Resolving Combat - Suggestion on Cannon Fader

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
Krieghund
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:00 am

Unfortunately, I agree that unit pricing needs an overhaul. There was already an imbalance in the unit costs, and the changes in AAR made it worse. Decreasing carrier and fighter costs made battleships and destroyers all but obsolete. All you need is one destroyer per fleet to negate subs.

I don't think "tinkering" will solve the problem. I started tweaking the values and went down so many blind alleys that I ended up rewriting the combat system. (see page 4 of the New Weapons - "Units" thread). But, my goal in that was to "keep it feeling like A&A", so I did not change such basic mechanics as the unit owner choosing casualties and all units having at least some combat value.

I think that should also be the goal here - making enough changes to fix the problems, but not completely changing the game so that it loses its "A&A-ness".

(Yeah, I'm still out here, lurking in the shadows!)
A&A Developer and Playtester

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

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

Post by WanderingHead » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:16 am

Krieghund wrote:... I ended up rewriting the combat system. (see page 4 of the New Weapons - "Units" thread). But, my goal in that was to "keep it feeling like A&A", so I did not change such basic mechanics as the unit owner choosing casualties and all units having at least some combat value.
To be honest, I tried to read your rules but couldn't get through it, and certainly didn't get my head around it so that I had any feel for how it would play. At first blush, it seems more complicated than what I would prefer.

But I agree that combat should be overhauled, and I liked some of the concepts I saw you had. I would like some kind of targeting option for some units (definitely air, probably artillery [maybe only when defending] and BB), but keep it as an option with penalty for the firing player, not applied always.
adlertag wrote: I would like too see a game who reflects the cost from real world.
What does it really matter whether one piece represents one division or two? I view inf+art together in A&A as an artillery-rich division anyway. Some level of abstraction is fine.

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

Post by Drax Kramer » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:59 am

WanderingHead wrote:What does it really matter whether one piece represents one division or two? I view inf+art together in A&A as an artillery-rich division anyway. Some level of abstraction is fine.
Some rough approximation is necessary in order to have initial deployment remotely resemble WW2.

Unless designer have some picture what each unit is suppose to represent he is going to have difficult time assigning proper strentghs, costs, movement rates etc.

Such things are easy if you design game about Ghosts and Goblins, but things are different with real life objects.
Drax

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:56 am

WanderingHead wrote:To be honest, I tried to read your rules but couldn't get through it, and certainly didn't get my head around it so that I had any feel for how it would play. At first blush, it seems more complicated than what I would prefer.

But I agree that combat should be overhauled, and I liked some of the concepts I saw you had.
I am by no means advocating the "official" adoption of my system. I understand that it will not appeal to everyone (maybe not anyone!). My intent in introducing it here was to offer concepts, and I am glad you liked some of them.

My intent for the system was to combine elements of the strategic and the tactical (since some people like the tactical aspect in battles), without going to a full-blown tactical combat system and extending gameplay for hours. I agree it may seem complicated at first, but once you've rolled a couple of battles you get used to it. It also doesn't take that much longer than "normal" A&A combat.
A&A Developer and Playtester

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

Luis

Post by Luis » Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:30 am

It may sound stupid but have you guys ever played napolean in europe it would be very nice to have a combat system much like it that way besides having a strategic placment of units and movment u can even do the actual battles yourself on a battle map. Even to tehre could be diffrent ones for diffrent situations.

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

Post by Larry » Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:09 am

Comments noted

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 Jan 06, 2005 1:25 am

That game is my favorite(from Eagle games), but note that many think that the combat system is busted-this is their term not mine.. That has resulted in the game being labeled as a poor design. Im not sure what that is all about, i have played it a few times and havent really discovered the "flaw" in the rules. Many home spun rules have been made for this game.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

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

Post by Larry » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:35 am

Comments noted

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests