03-18-2004, 01:26 PM #111
Carico67
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said Drax
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @
Carico67@hotmail.com
Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67
Add Carico67 to Your Buddy List
03-18-2004, 02:15 PM #112
Red Shirt Ensign
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 191
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testify Brother
Red Shirt Ensign
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Red Shirt Ensign
Add Red Shirt Ensign to Your Buddy List
03-18-2004, 03:06 PM #113
Juggernaut
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Einstein has a point that no country ever had an ability to order all of its workers from arms industry into scientist centres to invent new weapons.
This is a silly assertion.
Of course they did: you simply stop funding in one area, and put it to another. Governments do this all the time.
Aside from money to upkeep the current army -- which is assumed doesn't make up your IPC "money" -- nations certainly could spend all their remaining revenue on supporting universities, securing foreign scientists, spying, or whatever.
The fact they thought it wasn't an efficient use of their money, and thus did not do it, is beside the point. One of the goals of the game should allow for players to think differently than the historical leaders they are assumed to represent.
Quote:
This is not "Sid Meyer's Civilisation" for PC. If something is both, ahistorical and bad for the regular flow of the game it should be abolished or limited.
First I question your original assertion that it is "bad". That's your opinion, based on a few games, based on the "threat" of immature play.
Morever, probably the majority of the game isn't historically accurate. To wit: just look at the entire combat mechanism. Who cares, its a game. The idea is not that we necessarily want to recreate what happened but to do things differently to see if we can do better!
Lastly, who's to say that if Hitler spent more resources pursuing nuclear technology instead of invading USSR, the Germans wouldn't be running all of Europe right now?
In essence, you want to impose a rule on others in order to ensure that they play out turns in line with historical accounts. I'm not sure that's a perception shared by many players. I'd argue that Japan landing troops in Africa is as much or more far-fetched than Hitler committing more funds to a nuclear arms program.
Shall we impose limitations on troop movement too?
Quote:
The problem is that such players usually aren't willing to play with the consequences. They gamble, they fail and then they concede immediatelly proposing to start the next game when they will attempt another silly idea.
Thus because a small minority wish to be childish, then new rules must be implemented to hurt everyone else?
Quote:
Anyone who vastes entire turn's production into failed research should be forced to play the game until the opposing side score the total victory.
I agree. That's my point. There is no special rule required. You simply play with honorable players. They aren't hard to find.
Overall, it seems this discussion is merely an exercise at limiting playing styles, personal ingenuity, and game dynamics with what appears to be little or no payoff among your average gaming group. Is that what we want?
As such, any such rule change is a lose lose proposition.
Juggernaut
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Juggernaut
Add Juggernaut to Your Buddy List
03-18-2004, 08:45 PM #114
DY
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,341
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein has sugested something similar to this idea, although his goes way too far IMHO (his is for an entire game turn, rather than each nation's turn).
During each nation's turn, Rocket and SBR attacks may inflict no more damage on an IC than the IPC value of the territory in which it is located.
[ March 18, 2004, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: DY ]
DY
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DY
Find More Posts by DY
Add DY to Your Buddy List
03-19-2004, 03:46 AM #115
Talonz
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 86
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Juggernaut:
Quote:
Einstein has a point that no country ever had an ability to order all of its workers from arms industry into scientist centres to invent new weapons.
Quote:
This is a silly assertion.
Of course they did: you simply stop funding in one area, and put it to another. Governments do this all the time.
Please think this through. You are falling into the same 'throw money at it' solution that so many of our governments fall into. It is ineffecient and unrealistic.
This isn't just about money. Its about infrastructure, training, staffing, materials, location, etc etc. You cannot just take X dollars from one budgeted item and expect to get X dollars worth of investment from another. This is what the game is not accounting for currently in wide open tech/unit production switches. Add to this that many of us feel this is counter-productive to a good game and it simply makes good sense to limit this. Not eliminate, but limit.
Your insinuation that such a limit removes all player choice is wrong.
[ March 19, 2004, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Talonz ]
Talonz
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Talonz
Add Talonz to Your Buddy List
03-19-2004, 07:42 AM #116
Carico67
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milford, MA
Posts: 389
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree, though not sure the philosophy would be accepted by the masses or AH guys. Einstein is right on, as is TalonZ IMO. To me limited tech ability was 1 good thing about the CD-Rom (programer error limited to 6 rolls, I don't believe it was intentional), and is a standard for many of the rulesets used by the CD and PBEM communities (try Kremlin on for size for a kick-A low-tech game sometime... Originted and designed by Kurt3852 at Spring1942 several years ago, and played throughout the A&A online community at all clubs).
Anyways, just an IMO
C2
[ March 19, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Carico67 ]
__________________
Director of Games, A&A Online World Championships.<br>Chairman, Axis and Allies Members Club.<br>For any Q's about online gaming please email me @
Carico67@hotmail.com
Carico67
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Carico67
Add Carico67 to Your Buddy List
03-19-2004, 08:16 AM #117
seer
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out this Previous thread on limiting tech.
I think it has some merit.
seer
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by seer
Add seer to Your Buddy List
03-19-2004, 10:37 AM #118
colonelkraken
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle of the Atlantic
The absence of an elegant/interesting variant for strategic naval warfare has always bugged me about all the A&A games (even the new ones with Convoy Boxes).
It seems there are quite a few people who are bothered by how "un-useful" submarines are in the new AH A&A game. Even given the Wolfpacks optional rule, many have complained about how Germany merely needs to keep subs in the Med to siphon off IPCs . . . and rightfully so.
With a game as grand strategic as A&A, it is difficult to come up with a rule/variant that is simple, elegant, and easy to implement. What you don't want are extra charts, the need for pen and paper, and complicated rules that create more hassle than it's worth for casual players.
Quite some time ago I made a contribution to Don Rae's forums about how to use the Convoy Boxes in A&A:Europe/Pacific to simulate strategic warfare. Unfortunately, those rules would be a little too "tactical", complicated, and unworkable for the new A&A, especially with the absence of convoy boxes.
So, I sat here thinking about what could be done to simulate the Battle of the Atlantic and also the US' strangulation of Japan given the grand strategic scale of A&A.
Here's what I came up with:
Quote:
Submarines can be used tactically or strategically. Tactically, you use them on the board as normal per AH rules. Strategically, you do the following:
Germany may, during Combat Movement, place subs currently on the map in the Purchase New Units box. (Notice Germany will not be able to use these subs for one turn. This simulates the "redeployment" necessary for this type of operation.) During Place New Units, Germany may elect to put any subs in the Purchase New Units box (including subs he purchased this turn) into the Strategic Warfare box. Since there is no such box, I would suggest using the sea zone labeled "South Atlantic" (I'm basing this off the map shown to us in article 13(?). I do not currently have the game.), as it seems this sea zone will not be regularly used in A&A games.
The US and UK may, during their Combat Movement phase, place Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers, currently on the map, into the Purchase New Units box. During Place New Units, these Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers (with or without Fighters: the CVs are considered to have a small compliment of aircraft. If a CV has aircraft on it, place those in the Purchase New Units box which can then be deployed on the map as normal), including those purchased this turn, may be placed into the Strategic Warfare box. These units are now considered escorts. For CVs to be considered escorts, at least one Destroyer must be present in the Strategic Warfare box.
During Germany's Combat Resolution phase, for every German sub in the "Strategic Warfare box", the UK surrenders 1 IPC to the bank. If any escorts are present, Germany must roll a die for each sub present (the dice may be rolled all at once)(without escorts, all those precious merchant ships are sitting ducks and are easy targets, thus no dice are needed). For each escort present (CVs count as TWO escorts), Germany subtracts 1 from every die. For every modified die roll of "1", Germany loses a sub. For every "6" rolled (regardless of how many escorts are present), the Allies lose one escort. For every surviving sub, the UK surrenders 1 IPC to the bank.
To spice it up, the new German Wolfpack optional rule could be: For every German sub present, the UK surrenders 2! IPCs to the bank. Believe me, the Allies will quickly want to provide escorts to their precious convoys.
Units may also be redeployed from the Strategic Warfare box. During the Combat Movement phase, the owning player places his or her units in the Purchase New Units box. They are placed on the board as new units during Place New Units.
The same strategic warfare can take place in the Pacific. The US/UK players may place subs in the box labeled "Axis & Allies" to use as the Strategic Warfare box for the Pacific. Japan may also place escorts in that box. The Strategic Warfare occurs in the same manner as in the Atlantic, except on the USA's turn for resolution.
This, to me, seems relatively simple, fun, and requires no extra book-keeping. It provides a way to make sub purchases for Germany pay off. "Normal" combat does not take place in the Strategic Warfare box because the submarines are not all really congregated in one sea zone. They are spread out across the Atlantic sea lanes. It takes time and effort to hunt down the subs in such a vast area. This also alleviates the fact that the subs are normally cannon fodder against the Allied naval presence (as has been complained about ad infinitum).
[ March 19, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Colonel Kraken ]
colonelkraken
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by colonelkraken
Add colonelkraken to Your Buddy List
03-19-2004, 11:00 AM #119
Juggernaut
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Please think this through. You are falling into the same 'throw money at it' solution that so many of our governments fall into. It is ineffecient and unrealistic.
I am hardly a believer in "spending money solves problem" -- in fact its the other way around.
However, the issue was whether governments could do this or have done this. I'm stating that they have.
Quote:
This isn't just about money. Its about infrastructure, training, staffing, materials, location, etc etc. You cannot just take X dollars from one budgeted item and expect to get X dollars worth of investment from another. This is what the game is not accounting for currently in wide open tech/unit production switches.
I don't recall saying there wouldn't be diminishing returns in your investment. However, that phenomenon shouldn't be a problem because everything else works that way too.. not just in technology.
If you want to make spending, in some ways, more "realistic", then you should at least be consistant:
Spending all your money on infantry, all on ships, all on armor, or (even saving money!!) should be prevented.
Alternatively, I'm sure you could put in some fancy mechanism to factor in diminishing returns.
But as we all know this is nonsense -- and applying it to technology is equally so.
Quote:
Add to this that many of us feel this is counter-productive to a good game and it simply makes good sense to limit this. Not eliminate, but limit. Your insinuation that such a limit removes all player choice is wrong.
I never recalled saying it removes all player choice -- but its safe to say it rules out many options.
For no payoff, that seems like a bad bargain.
Juggernaut
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Juggernaut
Add Juggernaut to Your Buddy List
03-19-2004, 11:06 AM #120
seer
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option house rule:
You can only roll upto one more die on weapons development than you did on the previous turn. (I.e. On the first turn you can only roll once. If you roll once on the first turn, then you can roll twice on the second turn. If you didn't roll on the first turn, you are limited to one roll on the second turn. It would be atleast turn four before you could roll four dice, assuming you rolled 1, 2, and 3 respectively on those turns.) You can at any time cut back spending to zero, but then you'd have to start back at one to build up again.
Counting how many you spent on research last turn is not difficult. Just place the correct number of your control markers under the industrial complex in your capital.
I also like limiting this to 6 dice in any given turn though.
results:
1. Makes German invasion of the UK harder on turn one.
2. Prevents someone from gambling an all or nothing on one turn by throwing their whole income into weapons development, and turning the tide of the game one way or the other. Either they get what they want, or they lose too much development to remain competive.
I find that number two above can most often ruin games, when one player goes "all in".
Sometimes we'll have an evenly matched game going after a few hours, and then one player who hasn't spent any money in weapons research all game will dump all his cash into weapons development. Then usually the game ends one way or the other. It's not a very fun ending to an evenly matched game.
03-19-2004, 03:49 PM #121
Juggernaut
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So for example, if getting heavy bombers would likely be the only way for a player to "come back" and win the game, you want to deprive him of the right to put most -if not all - of his resources towards it?
That doesn't seem like a very good rule -- not the like the previous "new rules" were any better.