Revised AA Europe and AA Pacific

[baron]

I'd just like to say here that if Avalon Hill produces revisions of AAP and AAE with the same level of quality, effort, thought, and care that went into this product, I can guarantee that I will purchase three copies of each of them (one each for me, my dad, and my brother) as soon as they come out, as well as champing at the bit and hyping it up to all of my friends for the three months prior to their release.

I post this here in the hopes that others who feel similarly will chime in. I know that there are many obstacles that must be overcome before a redesign and production of this magnitude would even be attempted, but I would hope that a positive affirmation from a couple dozen die hard fans here would drop a pebble down the side of the mountain.

Scott

[ March 05, 2004, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: baron ]

[DY]

Alternatively, maybe AH could give back to the community and pay Mike to work on incorporating some of the ideas from the new AA into doing a 3rd edition/2nd edition rulesets for AAE/AAP respectively.

Then we wouldn't have to pay any more $$$, because unless there is really a need for a new board, (which i don't think there is) I don't see why most people would want to pay for this.

[SkyPilot]

Exactly. No need to purchase ANOTHER game, just import new "official" rules and unit costs (10 IPC fighters, 3/3 tanks etc.) and I'd be a happy camper. Then again, problems and other balance issues may upset the apple cart. I welcome any new way of playing these classic games...

[richyj1]

I've got to agree with DP that Pacific really doesn't require work. Yes, out of the box it is ridiculously easy for a vetran player to win with Japan, but AH pretty much has that covered with the setup changes in their FAQ (http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=faq/axispacific) and you can just play to a higher VP bid. Certainly I don't see the need for a re-release of that game.

[Krieghund]

I have to disagree with you about Pacific, Rich. I think that the direction that was being talked about to revise the rules to count Victory Points at the end of the US turn would have made a much better game. Too bad the timing on that initiative was wrong. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if AH had been taken over by WoC a little later in the process.

[richyj1]

Still, that would be a fairly simple rules change (to the order of a one-liner in the FAQ if desired: "for those looking for an additional Japanese challenge, try counting Victory Points based on Japanese holdings at the end of the US turn") - hardly requiring a re-release of the entire game.

Rich

[DY]

I've always resisted playing with bids or house rules, hoping instead that everyone on the forums was wrong and that AAE and AAP were balanced.

Well, I have given up and my FTF group will now use bids to balance the game.

I guess everyone just needs to accept that with a small group of designers and playtesters, it is inevitable that no one will stumble upon a "broken" strategy until after the game is released.

So is the community consensus for AAP still to play for a VP bid, or is a "count VPs after USA's turn" option now the popular balancer?

I assume AAE bids are still for Allied pre-game purchase money, with the Allies buying before Germany.

[Krieghund]

DY,

Most people apparently play just with VP bids, or a few simple rules changes in addition.

The rules set that includes counting VP at the end of the US turn also does not allow winning by capital capture (VP victory only) and disallows risk-free submerging. There may have been a couple of other minor changes, but I can't remember what they were off the top of my head.

[richyj1]

We're probably in the wrong forum here, guys, and should probably do any further discussion on these lines in the Pacific forum...

That said, the online clubs do to different methods:
- Days-OF-Infamy uses VP bids.
- AAPMC uses Allied money bids with a fixed VP target of 24 (at least that is my last understanding).

I remember trying the 'count VPs at the end of the US turn' (or beginning of Japan's, same thing) and it also seemed very workable, but I don't think it has the same number of games under it's belt.

For F2F play, I think any of the above methods are fine (although I encourage everyone to use the revised setup found in Avalon Hill's FAQ).

[DY]

Yeah I've been using the revised setup for Japan since my first game, and Japan still seems unbeatable (Japan has lost a few games in our group, but that has mainly been due to Japanese errors, rather than Allied innovations).

[richyj1]

Yeah, they are - I'm just saying that you want to use both the revised setup and one of the methods above or your bids will be through the roof.

Rich

[ March 06, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Rich ]

[DY]

Ok thanks Rich. I think the VP bid sounds best for now, as it's well tested. I hear a bid of about 25 VPs makes for a close game.

[Der Panzinator]

I think it would be great if AH updated the Europe and Pacific games.
Actually I don't think the Pacific game would require much. That one was pretty well thought out and additional rules and/or pieces and territories would make it too cumbersome to play.

I've worked on improving the Europe game for over a year now and have modified the map and rules significantly. The one thing that I could see Avalon Hill doing is selling an expansion pack that would be maybe 20 dollars or so and include a new map, some additional rules, and perhaps some new unit types. Actually introducing fortifications has worked out very well for me in the version I'm working on and I see that a fort unit is being introduced for D-Day. The production costs would be fairly minimal since it would be only a map, a short rulebook, and a new unit that will be produced now anyway.
For 20 dollars or less I think a lot of people would be willing to purchase something like this if it extends the life or revives an older game thats not played very often.
Hell I'd be willing to give them my game. I can't ever make money from it anyway. ;)