LHTR Step 7 - Final Revisions??

Here are the Tournment Rules for Revised Axis & Allies
User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2666
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:50 pm

Do what he says, and nobody will get hurt. :shock:
A&A Developer and Playtester

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

Yoper
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:19 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Yoper » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:52 pm

I have got a word processor, and I am not afraid to use it! :P

Craig

trihero
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:16 am

Post by trihero » Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:16 am

Will there be any fundamental balance changes planned for LHTR? I would hope so, though I'm no authority on balance at all. For instance I would like to see cheaper destroyers, heavy bombers restored to their 2 dice rolling (current LHTR form is awkward, unncessary because the total bombing limit limits bombers ability to SBR too much already). I also keep hearing that Allies have a small advantage over the Axis. Maybe that could be addressed as well without having to resort to bidding as the first and last line of defense?

And I would love to see a bit more tweaking of national advantages. The substitution of Lightning Assaults with Most Powerful Battleships, as well as other hosts of changes to the box National Advantages was a great move, but there are still some very lame/useless Advantages like Dug-In Defenders and Mideast Oil. I don't see much use in other stuff like Fast Carriers, Panzer Blitz, or the current Lend Lease that is so limited (1 land unit each from UK/US). Some NAs are quite obviously strong like the new Luftwaffe Dive Bombers and the dreaded Colonial Garrison; I would like to see NAs more balanced around some common power level so rolling for them is a viable way to go without fear of getting a crappy NA.

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Craig A Yope » Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:03 am

For instance I would like to see cheaper destroyers.
While it would be nice to have cheaper destroyer, I think the values would have to come down for attack and defense. Go to Juggernoughts proposal for adding a cruiser to the game. Interesting thoughts, but I don't see adding something like that to this game.
..heavy bombers restored to their 2 dice rolling (current LHTR form is awkward, unncessary because the total bombing limit limits bombers ability to SBR too much already).
I advocated a "roll one d6 add 1 IPC" system for the HB. That coupled with no limits. I think it would still allow for a limited attempt at a SBR campaign against Germany. That and make the normal combat number for a HB be a roll of five or less. I can live with what we have got now.
Maybe that could be addressed as well without having to resort to bidding as the first and last line of defense?
I do not see an easy way to tweak the game, in the way that I think you are looking for, so that it is balanced. Bidding is the easiest and most flexible way to balance the game, especially in a tournament setting.
And I would love to see a bit more tweaking of national advantages. The substitution of Lightning Assaults with Most Powerful Battleships, as well as other hosts of changes to the box National Advantages was a great move, but there are still some very lame/useless Advantages like Dug-In Defenders and Mideast Oil. I don't see much use in other stuff like Fast Carriers, Panzer Blitz, or the current Lend Lease that is so limited (1 land unit each from UK/US). Some NAs are quite obviously strong like the new Luftwaffe Dive Bombers and the dreaded Colonial Garrison; I would like to see NAs more balanced around some common power level so rolling for them is a viable way to go without fear of getting a crappy NA.
As for NAs, I don't use them. They are not used in tournaments and I do not care for them personally. I do not waste my already limited time trying to fix them.


We are just in the business of clarifiying the rules for use by all who play the game in tournaments and online. We are not trying to make this into a whole new game.

For something with a bit more check out this:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/ ... .php?t=705

Enjoy!

Craig

BlackWatch
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:51 am

Post by BlackWatch » Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:56 pm

trihero wrote:Will there be any fundamental balance changes planned for LHTR? I would hope so, though I'm no authority on balance at all. For instance I would like to see cheaper destroyers, heavy bombers restored to their 2 dice rolling (current LHTR form is awkward, unncessary because the total bombing limit limits bombers ability to SBR too much already). I also keep hearing that Allies have a small advantage over the Axis. Maybe that could be addressed as well without having to resort to bidding as the first and last line of defense?

And I would love to see a bit more tweaking of national advantages. The substitution of Lightning Assaults with Most Powerful Battleships, as well as other hosts of changes to the box National Advantages was a great move, but there are still some very lame/useless Advantages like Dug-In Defenders and Mideast Oil. I don't see much use in other stuff like Fast Carriers, Panzer Blitz, or the current Lend Lease that is so limited (1 land unit each from UK/US). Some NAs are quite obviously strong like the new Luftwaffe Dive Bombers and the dreaded Colonial Garrison; I would like to see NAs more balanced around some common power level so rolling for them is a viable way to go without fear of getting a crappy NA.
I concur with Craig, and would add a couple of remarks:

1) It's taken over 200 posts to sort out a minor tweak in clarifying one little aspect of the game. I have no interest in getting into marathon discussions to actually change the game.

2) There is no such thing as balancing the game. It is imbalanced, and it will always be thus - the board is asymetrical, the piece distribution is asymetrical the adavantages are asymetrical, etc. It takes a while to sort out the level of asymetry and adjust to it by way of a bid (which is a flexible adjustment, unlike permanent rule changes). I see no point in trying to change a couple of little aspects for the purpose of rebalancing.

3) If you want to try a game with different NA's - come up with a host of them, and clearly document them. Playtest them as an entire variant, then publish them. If they'll work you'll get support because you made a workable game. As an example, take a look at Cousin Joe's "Enhanced AAR rule set" - he has a big enough following to actually have it an approved variant at AAMC.

In the meantme, let's keep a fixed set of rules for the basic game, so that it can be played competitively, both on-line and at face to face events.

BW
BlackWatch

Panther
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:54 am

Post by Panther » Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:31 pm

Air Units:
When you designate that an air unit will retreat, return it to the game board battle site. It will retreat as a noncombat move when all other air units finish their moves in the noncombat move phase. Air units can retreat to any friendly territory within their total movement range. A fighter can retreat to a friendly aircraft carrier or to a friendly sea zone, as long as a carrier moves there this turn.
An anmendment should be made that also seazones qualify in wich a carrier is built in this turn.
Join one of the best Axis&Allies clubs worldwide
www.DAAK.de

trihero
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:16 am

Post by trihero » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:46 pm

National Advantages don't change basic gameplay, because they are optional. It clearly says they are optional. They are there to spruce the game up if you choose to do so. It says it's for advanced players who want some variation in the game. Historically they have already been revised in LHTR, I see no reason for them not to be tweaked further. The argument that they aren't used in tournaments is true, but I for one don't always play in tournaments either. If LHTR were not in any way about NAs, then why did LHTR fix some NAs?

I don't have the time or patience to playtest or create my own. Maybe also I'm just too stupid to make my own. I like the idea that there are already NAs written down somewhere by someone who created the game and has feedback and knowledge about WWII that I don't. I don't think that NAs are well done at all in Revised so far, but they are something to go on for optional play. There's no reason that Larry and some other brainstormers couldn't figure out some way to further refine the NAs that we have. They already have changed the NAs once (totally replaced one, even!)

Also you have to consider that we should be talking about NAs as much as possible. At least work with the ones that are already here to some extent in optional games. I started reading into the Advanced Axis & Allies forums and it says that all NAs from Revised will be there and a host of others. It only seems fair that we consider them at least for the future game which will kick ass. I like complexity in the game. I find it very ironic that there are some players who say that Larry is trying to dumb down the game with wording and such, then some of those same people say they want NAs erased from the game.

I just want to put out these questions to Larry:

What was your overall intent with NAs? Were they meant to be balanced against each other? What sort of feedback to you want from us so you can put them in Advanced with a degree of grace?

Like many people have said before, some of the NAs are still terribly balanced versus each other. They have even grown unpopular to some extent because of vocal players who say they aren't worth pursuing. Something like Dug-In Defenders can't compare in any way to Colonial Garrison. So why suggest that we can roll for them in the rulebox, when clearly they aren't equal in power and the game can be decided by 1 dice roll before the game starts?

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Craig A Yope » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:45 pm

We are clarifying a rule that is used in the basic rule set.

If you want to go about fiddling with NA's, have at it!

I haven't the time nor the inclination to dick with them.

Not to mention the fact that you could start another thread to discuss such things.

No offense meant, I just have things to do and it doesn't include coming up with new and improved NA's.

Craig

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests