Mike - Please Read

[option]

Howdy Mike,

I am an active member of "Don's A&A Strategy Game Forums" where deep number crunching threads are common. Don is the author of A&A articles that address Infantry Push Mechanic and Dead Zone usage in A&A which make for optimum play.

Recently, Don 'published' a 6th strategy article on improving game balance in the A&A universe involving only one change. Change the 1atk/2def nature of Infantry to 1/1.

You can find the material on this site and I would appreciate it if you can take a short while to read over it: http://pub6.ezboard.com/faxisandalliesessayfeedbackfrm18

DanS

[Drewcooter]

Don't do it. This is one of Don's minions trying to influence the new game. This theory has hardly been tested. Additionally it would call for raising the price of arty to 5 which would make arty obsolete. If a pair arty/inf cost the same as a pair of arty/armor, why would you ever buy arty?

I think it is weak to suggest a change that is theoretical and that has not been tested.

[PaschatKing]

I don't think you have to worry about this and i don't think it forces the cost of artillery up. Worst case is turning it into an optional rule and of course there is nothing to stop gamers from having their own house rules. I've read the article and there is sense there, because stacking is a problem but it has yet to be tested properly. Have it as a suggested option only.

[Mike Selinker]

Recently, Don 'published' a 6th strategy article on improving game balance in the A&A universe involving only one change. Change the 1atk/2def nature of Infantry to 1/1.I've read it, and have had a number of conversations about this with Don himself. I respect Don's essays quite a bit.

Thanks for posting the link, though.

Mike

[The Rat King]

I skimmed through the essay (its very long) and it looks like a good idea, but I don't think it needs to be part of the basic rule set. Making it an optional rule would be good.

[option]

Mike,

Thank you for taking a look.

Sniper,

I hardly think of myself as a minion. Your comment was unnecessary.

DanS

[thrasher]

I've read it, and have had a number of conversations about this with Don himself. I respect Don's essays quite a bit.

I really respect Don's work for the Axis and Alies Community!

Thought changing infantry to 1/1 is quite a change in my opion... (but I haven't tried, so...)

thrasher,
http://axisandallies.TK
FORUM: http://pub50.ezboard.com/bthrashersaxisandalliesforums

[Drewcooter]

Yes the 1/1 inf does end the problem of IPM for the original game.

But it has some difficulties in being transfered to games that use the artillery unit.

If Arty is left at a cost of 4 ipcs instead of an IPM problem you would have an APM problem (Arty Push).

At a cost of 5 ipcs (as suggested in Don's essay) arty becomes obsolete excpet in the case of amphib assualt.

Option or Dan

It seems as though you are following Don blindly and to suggest this fix for a game you know little about shows poor judgement. Especially since the impact on orginal A&A of this fix is not known yet , much less AA&E and A&AP (games with arty).

If minion offends you I am sorry, but to advocate a position that has little backing it up begs for such a label.

[option]

Sniper,

What part of this quote are you talking about?

"You can find the material on this site and I would appreciate it if you can take a short while to read over it."

In asking Mike to read something and you are making some wild assumptions:
1. I am a minion
2. I follow Don blindly
3. I am suggesting it as a fix for an unpublished game

Take a step back and a deep breath. My intent was to see if Mike had read for himself an interesting point of view that the development team could experiment with.

Mike has talked with Don and that is more than I asked for. Done deal, no insults necessary.

DanS

[option]

Sniper,

Much better smile.gif Actually, I created the user name "option" out of frustration with the AH message board system when other avatars that I tend to use all came up taken. I have used it in other threads that have nothing to do with Don and didn't realize that it had imposed itself as the thread title.

Honestly, I have not considered Arty at all and I have to agree that your concern is valid. (I tend to play much more AA than AAE or AAP).

So you bring up an interesting question: how do you keep Arty useful from an economic and military standpoint without recreating IPM in a new form. I want to think about that a bit.

In the mean time (remember that I am somewhat removed from AAE and AAP) do you have any feel for what the 'optimum' purchase mix for Arty versus Inf is? Hum, something else to run the numbers on for both scenarios.

DanS / Option

[Drewcooter]

Dan

What did you mean then by calling your post option, if not an option for the new game?

I can agree that we should bury the hatchet and dispute the validity of the 1/1 infantry for "All A&A games".

Yes it solves IPM problem in orignal A&A.

But how do you price Arty in a way that does not make it the dominant unit or obsolete in the new A&A or A&AE/P?

I am anxious to hear an answer to that topic.

Just for the record I enjoy and respect 99% of Don's work. He has published the most comprehensive and thoughtful essays on A&A.

[option]

"But how do you price Arty in a way that does not make it the dominant unit or obsolete in the new A&A or A&AE/P?"

Well I gave this some more thought. Here is the scenario:
1. INF are 1/1 units costing 3
2. ART are 2/2 units that cost 5 (+1 to INF attack)
3. ARM are 3/2 units that cost 5 (blitz ability)

The assumption is that at a cost of 5, ART become obsolete because you would just buy a tank. But maybe not...

Here is a $40 purchase comparison: 5INF & 5ART versus 8 tanks.

Tank Attack sample:
round 1: Tanks give 3 hits, defenders return ~3 hits resulting in 5ARM vs 2INF&5ART

round 2: Tanks give ~3 hits, defenders return 2 hits resulting in 3ARM vs 4ART

You can see where this is going from here and I think that the INF/ART stack would have the advantage in an attack role as well.

So ART would not be obsolete, tanks would - unless you leveraged them to use their special ability the blitz.

DanS

[Drewcooter]

The 8 tanks vs 5 arty and 5 inf is a bad example. To be fair you would need to have it by 5 tanks and 5 inf vs 5 arty and 5 Inf, then you are comparing apples to apples.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You can still see the holes in this if your follow your logic. Why not have 5 tanks and 5 inf attack your 8 Arty. The tank pairs will come out even better than your Arty pairs did.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board and I stand by my original conclusion. At a cost of 4 arty becomes the new defensive weapon of choice. At a cost of 5 it becomes obsolete except for amphib assualts.

[option]

Good point Sniper.

DanS

[joe ward nyc]

Hello,
Just repliying to the coments on Don's essay.
I think Don's idea trades the problems with Inf.
to Arm.,in my play test why buy Inf. thay defend
& atack less effectively than Arm. pluse cost's 1 IPC more.(2Inf. 2D1/1 ,Cost 6 IPC's vs 1 Arm. 1D3/2 ,Arm. cost 5 IPC's ,you get the same Def. & better Attack with Arm. at a cost of 1 IPC less.)

Mabe if you have Inf. at 1/1 Arm. must cost 6 IPC.

I think this may be more balanced even for Artillery.