I apologize for going on too long & vehemently. The whole issue is very simple and briefly expressed. In a board game, long rules are anathema. New units require new rules. Game complexity increases as the square of rule length. Greater realism is better achieved through simple changes, such as to the map, e.g., at Turkey.
I'm sure Mr. Harris knows all this. Not everyone does.
Defiance wrote:Griffey, to make an Advanced game, realise that you need a certain amount of more "depth" in this game compared to Revised.
I support most of your ideas here posted, they are very good thinking, (though I haven't responded yet), I disagree on one item: you -should- drop your fight against making this game "complex"as I believe this games purpose is to make a more depth game. Otherwise people WILL be disappointed, cause there's too little difference with Revised.......
The people who want to play A&A are already the kind of "gamegeeks": they want an advanced game (just look at how many people want to make their own houserules is tremendous). There should be more expansion in this game, and I think that this all can be done while not making the game "too complex" Especially the rules should be made as short as possible, but not the gameboard for example. more territories = more stategic options and it doesn't have to make this game a very long and complex one.
You compared A&A with Chess.... I play Chess as well, and I think the current Revised edition should be closer to Chess than Advanced.
Alas, to add one sea unit like the cruiser is not going to make this game very more complex.... So I vote to include it for sure. Does it need any rules change? probably not...... so why not add it????? It completes the line of naval units.
I think that Larry wants to make this advanced game more similar/ in the direction to - Warhammer -. I hope you know what that realm of games are about.... People want to use MORE pieces on the board to recreate WWII to a more realistic sphere. People want more fighting all over the board in a strategic way. Thus you need to have a larger board with more territories and more spreadout unitss. Create clear rules & more spread unit placements (IC placements less on 1 territory but more spread) to avoid stackfests and you got yourself a game without too much complexity while still give it more depth.
One way to really make things interesting is just like in A&A Europe, give UK 6 IPC instead of 8, thus increasing the inportance to use Canada for unit placement, creates larger threat for Sealion = result in more strategy. Same goes for Japan, Russia, Causasus... If in Revised the Causasus would be worth 2 IPC with an IC, and give back those 2 IPC in some sort of "oil" things worth 2 (so total is still the same for territory control!), you restict Causasus for only 2 unit placement a turn. This would make stackfests less likely to happen: let Russia produce those massive infantries in the Urals if they go for much infantry! Another example is India: in my newest map I give it 2 IC's in Calcutta and Bombay area with each only worth 2 IPC.
I hope you see my point...
Griffey wrote:Dear Defiance, et al.,
Expansion done right will make A&A more interesting as a game, and more realistic as a model of World War Two.
Expansion done badly will make the game more lengthy, more cumbersome, and more confusing.
I'm not, for example, dead-set against having cruisers in the game. I'm just waiting to see the case made why they should be IN the game. What unique quality will they add, either to the game as a game, or to the game as a model of the war? (We may need to make a special subject of "cruisers"--I have an idea for a special use which might justify there existence.)
To say, "they were in the war," is not a sufficient argument to add them to the model, because there were an unlimited number of important things in the war which COULD be added. How about flame-throwing tanks? Minelayers and minesweepers? Naval minefields? Encryption machines? Huff-duff radio transmission finding? Commandoes? This route is seductve, but it leads to "Hearts of Iron," a huge PC driven resource application game, which is almost unplayable even on the computer.
Imperious leader wrote:Having Cruisers in the game is not on par with "encription machines" or mines. They are a major Naval unit that fills the breach between Battleships and Destroyers. They represent all battlecruisers, pocken battleships, and both heavy and light cruisers. ON Larrys sticky he has some nations with effective cruisers while other nations have less effective ships of this class . This is all based on how they fared in battle. Cruisers also carry out ASW missions, and have bigger guns than destroyers, while Battleships cannot fight subs per se. A couple of cruisers may be purchased instead of one battleship , since they have decent firepower, and can be sent on two meaningfull missions, while a Battleship is only one piece and can go to fight one battle at a time. Think of having one Mercedees AMG (combination of power and luxury), OR a 2006 Corvette and a 2005 top of the line Cadillac for the same money. You get two cars which can be assigned for different types of rides and function. If one breaks down, you can drive the second car and still get the job done.
Cruisers at 7/6/2 Cost 12, bombards land at 5.
Defiance wrote:Griffey, I feel that with the current amount of land/sea/air units in Revised compared to Advanced, I believe one should add at least one of each to give the game some more dynamic purchases and pieces compared to revised. I feel one should at least add 1 land, sea and air unit into this new game. Three extra pieces is NOT going to make this game more lengthy! Just like you wrote I don't want commandoes or mine layers etc.... But just a few core pieces like Mechaniced Infantry and Cruisers would do good.
If the Cruiser is the most logical choice to add as a naval unit (fills gap between battleship and destroyer type ships), then why not include it?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests