Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
Yes, I love this. Bid is needed.
Soviets cant attack on first round???? they are already weak enough, easily the worst idea I have ever seen put forward lol
Axis can afford to make some mistakes, mess around on the periphery and recover from poor rolls or poor unit positioning early on.
But Allies cannot make any mistakes, must always be in position, and roll pretty well to prevail.
Most have used a bid to try and address this, but the whole bidding process isn't really codified anywhere. Different tournaments might use different bid restrictions for example. Nothing in this area has been forthcoming from the publishers, so people are just winging it or looking to different playgroups for guidance. The designer offered one possible solution before the big tournaments in 2018 (GenCon and Origins I think) which is the Tournament Patch with the bomber in Ukraine, +2 inf to India and Atlantic cruiser moved, -1 sub to Germany etc. People say the bid here is narrower, though still Axis advantage.
Beamdog could potentially help us here, and solidify a Bid system for Official use in A&A. It would be doing us a solid because right now there are different bid systems in use depending on where you play. For example some tournament bids limit pre-placement units to 1 per territory, others allow 2 or more bid units to be placed in the same space. Big difference there. Yet another playgroup might restrict everything to just the regular purchase phase, where you get extra money but can't add units to the board before the game begins. Others might try to alter the set up, similar to Larry's tournament patch but just with a different suggested unit distribution. Basically what we need is something standard, with some kind of official nod.
This game here, along with AAZ and the re-issue of AA50 comprise the last official products to be released by the A&A franchise. So as far as I can tell, you guys are now the arbiters of officialdom until something else comes along. If you got the line to Larry and Kevin and the publisher behind you, I think whatever scheme you adopt is likely to be formalized across the A&A landscape.
So yeah, I'd take a crack at it and see what kind of Bid system is most agreeable.
Ps. I still think a restricted opening might work here (skip movement in round 1) but I don't expect players to widely adopt that, because they are so used to the bid. I think it would reset the game pretty substantially though, and some Classic players might go for it, since it is kind of like the Russian restricted opening of Classic (referenced earlier in this thread), just applying to every nation this time. Even there though, a bid might be needed eventually if one side shows a clear advantage. I think it would take longer to determine though, because people would rework their purchasing strategies based on the larger starting purse. Still I haven't found anyone online who wants to play me under that method so maybe I'm pipe dreaming there. This was a suggestion I made to the Devs initially, and I heard they tried it out. But honestly I don't think anyone would go for this, unless it is a toggle at launch. Listed as a gameplay option, and promoted as a preferred solution. This might read something like "Option > Axis and Allies 1942 Online: Restricted Opening > No unit movement until the second round of gameplay, for all nations." It can potentially change a number of opening battles, including sz 7, sz 11, sz 17, sz 37. It also changes the counter attack potential around sz 5, sz 35, sz 53 etc. The Ukraine opener and deadzones on the eastern front would be different. Also allows players to expand their production fronts. More things than I'm able to predict, but it would be substantially different from OOB while not actually changing the unit set up cards at all. The set board would look exactly the same as vanilla in round 1, but very different in round 2.
Note: the Russian restricted opening was popular in Classic and Iron Blitz, because it was easy to understand and simple to execute. We would need something very similar if trying to promote that. In some play groups the Russian restricted opening was more extreme than others. Some would skip Russia entirely, others would skip all movement but allow collect income and mobilize, others would only skip the combat movement phase. I think for fairness in 1942.2 skip all movement would be the easiest to implement, with fewer ramifications than just skipping combat movement alone. But either style might work. Often in Classic the choice of how much to restrict Russia was based on player skill or disparity in experience, so it kind of doubled as a bid in that way. The actual bid for classic without skipping any of the Russian phases in the first round was a very sizeable bid to the Axis. Axis also had the bid in Revised (though no restricted opening alternative ever took shape with that game that I'm aware of, and far as I know the restricted opening solution hasn't been tried lately.) All games since have been Axis advantage with a bid for Allies including 1942, AA50 (1941 scenario), Global 1940, and I'm pretty sure AAZ and the more recent 1941 basic starter board, though not sure how those last two are playing in competition. But anyway, a Restricted Opening of some sort isn't totally without precedence in A&A. Might be worth dusting off that older solution for another go around?
Other options would include the stuff mentioned in the manual as optional rules: Closing sz 16, and fighter Escort/Intercept during bombing raids, which which might help the Allies in some cases. Though I don't think either are recognized as shifting the essential balance away from Axis advantage. We'd need something more.
Since there is a limit on the number of units you can place on a factory, this method encourages players to purchase unusual units. Russia would start with 48 IP's. Thats enough to buy 16 infantry, but Russia can only place 14 units, so they might want to buy 1 fighter and 12 infantry. Germany would start with 82IPs and they can only place 13 units on their factories. It created an interesting change.
First because it gives something new to everyone, not just one side. Still provides an advantage to Allies, but also giving something for the Axis player to think about (since they get some cash to play with too, instead of just having their opening nerfed).
Second because of what you mentioned above, with the limits imposed by production capacity creating more big ticket purchasing choices.
And I guess the third reason is that it requires no change to the boxed set up cards. Which just seems somehow cleaner and simpler to me, and somewhat closer to home, compared to other alternatives that change the initial set up.
It was an interesting feature of AA50 that the starting production of many territories on that board were limited compared to total income. So for example Germany only had 10 starting production, Russia only had 12 (because Moscow on that board was only worth 6 ipcs), and UK still only had 8 production (because India didn't have a starting factory.) On top of that the AA50 game used National Objectives to introduce significantly more money into play per round than the starting production for most nations could accommodate in mass infantry buys. So the result was that people starting moving up the ladder and buying more expensive units. In AA50 tanks were of course cheaper than they are here, so the result was primarily to make mass armor buys more attractive relative to mass infantry buys. But I think what you'd see in 1942.2 during the second round is a lot of different options for how players might try to cram the extra cash into their first round build considering the caps on placement. These sort of situations (where production capacity is limited but cash is high) are the ones where it may make sense to buy things like cruisers or battleships sometimes, or certainly tanks, fighters and bombers. It counterbalances the general advantage of spamming infantry and artillery in A&A when production caps aren't really a consideration.
Anyhow, if someone ever want's to try an actual match on discord or something I'm game. But I think to persuade people we'd need some games to back this up. If it does work, then having such a Restricted Opening option as a game setting would definitely help to promote that style of play, rather than just player enforced which is what you'd have to do now.
Japan and Russia start the game with a non aggression pact, that only japan can break. If japan does not attack Russia then Russia cannot attack Japan The Russo pact restricts Japan to only being able to attack Russia in the Soviet Far East and Buryatia. If Japan attacks the Soviet Far East or Buryatia then Russia can attack Japan anywhere. Japan can fight back but japan is still not allowed to enter any of the (red) Russian territories with the exception of Soviet Far East and Buryatia. So if Russia attacked Japan in Sinkiang and captured it, Japan could attack Russia in Sinkiang and take it back, but Japan could not advance further into Novosibirsk. This rule could be modified so that if Russia does attack japan then japan can invade all of Russia.
Under the Russo Pact rule, the Americans and the UK cannot enter Russian occupied territories. For example, If Russia controlled Karelia you would not be able to land American planes in Karelia. If you dropped american troops off in Finland they would not be able to move through Karelia.
The Russo Pact rule causes Japan, UK, and America to spend more time fighting in South East Asia and the Pacific; which is historically accurate.
Historically speaking, The Japanese Russo Neutrality Pact was signed in April 1941. Japan and Russia also had a war in Manchu during 1904-1905; Japan won that war but it was financial a disaster.
Also just to be clear, when I say such and such a map is Axis advantage, or Allied advantage I am only referring to the kinds of things we've seen in PvP or in tournaments for those boards, whether face to face or online. When we are talking about the AI in the current game, then its a whole different situation. But I think similar handicapping methods could be used there as well, to increase the challenge level of games where the computer is at the helm. It would be nice to have optional rules or handicaps that could be assigned to the computer, so that it plays a stronger game, or at least hobbles its way towards a playpattern that is somewhat similar to what an experienced human might do under similar conditions.
2) Japan is usually unchallenged in every version of this game, thats normal. Allies are supposed to pick a Axis target and not split their forces so that usually means Berlin. However Japan has to do a lot of things cleaning up the Pacifc early on and its a big ocean. A good Allies player can take advantage of any bad rolls and really put the squeeze on them
Soviet Union National Advantage #2 "Nonaggression Treaty : When Japan attacks a Soviet territory for the first time, the Soviet player may place four additional infantry in that territory for free. If the Soviet player attacks Japan first, this advantage is invalidated."
That's an example of a weaker sort of NAP, which isn't a strict prohibition but just provides a penalty or bonus of one kind or another. The current Global 1940 rule is pretty similar, it uses Mongolia turning Russian to try and provide a kind of deterrent. I think in Revised the penalty just becomes less consequential over time (only 4 inf units gained or lost), so I imagine Japan would probably just break the NAP sooner or later so they could break towards Moscow.
National Advantages were kind of a tricky feature in Revised, because some were much more powerful than others. Like tech, many people simply played the game without them, at least until LHTR (Larry Harris Tournament Rules) redefined some techs and rules. I'm pretty sure the concept in some form goes back to Nova, but I'm not really familiar with that one.
Here's a question I haven't thought to ask before, but which thinking about the Classic NAP just brought to mind. As I recall one reason why it might work in Classic but is trickier here, was because Classic didn't have Victory Cities, instead there was an Economic victory for the Axis team at 84 ipcs. So in theory you could still pick up cash for the Victory total in peripheral areas of the map, and might not need Russian income for Japan in order for Axis to hit 84 IPCs. Tall order but not inconceivable going that way. I wonder if there is an IPC threshold that might work for an Economic Victory in 1942.2? Clearly would be a departure, since the rules call for Victory Cities as the only way to win, but still maybe an Economic Victory for Allies that stops short of conquering Berlin or Tokyo, but where you have to hold Moscow and do everything else. Or maybe one for Axis that can be achieved without Japan in the Russian backfield?
Just a thought, curious if anyone has looked at it.
We got away from that rule and used an Accessory Rule by Maxis that was similar to Victory Cities where a nation could win by conquering specific territories. For example, japan could win by holding all of their starting territories and also conquering roughly 5 out of 7 specified territories that included Hawaii, China and India. 7 out of 9 if they attacked Russia. This led to more battles in the Pacific, because the Islands were part of the Japanese and American victory conditions. These rules were used with the first edition board and ♥♥♥-Russo NAP, yet The 1942 online version recognizes a similar format by having Victory Cities in India, Hawaii, and the Philippines.
(If i was to use the NAP in a 1942 online "total victory game," i might consider using a rule where if Japan captures India they can then attack any (starting red) Russian territory; invade moscow. haven't tried that yet.)
If you guys don't want to wait how about this for an informal bidding system: The Axis countries have to keep an amount of cash in their bank. So a bid of 5 would mean both Germany and Japan would need to keep at least 5 IPC at all times.