Neat! A D-Day forum!

[sjcool]

Great! This new A&A D-Day forum will take some of the strain off the Axis & Allies forum (over 4500 posts!!!). Boy, I can't wait for the D-Day game to come out . . .

[holywolfman]

...From the 'looks' of it and by reading somewhere that once you go through your pieces, "that is all your reinforcements that you are going to get"....it reminds me a lot like 'Fortress America' (WWII style)...I like that!

Should be great! :cool:

-Nick- smile.gif

[Yardstick]

You shouldn't forget, however, that Fortress America was the weakest link in the MB Gamemaster Series. The map was constrictive, the combat flat, and the card mechanism predictable and disappointing. Although I keep a copy around for sentimental reasons, I doubt I will ever play it again.

On the other hand, what gives A&A its great replayability value is that it allows you a wide variety of choices: air, sea, and land units, as well as infrastructure. Also, because there is no 'cut-off' time when no more new units can hit the board, you can never just 'wait out' an opponant and then move in for the kill; you have to take on a more active and aggressive strategy. Will these important elements of gameplay be lost if A&A D-Day becomes the Fortress America of 2004? The comparison scares me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully in favor of the A&A line getting tweaked, expanded and revitalized. No doubt I'll be among the first to buy the D-Day expansion, and any other single-battle games they care to produce. I worry though, when choices are eliminated and units (naval, in this case) deleted instead of the other way around. More player choices and unit types should be available, not fewer. If they're going to take away six units, they should at least add six new ones. Although the blockhouse is a great addition, don't just give us that: give us landing ships; give us a new figurine to represent paratroopers; give us mine pieces; give us train-guns; give us commandos and SS units, or at least a different model of tank for each nation.

The adage "less is more" does not apply when it comes to a player's range of options and/or game componants. For the sake of the franchise, I hope that the standards stay high for the new D-Day release and its forthcoming ilk.

[Jon Waddington]

You shouldn't forget, however, that Fortress America was the weakest link in the MB Gamemaster Series. The map was constrictive, the combat flat, and the card mechanism predictable and disappointing. Although I keep a copy around for sentimental reasons, I doubt I will ever play it again.Well, in your opinion. In mine, FA is the strongest game in the series. I have no idea what you mean about the map, but the single-round, layered combat (with bonuses for combined arms) presents players with interesting decisions. If you want to take an area, you really need to commit to it. And since the defender fires first, soak-offs become very high-risk (as they should be). Stacking, too, presents interesting choices about force allocation.

When contrasted with A&A's huge stacks of infantry, Conquest of the Empire's catapult arms race, and Shogun, I think FA's combat is clearly superior to all but Shogun (not coincidentally, as both were designed by Mike Gray, IIRC; he also designed the very good Daytona 500). The card mechanism seems to me to be an admirable compromise between chaos and predictability (though I'd prefer a few more cards, and perhaps repeats of some). But again, it is inventive and fits the theme like a glove. Of the series, this is the one I've played the most, and I continue to enjoy it immensely.

Also, because there is no 'cut-off' time when no more new units can hit the board, you can never just 'wait out' an opponant and then move in for the kill; you have to take on a more active and aggressive strategy.We must be playing different games. There is considerably less incentive to be aggressive in A&A. Conservative/defensive play is the order of the day, with high-risk Axis attacks coming out of desperation due to the economic imbalances out of the gate. Contrast with FA, where the invaders must be very aggressive, and the US must defend creatively (in layers, presenting tempting targets and counterattacking when appropriate). In fact, I think your quote above is exactly right; you just got the referents backward.

The adage "less is more" does not apply when it comes to a player's range of options and/or game componants.I mostly agree with your sentiment here. I do think, though, that there is a balance that must be achieved. I find the agony of choosing one of two options may produce a better game experience that choosing one of ten. With tight constraints you have less downtime, and it ratchets up the criticality of each choice. But of course, it depends on your overall design goals, where playing time, expected audience, etc. must all be factored in.

Anyway, I think you might want to revisit Fortress America, as I think you've drawn some unsupportable conclusions from your prior experience(s). IMO, if A&A: D-Day bears more than a passing similarity to FA (to me, it looks fairly superficial), that's a point highly in its favor.

[Mike Selinker]

I worry though, when choices are eliminated and units (naval, in this case) deleted instead of the other way around. More player choices and unit types should be available, not fewer. If they're going to take away six units, they should at least add six new ones.Not to specifically bash YW, but this attitude worries me. I don't mind having an expectation of high quality in gameplay. But I do mind having the name Axis & Allies mean that it should have all the components and trappings of Axis & Allies. It's a different game, and if people only see it through the lens of the world-spanning game, they can only be disappointed.

D-Day will not have all the features of Axis & Allies, not because they were "taken away" but because they were not useful in the game Larry and I were trying to present. It will have many new features, which I hope you folks will enjoy.

Mike

[Jon Waddington]

Originally posted by Mike Selinker:
D-Day will not have all the features of Axis & Allies, not because they were "taken away" but because they were not useful in the game Larry and I were trying to present. It will have many new features, which I hope you folks will enjoy.I completely agree with your view on this; different games call for different approaches. I'm pleased that D-Day will be quite different (true?) from the other games. But your response begs the question: when are you going to give us some more details? smile.gif I'm also curious, at a general level, who your intended target audience is for this game (that is, is it "introductory" or is it scalable)?

[holywolfman]

Any rate- I'll be first "on my block" to get this one too!!! Should be good! :D

-Nick- smile.gif

[USMMA95]

In regards to Fortress America. I really liked the concept of the game for the height of the Cold War. I found that the game seems broke since the Invaders always win in the many games I played. I have even played where the US player could arrange the reinforcement cards in the order he wanted, but it did no good when outnumbered 3:1. The only change could be to increase the number of cities the Invaders must capture.

At least with Axis, the bidding helps even out the game. Please advise on Fortress America. I would be interested in hearing the strategies for the US. Even liberating one city a turn to get an extra reinforcement card does not seem to be enough to hold the Invaders.

[playa1]

Hey playaz,
I agree with Mike. D-day (and hopefully more of this AA series) needs to be different and I am confident that Avalon Hill won't disappoint us (except the highly critical gamers).
On another note, Fortress America was the WEAKEST of the GameMaster Series. Axis and Allies blew out the competition when it came out in 84 and reprinted in 87 and 91. Shogun and Fortress America tied for a long, distant second place. For real gamers, Axis and Allies made Risk look like Candyland. No offense, Risk fans, I like to play one of the many Risk versions also, every now in then. But come on, this is Axis and Allies man! Look at the record setting posts!!! :D

[Krieghund]

D-Day will not have all the features of Axis & Allies, not because they were "taken away" but because they were not useful in the game Larry and I were trying to present. It will have many new features, which I hope you folks will enjoy.This sounds very promising.

[Da Black Gobo]

Since we seem to be on the subject of debate of the Gamemaster Series, I'll add my two bits.

Each game had it's own good and bad points. But all were well made and none were broken or weak, just different. Sure some sold much better that others, but sales doesn't necessarly equates to good or bad games.

FA was a game that had a tight game play. It even gave a few options in the back of the book to balance the game if one side seem to win over the other. Personnally I thought the American side was sightly stronger, but other feel it was the invader. Proves the point that it was extremely well balanced. I felt it had real strenght.

Shogun, had a great combat system, but suffered from genaric game board, and way too long game play. Could have used cards to help gameplay. It also could have used some scenario setups for variety.

CotE, had the best feel of Roman conquest in a game I have played to date. Solid rules and gameplay but suffered in the combat resolution. It also needed the use of cards, and the lenght of game could be well too long. It also could have used scenarios.

BaBP, was the weaklink, not because it was a bad game, but because it's target audiance was pre-teen.

Note I left out A&A, it's hard to improve on a great game, the 2004 version is by far superior to the earlier version and has the option for shorter games.

Sean MacDaniel Swart

[Yardstick]

Contra Mike,

I must say that when you put out a game with the 'Axis and Allies' logo, people are naturally going to expect that the action be 'grand strategic', with maps of large geographic areas, naval units, industrial complexes, and so on. After all, every previous game of this line has had these componants. After 20-odd years of this, why should people suddenly have different expectations of A&A?

But if you're going to disappoint players who are wrongly expecting a grand strategic game, then you ought to fully go the other direction and give players tactical options in spades. Like I mentioned before, different tank types (Churchills, halftracks, Tigers, Crocodiles, etc.) or different infantry types (paratroopers, commandos, rangers, etc.) would add tactical complexity that would make up for the loss of the grand strategic scale. My concern, again, is that the loss of traditional player options (both quantitative and qualitative) without the introduction of new player options to replace them will lead to the overall impoverishment of a much-beloved series of games.

However, I do understand that there are new elements that are being added to this expansion. I look forward to trying them out (hopefully some parts can be used in conjunction with the other A&A games as well). Only after I do will I truly be able to tell whether my current concerns are warranted or whether they are simply unfounded speculation. I'll repost here after I play it in a month or two.

Don't get me wrong, Mike. Like I said before, I support the tweaking and the expanding of the A&A line. But I don't support it blindly; I reserve the right to be critical, albeit speculatively (and theoretically) critical. Isn't that an important part of what these boards are for? My worries are for the quality of the game, and its overall value for the A&A community (potential consumers of your product). I think that you should be interested too, and try to consider the weight of my arguments without being flippant or alarmist.

If you're really concerned about high consumer expectations, then you need to do more work to lower them before the game's release date. Maybe it's time to kick off that much-speculated-about series of D-Day articles!

-YW

[holywolfman]

D-Day articles.... " who- what-where- WHEN ?" Would be nice to start reading articles (again) on upcoming releasing products (*nudge, *nudge)

I want to add, Mike, you DID do a wonderful job with the (revised) A&A articles! If I didn't 'know' about A&A (yeah-right!)....and if I never played it before, those articles would've motivated me to go out and buy the (revised) edition to find out what the fuss was about!

Heck- it got me all wound up searching for a store that carried the 'NEW' one this time around :D (especially knowing- my friendly neiborhood GAMEKEEPER was closing it's doors!)...but non-the-less, I still found it at a local Hobby Store even days before the 'scheduled' release!

-Nick- smile.gif

[ April 01, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]

[Yardstick]

Bumpity-bump-bump!

Two months later, now what do you people think about this? Are you happy with D-Day as it was released (missing pieces aside)? Or do you find it a wooden, uninteresting grind of a game with tragically limited player choices, due in some part to the poverty of unit types and the monotonous FOT card mechanism? (Also see the thread "Historical Accuracy vs. Replayability" for more along these lines.)

[holywolfman]

Yeah- can't wait for CotE! Should be another AWESOME re-release! Especially when Eagle Games makes it....should have awesome components and let's not forget about a 'huge' board with nice 'eye-candy' artwork! :D

-Nick- smile.gif

[ May 28, 2004, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: holywolfman ]