game-ending tech. And in reality only ONE country should have had the option to use it. The US. Why give the Allies even ore of an advantage. And besides if you need a game that has lots of A-bombs in it go and grab a copy of Risk 2210. You can blow up large portions of the board in that game.

THE ONLY WAY you can use a tech like this is if you GIVE each country a similar GAME ending tech. That’s were using an incremental tech system that doesn't cost money at all, but represents the progression on all sides during the war to develop new technology. This tech system would give out free techs to ALL players at incremental stages throughout the game, slowly increasing the power of the tech till you had some seriously nasty stuff at the end. AT that point you can go ahead and give people A-Bombs! This automatic tech advancement system could also be toned down and simple techs could be compounded, as any tech in game no matter how small can give a player a tactical advantage.

Another option is to have a large queue of weak to average techs and players receive random techs, this is how gasp, “Attack” does the tech thing. It’s not HISTORICALY accurate, but as a game mechanic it works.

So, my way of thinking is NO A-Bombs and no Super fortresses, or any other game-ending tech like that unless you GIVE one to everybody. It's just not sound game design.

You rant I rant we all rant together! wooha!

Richard

Drax Kramer

Re: Must Have's

Post by Drax Kramer » Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:03 pm

Larry wrote:What are some MUST HAVE'S you like to see in an advanced game? For example. The game must have "Fighter Escourts."
Territories must be coloured according to 1937 (or 1939) borders.

Tanks' movement must be reduced, but with "blitzkrieg" technology, they could perform additional combat movement (and combat) if successful in regular combat.

India, Australia, China, Eastern Canada, Buryat must have industrial complexes.

There must be impassable barrier in Siberia.

Captured complexes are automatically destroyed.

AAA
No movement ability.
More than one can shoot.
Each shoots with one die only.
Is destroyed if captured.
Shoots after bombers released their bombs.

No loss of IPCs if capital is lost.

Land based fighters cannnot attack naval units.

New air unit, carrier air is tied with its carrier and can fight enemy naval units, enemy carrier air and enemy bombers.

Bombers can defend from interceptors with "Long Range fighter Escort" technology developed.

Fighters can intercept bombers.


I have more, but must cut off since the guests are coming.


Drax

Series
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:35 pm

Post by Series » Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:05 pm

Orillian wrote:So, my way of thinking is NO A-Bombs and no Super fortresses, or any other game-ending tech like that unless you GIVE one to everybody. It's just not sound game design.
With the "National Technologies" I suggested, every nation DOES get one "Ubertechnology" as I call them. I haven't worked out the UK/USSR one yet, but they are near-game-ending-techs.

USA gets the atomic bomb (it can bomb a nation to submission), Germany gets UFOs (it has enough range to SBR america with hundreds of die a turn), Japan... I was thinking Jet Kamikazes (fighters attack at 5 or less againt enemy ships, destroy themselves and a targeted ship in opening fire or something like that), or perhaps the Submarine Carriers (submarines that can carry 2 fighters each... but that may not qualify for an "ubertech", so maybe submarines that can carry 1 fighter could become a regular tech for Japan). I think that NO technology should be discovered by 1 lucky roll.

Series
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Must Have's

Post by Series » Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:07 pm

Drax Kramer wrote:
Territories must be coloured according to 1937 (or 1939) borders.

Tanks' movement must be reduced, but with "blitzkrieg" technology, they could perform additional combat movement (and combat) if successful in regular combat.

India, Australia, China, Eastern Canada, Buryat must have industrial complexes.

There must be impassable barrier in Siberia.

Captured complexes are automatically destroyed.

AAA
No movement ability.
More than one can shoot.
Each shoots with one die only.
Is destroyed if captured.
Shoots after bombers released their bombs.

No loss of IPCs if capital is lost.

Land based fighters cannnot attack naval units.

New air unit, carrier air is tied with its carrier and can fight enemy naval units, enemy carrier air and enemy bombers.

Bombers can defend from interceptors with "Long Range fighter Escort" technology developed.

Fighters can intercept bombers.


I have more, but must cut off since the guests are coming.


Drax
I agree with much of that.

Drax Kramer
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Post by Drax Kramer » Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:41 am

To continue where I stopped last night:

Battleships, aircraft carriers, transports and submarines can't shoot at submarines.

Transports can carry only single land unit.

Land units defend at +1 against amphibious assaults during the first round of battle or some other mechanism to make amphibious assaults more difficult.

All naval units are much cheaper, except for transports.

Some sort of Lend Lease rules.

Western Allied units can't finish the non-combat movement in Soviet controlled territories and vice versa.

German units can't finish the non-combat movement in Japanese controlled territories and vice versa.

Soviets do not liberate territories except for "Home Country" ones (to be colour coded). For example, Hawaii is US "Home Country", Phillippines are not. Australia is British "Home Country", Belgian Congo is not.

National advantages (adequately rewamped) are mandatory.


Drax
Drax

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:05 pm

Imperious leader - one trick in 3rd edition is to land one man and use 2 battleships to get 2 free hits. that way allies are invading france dieppe style like 12 times a game. not very realistic at all.
Good points.

Wanderinghead -
Personally, my preference is not to constrain technology research to historical accuracy. To me, that's equivalent to forcing the strategies in general to be historically accurate. I'd rather each nation have the option to do whatever it likes. Leave the freedom to explore "what if"!
I agree, but good thinking Series

Cousin_joe -
encourage an attacking agressive style
.
Good point.

Orillian Your post 41 - thanks for your comments.

Drax your post Oct 30, 1:03 & post 3 -thanks for your comments

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

Post by adlertag » Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:01 pm

Terrain rule.

Some territories must have mountains, ( Sout Europe, Balkans) or
mountain border (Germanys border to South Europe , Caucasus border
to Persia).

Attacking through mountains is of course more difficult than the plains
of Ukrain.
The combat system should be slightly different also.


1 round. Attacker use 4 units, defender use 5 units
2 round. Attacker use 5 units, defender use 6 units
and so on.
This reflects that a mountain-area have less roads to attack through
than a flat country.


Also the defenders should have + 1 to die rolls, reflecting that
mountains do favour the defender.

Thanks.

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

Post by adlertag » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:47 pm

nevermind
Last edited by adlertag on Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest