Nothing new on the A&A Front

[Drax Kramer]

It came as a surprise to me that playtesters were often losing fighters in land attacks. Despite "Good strategy" comment from the Second Edition manual, they were rare occassions in my games when attacker chose 12 IPC fighter as a victim to capture 3 IPC territory that was likely to be lost in the counterattack. Fighters mostly died in naval combat followed by the defense of important places.

I also don't understand the "beancounting" complaint on behalf of playtesters regarding the comparative capabilities of supersubs and jet fighters. It looks like comparing apples and oranges. No supersubs are ever going to be more worth to Soviet player than jets although I can't see Soviet player ever researching any of them.

Anyway, it doesn't seem to me that 10 IPC fighters are going to be much more purchased than 12 IPC ones. If your budget allows and situation on the map requires a purchase of 10 IPC fighter, you could most likely afford a 12 IPC one as well. And even the new fighter is still worse defensive solution than two infantry and an artillery. Time will tell.

Carriers at 16 IPCs are cosmetic improvement. Again, if you have 16 IPCs to spare and the need for a carrier, the two IPCs saved are hardly going to make a change. Ability to build a fighter aboard the carrier is a nice improvement. (I'd got rid of the separate carrier fighters and make them an integral part of the carrier unit like "Attack" did.)

In all honesty, I do not find new pieces any more susceptible to thick fingers than Milton Bradley's. I have never had any problems placing and moving carriers with fighters on board in either version.

The removal of fighter escorts is another example of inability to think out of the box, in my opinion. There were no escorts nor interceptors in MB game. They were introduced in Europe, but in such clumsy way that strategic bombing became even less cost effective than in the original game. The lack of technological development prevented the historical escorted bombing raids that killed Luftwaffe in 1944. Instead of coming with a nice, clear, simple set of rules for strategic bombing, we got reduced effects of bombing, no escorts (and although not mentioned, probably no interceptors). Back to the stone age of Axis&Allies, I guess.

I have a straight question for the design team: Did you pick stukas for German fighter units or were they forced upon you by the management since they were already used for the Europe game and the stocks and molds already exist? If there is one piece you changed from Europe and Pacific, I'd believe it was your free choice, but if you "copy-pasted" the pieces from Europe and Pacific games because it made an economic sense, don't make post facto "explanations" why stukas were "selected".

I like this quote: "The Stuka was a dive-bomber, a fighter-sized plane that terrorized civilians with small bombs and screaming sirens."
Stuka was primarily a ground support plane that later became successful in precise naval attacks and ended the war as a tank buster. All these combat abilities are perfectly represented by using fighter units in their regular missions. In their only "strategic" campaign, the Battle of Britain, stukas were massacred by Hurricanes and removed from the battle before it ended.

Fortunately, this another, to be polite, distortion of historical record is only an optional rule.

[Udengaard]

Trouble was, people weren't buying many fighters to replace the ones they lost in combat -- and they lost them a lot. Attacking fighters often would be sacrificed before the last land unit so that the attacker could still take the territory.

I also don't understand that one. Am I to understand that attacking fighters (at 12 IPC) often would be sacrificed to take a territory? That's crazy. If your playtesters are that wasteful with fighters then no wonder they keep running out of them!

And another thing, did they use tanks at all? Since infantry is still the bulk of any ground force, artillery seems like the superior choice (considering that you get about the same combat value for 1 IPC less). Tanks were never that widely used, and the blitz ability is only marginally useful. And now with fighters at bargain price, I just don't see the place for tanks anymore they have become too cost-ineffective compared to artillery and fighers.

[ButchOHare1]

I am glad there haven't been too many radical changes to the game. I think fighters were overpriced, as they were the least purchased units except battleships. 10 seems about right. ACs are quite attractive at 16, especially with instant placement of planes.

With the India AC and Australia navy I expect Pacific will see a lot of action in the new version.

Axis and Allies is supposed to fit a niche in gaming between Risk and any of the hexagonal map games like Squad Leader. The designers could have made the game more complex by importing ideas from AAE and AAP, but they had to design the game to appeal to their target audience. The game is aimed at guys who like playing a board games casually with their friends, not spending days slogging through rule after rule.

There is nothing stopping Drax, Thrasher, me or anybody else from producing expansion rules to include things like tech trees, convoy routes fighter escorts, etc.

[siestraphone]

I think we all need to keep in mind that this game, although based on historical fact, cannot be completely true to history. Think about it...

If we have Germany at her peak, could anyone really beat her? If Germany had all the infantry and armored units on the Eastern front and had them attack, would any Russian player be able to stop the Blitzkrieg? Well, to stop this, we would have to add oil rules, winter rules, siege rules of Leningrad and Stalingrad, o, and don't forget Sevastopol.

You have to keep in mind that the game is LOOSELY based on WWII. Therefore, for our enjoyment, not each and every benefit, unit, strength, and weakness of each major power can be implemented to its fullest in the game.

Siestraphone

[Muddog]

You need to remeber two things.
One we have not seen the whole product, so we can't judge the whole product yet. The second thing that you need to remember is that A&A is a game that can't be a total historical simulation.

[Desert Fox]

Fighters mostly died in naval combat followed by the defense of important places.

That's how 90% of them die in my games.

[ January 17, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Desert Fox ]

[baron]

You forget anti-aircraft fire. Now it hurts a little less to attack strong territories foritified with anti-aircraft guns. In all three games, I tend to eschew attacking any anti-aircraft protected territories with my planes unless it's a massive, game swinging battle.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by baron:
You forget anti-aircraft fire. Now it hurts a little less to attack strong territories foritified with anti-aircraft guns. In all three games, I tend to eschew attacking any anti-aircraft protected territories with my planes unless it's a massive, game swinging battle.DuH! Thnx, how could I forget AA? Yes, I usually only attack places with AA guns when it's a huge battle, like the last stand of the Russians etc.

[baron]

Originally posted by Desert Fox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by baron:
You forget anti-aircraft fire. Now it hurts a little less to attack strong territories foritified with anti-aircraft guns. In all three games, I tend to eschew attacking any anti-aircraft protected territories with my planes unless it's a massive, game swinging battle.DuH! Thnx, how could I forget AA? Yes, I usually only attack places with AA guns when it's a huge battle, like the last stand of the Russians etc.</font>[/QUOTE]I played a game over the weekend, and due to all the thought I've been giving to this new development, I was much more aggressive with my planes. It sort of sucked. I spent the entire game with Germany only having 1-2 fighters and a bomber.

[Muddog]

I have been playing with a lot of the new rules that Mike has slowing been reveiling. It is hard to beat the India factory even if you build it. With the combination of funneling planes down and building men. India is hard to take. I believe that it would be even harder if the factory was there since the begining of the game.

[Muddog]

Sorry I put this in the wrong place:(.

[Mike Selinker]

I have a straight question for the design team: Did you pick stukas for German fighter units or were they forced upon you by the management since they were already used for the Europe game and the stocks and molds already exist? If there is one piece you changed from Europe and Pacific, I'd believe it was your free choice, but if you "copy-pasted" the pieces from Europe and Pacific games because it made an economic sense, don't make post facto "explanations" why stukas were "selected".
It is certainly true that the molds for Pacific and Europe were complete before we started on the revision. It is not true that we were forced to keep anything by our brand team. Early on, our production team asked if we would like to change any pieces. Obviously, it would be cheaper if we said no, but everybody would have agreed if we said we did want a change.

So we analyzed which pieces we might want to change. As we went through, we reached general conclusions that the pieces were fine, including the German fighter. We liked the physical appearance of the Stuka, plus the unique nature as a dive-bomber. So we exploited that in the game.

If I or the rest of the team had said no, you'd have had something different. We didn't because we liked what we had, not because we were ordered to like what we had.

I hope that answers your question, Drax. I'm happy that your passion for the game translates into a desire to share your knowledge, even if you're disappointed with what you see. You want more change than you've seen, and perhaps the next few weeks will give that to you. It'd sure be nice if you'd stop questioning my creativity, knowledge, and honesty, of course, but whatever you do, I hope you'll keep posting.

Mike

[Drax Kramer]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:

It'd sure be nice if you'd stop questioning my creativity, knowledge, and honesty, of course, but whatever you do, I hope you'll keep posting.
It is certainly possible that I overacted here or there and wrote something that was inappropriate. It was never my intention to offend you, nor the rest of the design team. I do apologise if I caused any bad feeling.

It is entirely possible that I misunderstood the message you conveyed in your first essay.

When I read these lines:

The way I saw it, we had two options. Option 1 was just to tinker around the edges. Under the "If it's not broken" model, fans would get a snappier but mostly identical version to the one on their shelves. Option 2 was to give it a serious revision. Fans would have to learn new rules but if we did our jobs right, they'd like them better.

If you know anything about me, you already know I chose Option 2.I got the impression you did more than what apparently has been done. I still think that what you did with the Second Edition more fits the option 1 ("If it ain't broken, don't fix it"), but it is nothing more than my opinion and I am going to defend it unless convinced by following essays.

I will, however, try to keep the civil tone in my future posts.

Drax

[Mike Selinker]

'Kay, cool. I appreciate the apology, Drax. I look forward to your continuing constructive criticism, both here and on the Don Rae boards (yeah, I read those too). I hope you eventually end up liking what we did.

To the point of what was promised in the first essay, I also wrote: "When we made a change, we made sure we were improving something or we left it alone." That was pretty important too.

Here's a point of contrast: I was also one of the creative directors on the 2000 revision of Dungeons & Dragons. In that undertaking, the Hippocratic method was definitely not the standard, because 2nd Edition D&D was, at its heart, a broken set of unrelated mechanics. Even in just the attack roll, armor class went one direction, hit rolls went another, there was a clump of 20's in every attack table, it revolved around something called THAC0, and so on. All of that needed reconfiguring.

I don't believe that's the case with 2nd Edition Axis & Allies. Fundamentally, the core of the game works. A lot did need to change, and did. But the base of the game did not, in my opinion (or, for that matter, in Larry's, who I talked to every day about it). That didn't mean we didn't try new systems in places where the game was fine, but they had a high standard to achieve if they were going to overcome what was there originally.

That said, quite a few pieces did change radically, as you'll see in the next eight weeks. (I'm chomping at the bit to say more, but the webmasters would rightfully string me up.)

Hope you enjoy the next few columns,

Mike

[Mike Selinker]

Trouble was, people weren't buying many fighters to replace the ones they lost in combat -- and they lost them a lot. Attacking fighters often would be sacrificed before the last land unit so that the attacker could still take the territory.
I kind of regret writing those two sentences. There were many ways people lost fighters, including the rare case of sacrificing the fighter to take a territory. My playtesters know better than to do that on a regular basis. What's important is that people did lose fighters, and they wouldn't buy new ones at 12 IPCs, so the price had to change.

Mike

[Athlim]

Quote:
"If I or the rest of the team had said no, you'd have had something different. We didn't because we liked what we had, not because we were ordered to like what we had."

I still cannot believe your design team didn't want to change pieces cause everybody was satisfied.
I always thought you wanna design games which we, the A&A players should buy? And as far as i know many of us are NOT as satisfied with the pieces as you mentioned (and many other things)

Many users on Don's forum complain about the british shermal-like tank, or the bb and cv classes of those battleships and carriers.
So on one side the players is told: "We (design team) will take into account what our fellow A&A players want to change in the twenty years old AA verison, and now there's the possibility and what are you doing? You are making decisions, not based upon the majority of the A&A communityy but upon what your team is telling you...

Sorry but those comments in the preview articles and what AH tells us makes no sense to me...
I'd be happy if this playing pieces issue would be an exception but it seems not to be.

To cut a long story short, AH is going to make an AA edition based upon making profit with a minimum on investing money and a minimum on changes which AA needs so badly...

[mac224-2]

Originally posted by Athlim:
Quote:
....To cut a long story short, AH is going to make an AA edition based upon making profit with a minimum on investing money and a minimum on changes which AA needs so badly...Wake up and smell the coffee! AH knows the higher the retail price of the game the fewer units will be sold. Keeping the price low to maintain high sales, will reduce per-unit profits. Low per-profit = no more game redesigns!

C'mon, the units will be fine. They are after all only tools to play the game.

mac

[elbowmaster]

good or bad, i think most fans of axis and allies will buy the new version regardless of what anyone says, good or bad. i plan on it, just because i am a collector / gamer of this series, and have been since larrys original game by NOVA. if you dont like the figures sets that come with the game, there a many alternatives to making the custom war room feel. there are many ideas at http://www.elbowmaster.com that will assist you in "sparking" additional ideas to make your game truely unique. hope you enjoy.

-cheers

-elbowmaster

[Athlim]

Sorry for my hursh words, but the way it is with the playing pieces is just to be an example.

i'm more ppointing towards the missing rule changes discussed in several forums.
i'm pretty sure those already mentioned rule changes are not enough, *sigh*

Going to get some coffee :rolleyes: ;)

[Drax Kramer]

The individual choices of particular units aside, I regret the retaining of two pieces whose look isn't very appealing.

German artillery unit looks like some kine of insect and I am always afraid it is going to break if I am not careful enough.

The other piece is German submarine unit. It looks like a toothpick (a conning tower seems too high) and sometimes won't stand still.

Drax

[baron]

Since in a forum like this, the negative voices make themselves heard much more loudly than the positive voices, I thought I'd throw my two cents in. I really like the german artillery (88 was a perfect choice). I also like the german submarine. The original submarines were too "fat". These give a great sense of how narrow a tin can these things really were. In the end, though, here's the thing. While the variety between units of different nationality is buth fun and helpful, beyond that, I don't think it's such a big deal. I don't care if the American battleship is Montana class and not Iowa class (and yes, I know there was no Montana class really). I don't care if the british tanks look kindof like shermans. I don't care if the german panzer IV tank was more common than the panther (panzer V), and is therefore more appropriate.

There are three things going on here. 1) in any unit class, there are anywhere from a few to a few dozen different models of that class over 4 years that need to be represented by a single piece, 2) this is not a historical model's convention, it's a wargame, and the pieces are intended to be abstract representations. This is like arguing about the number of buttons on the confederate uniform in Blue vs Gray. 3) No matter what pieces were chosen, some people are going to be dissatisfied, either because it's too ugly, or not the best representation. I could argue why the panther is a better choice than the panzer IV, but I won't, because that's not the point. I'm glad that the designers didn't waste time trying to "fix" what is entirely a cosmetic detail. I think they devoted the right level of effort to it. I'd much rather they spend their time refining game play, and (unlike many people who seem to be posting here) I think they're doing a bang-up job of it. The only call I disagree on so far is convoy zones. I think those would add much more than they would take away, but I at least understand and appreciate their reasons for the choice. So, here's to you Mike, and the rest of the team. I think you're doing a great job, and I can't wait to buy three copies of the game...one for me, one for my father, and one for my brother. I'll bet there are thousands of people here who like me are mostly remaining silent, but really like and appreciate what you're doing.

This has developed into more of a rant than I intended, so I'll take the opportunity to add one more thing. Mike has shown great restraint in not invoking "the hand of God" and pulling Larry's opinion into this. He has taken full responsibility for the decisions that he and his team made, and I applaud him for that. For the rest of you, remember that he has been in daily communication with the designer of the game since day one. I appreciate people offering their thoughts on how to make the game better, but I am amazed at the audacity of people here who question the decisions and (more hurtfully) the motivations of someone who is one step away from the designer of the game. Have a little more faith people.

Originally posted by Drax Kramer:
The individual choices of particular units aside, I regret the retaining of two pieces whose look isn't very appealing.

German artillery unit looks like some kine of insect and I am always afraid it is going to break if I am not careful enough.

The other piece is German submarine unit. It looks like a toothpick (a conning tower seems too high) and sometimes won't stand still.

Drax

[Yoper]

A fighter by any other name would still wreak havoc! The problem is, as I have said before, a matter of consistency. Those who are not knowledgable enough to know better (the "new-to-the-game" buyer) would not recognize the difference between the stuka and the Me-109 anyway. So why not go with the unit that is more consistent with the other fighters that are in the game and in doing so please the more knowledgable gamer. While it may seem like a little thing to be quibbling over, it is the little things that most gamers want! After awhile the little things add up. That does not mean that I am not going to buy the game. I am going to buy it. I am going to enjoy it. I am going to take it for what it is- a game. In the end, this edition is going to be a certain group of people's opinion as to how to make the original (MB's version) better. Just as all of this discussion is people's opinions on how to make the original better, in their view. Would I have liked to be a part of this process? Hell yes! Would they have liked my ideas? Probably not. Would I have felt better about having a chance to have my say? Damn right! Utimately, would it have solved anything? I do not think so. This all boils down to a lot of people who are very passionate about this game. Lets just try to remember that as we go forward in the pursuit of a good time through gaming.

[Mike Selinker]

sadly Larry harris does'nt seem to have anything near the autonomy he should have to justify his name dropping. the current designer did say he had larry begging him to advise and he decided to go with a resultant location he personally had traveled to. Um, maybe you should read column 4 again, Greenhell. The exchange you're referring to is this:
Funny story: Larry and I are a generation apart in age. This was proven when I said, "I want to go with St. Petersburg." He said, "Mike, I beg you not to put St. Petersburg in the game." I replied, "Sorry, Larry. I've never been to Leningrad, but I've been to St. Petersburg."You do realize that Leningrad and St. Petersburg are the same city, right? In one phone call, I botched the name, Larry called me on it, and of course it ended up correct in the final version. If Larry ever truly begged me to do anything with the game, it would have been done in a heartbeat.

Mike

[greenhell]

game play standpoint aside the new units are clearly not an improvement over the originals. in mold detail and plastic quality. the planes wings look like stretched cling wrap, void of any definition. the same is with the capitol ship decks. even the tanks while different are not really a cast detailed improvement. also red everywhere on the charts hurts my eyes. a drab rusty war look suits. I'd go back to my good old A&A units and use the brown russians but much is out of scale now. the major reason in the new release that even prompts me to post ever here is that the new units were carried over from the last run. plane scale and fleet size was cahnged because of thick fingers; if "design team 1" currently had casual choice over production costs to change the molds then how can you deal with the new subs not standing upright. one bang on the table and they are all down. and what a mess when mr. klutz is trying to pinch at them. fat subs seems like what your batting at... low unit cost/high sales has nothing to do with who the designers said they were revising A&A for....me.
also the last post from baron said "Mike has shown great restraint in not invoking "the hand of God" and pulling Larry". yes he is in daily communication with the original designer. sadly Larry harris does'nt seem to have anything near the autonomy he should have to justify his name dropping. the current designer did say he had larry begging him to advise and he decided to go with a resultant location he personally had traveled to.

greenhell