Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
But its true, absent that, the only thing I could think of was to somehow start skipping phases until things either balanced out, or the opening script became harder to predict so it would take at least another year or so for people to crack the standard openers. My initial thought for implementing something like this was somewhat more conservative. Just like the Russian restricted opening of Classic, there are a few approaches or levels of restriction I can see that might work. Here are the things that I imagined... It goes from more conservative to more radical the lower down on the list you go.
-Option 1. Zero Round: Skip all phases except collect income. This is the fastest, and requires the least amount of input from players. They just keep clicking 'end phase' until they've cycled through one rotation around the board.
-Option 2. Zero Round: Skip all phases except purchase, collect income, and mobilize units. No Combat Movement and no Non Combat movement phases. This encorperates some level of gameplay into the zero round via the purchasing dynamic, but is still relatively quick, because no movement takes place.
-Option 3. Zero Round: Skip the Combat Movement phase only. All other phases as usual.
This is the most radical, and involves the most gameplay during the Zero round, because it allows existing units to be re-positioned as well as bolstered via purchase.
This is only for the opening round of the game. For all intents and purposes the true game actually begins in the second round. On the physical gameboard it is helpful to think of this as a Zero round instead of the first round, but here in the A&A 1942 online game it would be the first round. Either way though, once around the gameboard for all nations, in the usual turn sequence, before the game begins in earnest.
Of these Options I think number 2 strikes a good balance, because you can't completely re-position your starting forces, and are still more dependent on the starting factory locations to develop the opener. Option 3 which is the one Julius has been enjoying is rather more dramatic. Only real issue I see with it, is that it probably means fewer TUV exchanges in the first round of actual gameplay (as players pull back to preserve their defensive positions.) I think it may make the game take quite a while longer. My first concern was Germany stacking W. Russia and winning before Allies could do anything about it, but this does pull all fighters and armor to the very front line, and Allies can still get quite a few ground/air units to the center. For fleets allowing the non com in addition to collect income, purchase and mobilize, I think means most naval battles would be pushed from the opener. Unless the starting naval units have no escape lane, or a production hub where they can park, I think most players will pull them back to take advantage of the defensive strength of fighter walls (on land or sea) and larger inf/art fodder stacks before they move stuff forward on attack. I think any of these options might work to close the gap between team Axis and team Allies, but I consider them all still largely untested. That said I would be very curious if people do play this way (which currently would be by player agreement I guess) to hear about your experience doing so.
I know it's definitely no longer the standard opener of the boxed game, but I think it might be a fun opener nevertheless and still somewhat true to the box, since you can say stuff like "Well the unit set up cards are actually supposed to correspond to something consistent, at least in Larry Harris' thinking, about the composition or distribution of the various armed forces across the globe in 1942." Like how he chose to represent those with the starting units, that's fixed, but other stuff can still enter play through the normal income/purchasing mechanics. It resets the board for sure, but in a different kind of way from the more familiar bid.
I'd be curious what strategies develop. Instead of pushing the odds on a key battle and putting the focus on combat (which is what the pre-placement bid does) it put the emphasis on the purchase phase and existing production instead. Which seems to me kind of a different slant on it. 1942 second edition has been out for a while, and the tournament bids were pretty large, so maybe something like this can be an alternative. I think players enjoy parsing out the potential new stuff that can be done with even a modest change in starting income, because buying things is just a fun part of the game. This lets everyone in on it, including team Axis, though Allies have a larger slice of the pie.
Best
Elk
Sorry, 2 questions,
Question 1 is this a suggestion as a stop gap measure while you decide exactly how more permanent balancing can be achieved, or do you guys (Beamdog) consider this to be sufficient?
Question 2, if this suggestion is indeed you guys answer to the balance issues, then is there anyway to get a refund as you can count me out!?
It needs a bid, and the Larry Harris 1942.3 patch.
How are we possibly meant to organise this agreement to not attack on turn 1 with an opposition we cant actually talk with prior if using the online match making?
Ok thanks, I was a little concerned that this was Beamdogs opinion that this was sufficient as a final solution.
Good to know you guys are considering bids and patches, Altho I do think if it was built into the game however that no combat moves take place on the first round, it could work. Infact I rather think it is a very good idea (provided its built into the game, so prior agreements are not being relied on between players.
1. R1: Budget for 6-7 units (8 is too passive) but can place up to 12 (not counting Karelia as we're considering the early game). So you inevitably have 5-6 units of production capacity unused.
2. G1: You have the budget for 13 units, and can place 13 units.
3. UK1: Normally you need to put 3 units at India to slow Japan rolling in then having a Japanese industrial complex near the frontlines that's producing three ground units to push every turn. So you normally only have 22 IPC left over for naval assets. That's really not enough to place at UK without worrying about Germany blowing up the UK navy for cheap.
4. J1: Budget for 2 transports and industrial complex. Excess air is inefficient for trading territory (Japan already has enough to trade ground with Russia when accompanied by Japanese fodder ground units), navy can't claim Russian territory, ground units just sit in Japan doing nothing. Again you're looking at a budget and effective production limits that fit that budget.
5. US1 telegraphs US2. You put your naval units out either in Pacific or Atlantic or both, then later on you can put out air to catch up with navy. But the Axis will know what you're up to, whether you're committing to Atlantic or Pacific or splitting.
6. Germany starts with more attack units than Russia. A lot more. Fighters, tanks, artillery. Sounds right, yes?
==
Now let's say you're giving everyone an additional turn of income.
1. R1 placement is 12 units instead of 6-7, because why wouldn't it be, they have a boatload of income. But instead of going crazy and buying bombers or whatever silly thing, they place up to 12 units to get an early positional advantage and save the rest to produce another 12 units next turn. So you're not talking about a R1 end of turn differential of 5 units. You're also talking about the R2 stronger counter running into an R2 placement with potentially *another* 5 units. You can see how 10 additional units in Russia plus stronger early game against Germany would make a difference.
2. G1 placement is still only 13 units at maximum. If they go crazy on tanks, well, tanks are super expensive and Russia now has a LOT of increased numbers where Germany's just traded dice for dice. German tanks could still pressure early and get some early gains with superior mobility and attack and defense as well, but inevitably it becomes a numbers game, and consider Germany can't afford to just keep buying tanks forever (tanks are REALLY expensive).
3. UK1 placement now has 53 IPC left for fleet placement while still producing the maximum 3 ground units at India to slow Japan's press into India. That's an instant fleet. Normally UK only has 22 IPC to place; depending on G1's moves Germany may be in position to easily destroy any weak UK fleet deployed. (Especially if, as in A&A Online you can't land on allied carriers which I think is a real problem but I digress).
At any rate Germany simply doesn't have the assets to blow up an instant fleet; even if it deployed a fat load of G1 air power, G1 placed fighters *still* couldn't be at the key locations of Finland and France to threaten UK naval deployment zones because there are no German industrial complexes there. So Germany would have to fight 53 IPC worth of fleet with the same assets it would normally use to fight 22 IPC worth.
4. J1 races towards India as usual, but how does that fat load of IPCs they're sitting on speed their placement? Similar to Germany's situation a lot of increased money in the bank doesn't really create a great boost in Japan's ability to get done what needs doing. It can place an industrial complex at French Indochina Burma, but then what? Manchuria? That's way out of position to pressure India, and slow to advance units into Russian territories that matter. So what then? Buy more transports? But those transports would need time to go to the outer reaches then return loaded with infantry off the isolated islands, it takes too long for transports to really get going besides which any transports going to those outer reaches could be attacked by US assets. And the US goes AFTER Japan so can react to any weaknesses in Japan's buys, especially as US has a gigantic bank now.
At any rate buying an early industrial complex doesn't help Japan's logistics much and by going crazy on tanks Japan just runs into Russian numbers that it's not ready for (besides which those tanks having to either be transported to Asia after being produced J1 (gets to the coast on J2 so loses a turn), or is produced in Asia from a J1 industrial complex (again is on the coast at J2, again slow).
So as much as Japan spends, it really doesn't speed its development in Asia much. Unlike UK and US, Japan can't just take more and more and more transports and efficiently unload multiple cost-efficient infantry per load into relevant territories; it has to get inland which takes a long time; new industrial complexes typically don't produce much and again are in bad locations that are far from the action.
For players saying "well if Japan has a LOT of transports" - well then what really? UK and US transports offloading into Africa contest income; extending transport chains and dumping into Archangel almost directly relieves pressure on crucial Russia. What's Japan going to do with extended transport chains? Invade UK? Invade US? Attack Alaska? About the best answer you can come up with for speed is chaining into Caucasus, which requires massive fleet investment, is subject to Japan's maximum production capacity, and suffers disruption in case of any US diversionary build at Pacific and/or Allied air presence as all those Japanese transports are hard to protect.
5. Then consider US. It's not establishing territory by territory control by slow pushes against logistics, nor is production capacity or placement the issue; the US's issue is building up its fleet escorts and transports to the point that it can transport cost-efficient artillery into Africa and/or Europe. All you do by giving the US an additional turn of income is jump start the heck out of that process, they lose nothing and gain everything because all they need do is establish that transport infrastructure and off they go.
6. The balance of the game depends on Germany and Japan protecting their more valuable attack assets to trade efficiently and threaten Allied naval fleets that escort transports, while pressuring Russia and its limited income / limited placement. But now you throw another whole turn of income - and not just *regular* turns of income but *starting* income that's higher for Allies than Axis, and what? The timings are all thrown off, the whole game balance is thrown off. Allies have instant power all over the map, Axis still have to fight logistics and production capacity limits and all the other things that make their situation tough.
==
And what's a solution I think works? Bids, board editor, Larry Harris alternate setup.
A. Bid. This allows players of disparate experience to play together, with weaker players potentially getting higher bids. It addresses game balance and *also* works as a handicapping system. Two solutions in one.
B. Board editor. Allows bid units to be placed on the board and IPCs to be edited. Ideally allows territories to be edited to other ownership. An extension of a bid system, but one that allows additional player controls (and players do like control). But this also works as a solution to games in which a player messes up and forgets to move something in noncombat (or whatever). Ideally war diary entries would rewind the game board state to the state it was in at the time the war diary entry was made (rather than the board state always being what the current board is) but I digress.
Anyways again, two solutions in one.
C. Larry Harris alternate setup. 2 additional infantry in India and loss of German bomber in Ukraine alter key timings.
I don't see it as more options really. Players that don't know what they're about will feel they have a world of unexplored possibilities, just like how a new Russian player might feel free to buy a battleship at Karelia or something. But inevitably game mechanics and game board structure lend to certain mechanics; taking optimal action considering those mechanics means small variance (if any).
==
Suppose I'm wrong about how the balance of the game with the proposed house rule breaks down favoring the Allies. Suppose it favors the Axis. Or even suppose there is some sort of "balance". Even that doesn't mean the proposed change ends up a change for the better in the end.
Instead of a more nuanced push and counterpush on both land and sea, and important game variations from differing results from small early crucial battles, the mass income "evens everything out" so dice are less a factor, leading to less variance, leading to more repetition. Even if I'm wrong about how the balance turns out, I'm not wrong about how the change affects the Allied logistics game, effectively skipping Axis counterplay possibilities.
Some players like repetition, myself included. But when you have games that go on for hours that are pretty much the same from beginning to end, well.
Axis and Allies 1942 Online doesn't offer the same experience as the actual board game. You can't play the game with friends online the same way you can the board game - while mostly relaxing and having a barbecue and watching an old movie or sports on television - even if Online implemented better chat and ranking and clans, the social experience just isn't the same. I think the game itself has to engage the player more, and I think the proposed house rule ends up working against that purpose once the novelty wears off and players adjust to new optimal lines of play.
1. There needs to be a way to track players experience sort of like the Star Craft or FPS games that allows people to see who they are teaming up with. This could help balance games more.
2. An in game chat where players can help others learn and communicate like when playing a board game. I have used the notes ones in there but that is a long way around it.
3. I also liked the original digital version where you could chose different game modes, options to make the game more playable/diverse for longevity of the games appeal. That could help solve some of these issues. Match maker could set these up and have a way to see in beginning in Join the game mode or have it voted on by all players once they are in the game could help decide what game to be played. More options means more variety means the longer people will stick with the game overall.
I do like the bug fixes keep that going. I do see the advantage for the Axis but usually that is heavily dependent on the experience level of the players. Novices tend to mess that up for axis but when they play as allies the game really goes easily for axis. JMO for the few games I've played on here so far. I really do enjoy the game though.