A&A 2004 Articles: Thoughts/Questions

[Udengaard]

I have played Axis & Allies for many years, and I was excited to hear about the new version.
I have a "few" comments/questions to the articles by Mr. Selinker on the new game.

1) "First, the game's rules must be crystal clear so that it could be played in tournament format as easily as at home."

I totally agree with this.

2) "Second, the game must be expandable so that each playing would seem different."

I am not sure I understand this one.
Chess is not expandable, yet each new game is different. Axis & Allies is not that different from Chess, they are both strategy/war board games with a clearly defined set of rules, and they both use the same starting position for each new game. Why would one game need expansions and the other not?

I also don't see how this corresponds with 1).
Are you supposing that the new game will eventually get boring after say, 100 games or so? And from that point on players would have to use the optional rules to stay interested? And when the optional rules run out, the game will be dead? Then what possible future do you see for a tournament scene?

3) "Third, it must be scalable. Most people can't fathom playing a board game that lasts seven hours."

This is true, unfortunately. I also like long games (and I have played games that were much longer than 7 hours), but it probably would be better if the tendency towards multi-turn standoffs were reduced, as you say. But again, where do the "tournament version" of the game fit in on the time scale? Would the short version be the "official" game, and would 7-hour "old style" games be a variation? (I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing).

4) Artillery and Destroyer
These units seem like interesting additions to the game. Unfortunately I have never played Europe or Pacific (the games are too expensive), so I can't say in which way they tip the balance. But obviously you have playtested the new game a lot.
I will comment more on game balance later.

5) New plastic
Great idea to give each power different pieces. May I humbly suggest that you don't make them too different as this would probably confuse and disturb the overall aesthetic "look" of the game. I hope this makes sense?

6) Markers/Cards versus Blowup Boxes
While I do agree that the Gibraltar blowup box is probably expendable, the same is not true for all the blowup boxes. They were created for a necessary purpose, and not simply because there were too much water on the map (well, I don't know about the boxes in the lower right corner). It is true that some of them are never used, but some are used, and a few are used always!

For example, the "Germany" blowup box. How are you going to find room for your infantry, tanks, industrial complex, aa-gun, figthers, bombers, and artillery in the small "Germany" land area on the map? Or did you blow this one up to Europe size? And if you agree that there isn't enough space, then are you suggesting that we use the "general purpose" marshalling circles and cards intead?

This would in effect be just another type of blowup box only it wouldn't be on the board in an easy to check location, it would be floating somewhere else. You also introduced a new type of marker to the board. The whole thing hurts not only the ability for players to quickly get an overview of the battlefield but also the overall "look" of the game that I mentioned before.

I think it would be wise to keep the game on the board whenever possible (in my opinion it is a board, not a map. There is a map ON the board). This might mean that some blowup boxes should be kept, and the marshaling markers/circles should be used, not routinely, but only when unusually many pieces needs to be stacked in an unusual, small area like Gibraltar.

7) Sayonara to Capture Neutral and Economic Victory
I agree with these, and the logic is clear.

8) Game Balance
So far, you have mentioned the following changes that have an impact on game balance: New units, IPC's, and starting position. More will probably follow. It seems like an impossible task to balance a game so different from the original, which has been tested for what, 18 years? And while most players agree that the core rules favor the Allies, they do not agree how much.

Have you considered some variant of the bidding rule, that is typically used in internet games? I know it has been argued that it is too complex for a mainstream game, but it is possibly to make it simpler, and the rule is an extremely powerful balancing tool. You could make the starting position 100% historically correct and you would still get a game that is guaranteed 100% balanced for casual as well as for tournament purposes.

That's it for now.
I am looking forward to your next article, and I reserve the right to respond to it smile.gif
Until then, happy holidays.

M. Udengaard, Denmark

[Mike Selinker]

Some interesting thoughts in this post. I can't reply to all of it (I especially don't talk much about tournaments), but here's a few thoughts.

We added 30 optional rules to spice up gameplay as players start to develop tried and true strategies. I expect that people will start adding them to their home games to balance out player skill and increase the variety in their games.

We certainly aimed to make the areas where units tend to cluster as big as possible. (As Larry Harris once put it, "They sure will like this game in England.") But I've seen burdensome stacks everywhere, so the logic of using the markers prevailed. We wanted to stop training new players to look in geographically odd places for pieces. Quite often, players would forget to look in the blowup boxes, and in a tournament the courtesies of letting such a player take back a move might not apply. Now you look in front of your opponent, which is probably what you were looking at anyway.

I'm definitely not smart enough to design a bidding system before the game releases. I'm hoping one will never be necessary, because the team spent quite some time working on game balance. But in case such a system is needed, I'd expect other people than me to design it. It's not something I'd use much, but I understand why people like it.

Mike

[Darksideknight]

You can buy europe and Pacific from toys R us online for $31.95 apeice, free shipping if you order $100.00 dollars or more so if you get some freinds to chip in you should be able to afford them.

-Jason

[Udengaard]

This is the simplest bidding rule I can think of:

Each player makes a secret bid (using face down paper IPC's, or whatever). All bids are then revealed simultaneously. The lowest bidder chooses to play one of the Axis powers, and his bid is added to his starting money for the first round.

Given the scope of changes in the new version, and what seems like limited testing of them, it will almost certainly become necessary to balance the game. Bidding is an elegant way to achieve instant balance, so my guess is that competitive players will add it in the future.

[ December 27, 2003, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Udengaard ]

[mac224-2]

The latest article (#4) introduces the victory city concept. To sum up, I like it a lot.

I wonder how this will sinc with the capture of capitols. Are they now no more than glorified victory cities? No cash transfer on capture? I hope so!

The options for victory levels are going to be a great improvement.

My only beefs with the choices would be with:

1. The the choice of Manila, Philippines instead of Jakarta, Indonesia. I would definitely have chosen Indonesia as more strategically relevant than the Philippines due to it's rubber and oil production.

2. Leningrad over Stalingrad??? A poor reason (imo) was given. The game needed a shift in focus to the SOUTH of Russia where the real action took place, not the North (so Britain could get involved, where they were totally uninvolved historically?). Gah! Bad choice, it should have been Stalingrad, guys.

mac

[Mike Selinker]

Your comments were made during the decision-making too. Trust me, there were lots of persuasive arguments on all sides. At least 25 victory cities had a day in the sun.

Jakarta proved a turn 1 insta-kill for the UK. Manila was a bit of a harder nut to crack, so we went with that. Borneo and East Indies are sure to figure in that fight.

We went back and forth on Stalingrad versus Leningrad for at least a month. There will be much fighting over the complex and AA gun at Stalingrad. When the game comes out, I think you'll see why we went with Leningrad (it's hard to explain now). But it certainly was close between the two.

Cash transfer survived intact. It's an instant reward for taking a capital, which should be a very big deal. Removing cash transfer would have made this event far more pedestrian.

Nonetheless, I expect a great explosion of variants where people choose their own victory cities and victory conditions. Imagine a 1939 scenario's victory cities, for example (Prague? Honolulu?). I know I'd want to play those, anyway.

Mike

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
...There will be much fighting over the complex and AA gun at Stalingrad.

...Mike, Thank you for the reply. An Industrial Complex in Stalingrad? Cool. Now I'm somewhat mollified smile.gif

v/r
mac

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
...Cash transfer survived intact. It's an instant reward for taking a capital, which should be a very big deal. Removing cash transfer would have made this event far more pedestrian...
MikeHi Mike,
Just my 2 more cents on this topic. Rewarding a player an entire turn's production for capturing a capitol adds insult to injury. The player who lost his capitol just (probably): lost their largest army; their most critical industrical complex with large capacity is now in enemy hands; as well as an AA gun in enemy hands; their own IPC production is drastically, perhaps fatally, cut; their alliance has suffered perhaps a crippling blow. That's enough!!! Conversely, the victorious player has just *gained* all those things. Adding all the IPCs is going overboard.

Take the real-life case of Britain. If the UK had fallen in 1942 (let's say a second-turn German blitz) the UK would possibly have continued the war from the commonwealth countries. Canada, South Africa, India, and Australia would have raised new armies, produced new ships and aircraft.

In the game, if the UK falls, and all it's cash is stripped, they are limited to using the forces in play, which will be quickly destroyed and are irreplacable. If they don't have an Industrial Complex somewhere else, they are screwed, nonentities, until the Americans recapture the UK for them.

Now let's say the IPCs are not stolen and they happen to have 15 of them when the UK is captured. The next turn UK builds an Industrial Complex in India and assuming it survives, can churn out 3 units per turn there. They are still in the game, they are still "players".

Anyway Mike, those are my thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to review these boards. Even if you never ever use one idea posted here, the fact you listen is appreciated.

mac

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:

Cash transfer survived intact. It's an instant reward for taking a capital, which should be a very big deal. Removing cash transfer would have made this event far more pedestrian.Is there a point to continue to play the game once the capital is lost? It is a serious question, even if I put the historical background for such cash transfer aside.

I mean, it is to be expected that players will protect their capitals to the expense of everything else. With capital gone, so is the army that defended. With cash transfer addes, I see little reason to continue with game unless there is a dreaded "race for capitals" situation present.

If the designer's goal was for the game to keep going on (with retained possibility for the comeback) despite the loss of the capital, then some sort of milder solution should be in place. Possible solutions include but are not necessarily limited to:

1. IPCs to be transfered to the bank.

2. No new units can be built until the capital is liberated.

Drax

[Epicedion]

I'm going to agree with the Leningrad over Stalingrad decision. While Stalingrad was very strategically important, it was overinflated as a priority by the Axis. Leningrad was more important to the war than Stalingrad because Stalingrad was tucked so far away in Russia, and in the end was such a bombed out shell it was only a point of pride to either army.

That's not what I wanted to talk about, though. I wanted to discuss the Cash Transfer:

Cash Transfer is, to use an over-used cliche, a double-edged sword. It makes capturing a capitol VERY tempting. However, in virtually every game I've played it leads to the offended party throwing up his hands and saying, "that's it, game over." Especially if Germany is the country that falls. Very few players are willing to continue playing when they know that their opponent is going to crank out 6 bombers next turn (with those captured IPCs) and proceed to Strategically Bomb them out of existance for the rest of the game even if they manage to re-capture and hold their capitol.

Instead of seeing games end with epic battles to conquer and hold key territories, typically you see a game end with a sneaky move to capture Germany with one tank or a couple infantry even though the German army is still fighting strong. Why bother attacking France or Italy when you can sneak in and grab Germany's 40 IPCs?

To keep a player in the game even though his capitol has been taken, a few key revisions should be considered:

1) Cash Transfer should not be ALL of a country's IPCs, nor should it prevent a country from gaining more IPCs.

2) Cash Transfer should be limited to the IPC production of the capitol territory.

3) The loss of a capitol should not prevent a nation from building more units elsewhere. Industrial Complexes should serve as 'insurance' to keep a player in the game even if his capitol is under threat of loss.

Alternately, other ideas:

1) To get the Cash Transfer, the conquering player should have to hold the capitol until the beginning of his next turn.

2) If a player re-captures his own capitol, some or all of his IPCs should be returned to him.

In short, Cash Transfer is often just a flat, empty game-killer.

--Epicedion

[Mike Selinker]

You guys make some interesting points about cash transfer. I can say that my reason for keeping it was because I wanted a game that's heading toward conclusion to get there. That is, if your capital falls, it's really tough to turn it around, because that means the game will end sooner.

That may not be what you want, though. What you may want is to have it not be so decisive, so you get a greater likelihood of a comeback. Under those circumstances, you might want to eliminate it, and I'd encourage you to do so.

On a related note, it might be cool to keep a list of on-off toggles players could pull to cause certain results (e.g., "For a less swingy game, turn off weapons development"). Cash transfer would definitely go on that list.

Mike

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
[QB]You guys make some interesting points about cash transfer. I can say that my reason for keeping it was because I wanted a game that's heading toward conclusion to get there. That is, if your capital falls, it's really tough to turn it around, because that means the game will end sooner.This is perfectly valid designer's choice. However, it is in conflict with the idea of victory cities as an alternative to "race for the capitals". With cash transfer present, there is no need to go after some victory city when even a major victory condition requires you to take a capital. So, what is going to make me not to repeat the same old strategy from 2nd edition to go with huge stack towards the capital, take it, take the money and wait for my opponent to surrender.

If there is little or no incentive to continue with play after the loss of a capital, victory cities bring little or no new value in the game.

Drax

[Mike Selinker]

This is perfectly valid designer's choice. However, it is in conflict with the idea of victory cities as an alternative to "race for the capitals". With cash transfer present, there is no need to go after some victory city when even a major victory condition requires you to take a capital. So, what is going to make me not to repeat the same old strategy from 2nd edition to go with huge stack towards the capital, take it, take the money and wait for my opponent to surrender.
If there is little or no incentive to continue with play after the loss of a capital, victory cities bring little or no new value in the game.I disagree. To be clear, though, I never said we wanted to undermine the race for the capitals. Capitals matter a lot to the design team, and the 2nd Edition strategy of pressing toward the capitals is still valid.

Also, for a major victory, the Allies can win by taking Rome, Paris, Manila, and Shanghai, and don't need to take a capital if they don't lose any cities. They will gain more by taking a capital, but considering everything they'd lose along the way, it's a valid strategy to try to just box the Axis into its capitals. I've seen it work.

I think victory cities will bring a lot to the game. Give them a try in a few months.

Mike

[Kiem1331]

On the debate about how capturing a capital should affect the game I can see logic to both sides. If London were captured there is always all of the Commonwealth areas to keep on going. But if you look historically at what happened to France when Paris fell, it was the complete opposite. And with the transfer of IPCs during a capture, maybe those captured IPCs could, for just the turn after the capturing, only by used in that capital. For example if Moscow was captured by Germany, how could they right off the bat on the next turn use these new IPCs to place two Battleships north of Germany. I feel that maybe these IPCs can be used but only if used in the Capital that they were captured in (or on research?). And in the case that Russia were to recapture Moscow perhaps they only get IPCs worth the value of the capital.

Another similar idea would be for if any territory with an Industrial complex is captured then the attacker gains that territory's worth in IPCs taken from the defender, perhaps if it is the capital then the territory value doubled. This way the defender may still have IPCs for a last chance. Russia was able to keep fighting even with Stalingrad taken and then took it back.

For example if Germany was taken, they would then lose the territorial value of Germany in IPCs (maybe doubled, would have to playtest that however), but the German player would still be able to fight from Southern Europe which to me makes sense. In WWII Germany kept fighting after Italy surrendered.

Just some ideas, perhaps optional rules.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Mike

[Epicedion]

How about, then, a benefit to capturing a Victory City, apart from the smug satisfaction of a job well-done?

Perhaps a 'lesser' Cash Transfer would be workable. For example, if the Americans liberate Paris, Germany has to fork over X IPCs to the Americans immediately. I haven't come up with a number for X yet -- it shouldn't be a game-breaker (like it is with Capitols), but it should be enough to be felt. I also like the idea of this limited Cash Transfer only working one-way: Americans get cash for taking Paris, but the Germans don't get anything for taking it back. That, of course, might be a little too harsh, though it would work both ways (Japan taking India, Germany taking Leningrad, et cetera).

As to limiting the role of victory cities to only victory conditions, it is important to remember that victory conditions are only important for when you are ready to -stop- playing.

Oh, and Mike brought up weapons development. Is it going to be totally wacky and unreliable like it is in the current version? In most games I've played, weapons development has been either an unnecessary waste of resources, or supremely overbalancing for a lucky player. I may just like less luck (and more planning!) in my games, but the random chance for a random technology at a huge cost is kind of silly to me. I would much rather play under a system where you can pick a technology and pay for it, or pay for increasing chances of getting a specific technology. Maybe a system where you pick a tech and allocate a certain amount of money to research in the purchase phase... I'll try and write out a cleaner sample:

Tech Development:

1) In the Purchase Phase, you can allocate money to technology research. You can allocate as much money as you want to as many technologies as you want.

2) In the Production Phase, go down the list of technologies you are currently researching. Start at the top of the list and work your way down. Roll a die, add to it the number of research IPCs in that tech divided by 5 (round down). If the number is equal to or better than the 'rating' of the technology (maybe start at a rating of 6 for some of the less-useful techs, working up to 8 or 10 for the really powerful ones), then you get the technology and all IPCs spent on that tech's research go to the bank. If the number is less than the 'rating' of the technology, then you do not get the tech, and the IPCs you have spent on that tech's research remain for use next turn, making the research process a cumulative thing. You could even throw in a twist, such as making any research roll of 1 be a 'set-back', and a loss of d6 IPCs in that tech's research.

But now I'm just rambling.

--Epicedion

[Yoper]

Targeted Research is the way to go. I am now playing a home brewed game of a friends that has specific technologies and unit upgrades. The dice roll for the research is modified by continuous monetary investment in the same technology. The odds get better for each turn that you continue to spend the money. There is a minimum level dice roll that continuous funding cannot go lower than and if you stop funding for any reason the die roll level goes back up one level for each turn that the funding is missing. It makes it a longer process to get some technologies/abilities but at least you know which technologies/abilities you are getting.

[Y2UAsk]

If through some strange twist Germany proper had fallen to the Allies in 1943, it's inconceivable that the armies in the USSR would have turned and recaptured it. Within weeks they would have been paralyzed by lack of fuel, ammunition, and replacement parts. AFAIK, none of the major powers built any of the major implements of war outside their own borders in any quantity -- major implements being trucks, tanks, towed guns, planes, and ships. Of these, only capital ships are durable goods. Tanks, trucks, guns, planes, and even light naval vessels are consumed by combat just as ammo is. Without a constant flow of those supplies, sustained offensive fighting is impossible.

If Germany or Japan is lost, all capacity for production is gone. England would also lose its production but could perhaps carry on a bit longer than most because the empire was so dispersed. The USSR proved it could relocate industry but Moscow was the rail hub of the entire country -- without it, there would be no way to get the factories' output to where it's needed. The east coast of the US might be retaken with stockpiles on the west coast, but mainly because it's so far from Axis reinforcements.

I don't really think that historical justifications are all that important in a game like A&A, but the fact is that losing your capital territory, historically, would have been devastating to any power's ability to wage war on anything but a perfunctory, guerrilla basis. I don't think the game penalties for losing your capital are out of line at all. The only argument I can see for lessening the penalties would come from a purely game-play angle. It's fun to fight your way back from the brink of destruction. In some ways, that's what tech research is for.

Steve

[ January 08, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Y2UAsk ]

[PaschatKing]

i agree to some extent with the comments about ipc transfer, perhaps to the level of the territory's value. its a bitter pill though, it would be hard to quickly rebuild for the home side. Britain is slightly different in that the empire would still fight on - unlike France. However in reality losing a capital is a MAJOR loss. It quite understandable to sue for peace after this. If eg the UK was taken, i see no reason for say India to build a factory if it hasn't got one and continue the fight, but it would be very hard.

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Y2UAsk:
If through some strange twist Germany proper had fallen to the Allies in 1943, it's inconceivable that the armies in the USSR would have turned and recaptured it....SteveI'm talking about situations where, due to the odd turn mechanism of A&A, or simply careless play, A capitol can be occupied with just a few or even a single infantry or armor. In truth such a Dieppe-style raid would not and could not last and would really do little to disrupt the infrastructure and industry of the country. A massive IPC transfer seems ridiculous.

And I don't see any reason nations who invested in production facilities outside the capitol could not take advantage of them after the capitol had fallen. Both Russia, the UK, and the US were prepared to do so. Russia had factories in the Urals, UK could have used Canada and Australia, and the US would have used Western US.

mac