Hey, WotC. While we are changing things...

[malcolm_river]

I know that with the new wave of A&A minis coming soon, as well as the advance rules coming out, I think it is time to fix other things that have been overlooked. Namely, I want you to fix the historical accuracy of certain pieces.

I know that a lot of players on these forums cry and complain about historical accuracy, but they seem to only focus on the American pieces. "The Sherman was called the ronson lighter, because it went up like a light, 'first time, every time," so it should be highly flammable," and other things like that. But there are certain German pieces that need that historical fix as well that, for as long as I have been on these boards, have been overlooked by these boards. Whether it is players from foreign countries raging against a percieved American bias, or they are people that want things to be purely historical, I do not know, but they over look key design flaws that I think should be addressed.

For example, the Tiger 1 needs to have "Prone to breakdown" and "This vehicle can't cross bridges." Here's why:

"The Tiger was too heavy for most bridges and a lot of roads, and the running gear suffered from clogging in muddy conditions. Its gun was immensely powerful, but traversed very slowly, and its performance in the field was hampered by being underpowered and fuel-greedy" (The World's Worst Weapons).

This is also reinforced by the following items from wikipedia:
The tank needs to have this vehicle can't cross bridges, because "the tank's extreme weight limited the bridges it could cross and made drive-throughs of buildings which may have had basements risky. Another weakness was the slow traverse of the hydraulically-operated turret traverse mechanism. The turret could also be traversed manually, but this option was rarely used, except probably for a fix of a few mils."

While some might say that I may have been looking at the early productions versions of the Tiger. You might have been right, but "The Tiger had reliability problems throughout its service life; Tiger units frequently entered combat understrength due to breakdowns. It was rare for any Tiger unit to complete a road march without losing vehicles due to breakdown. The tank also had poor radius of action (distance a combat vehicle can travel and return, in normal battle conditions, without refueling)."

Now, I am not saying that it is not worth its' reputation, because there are many stories about how American soldiers would rather avoid vehicles that looked like Tigers rather than engage them. And I know that this is supposed to be a beer and pretzels game, something that is meant to be played in one hour. But that does not fly because you give certain flaws to vehicles that evoke a certain adherence to reality. Carro blows up too fast, other vehicles are undermanned.

So, please change the tiger 1, the King Tiger, and the Vet Tiger to so they adhere to history. Give them "prone to breakdown" and "This vehicle can't cross bridges." If you do that, you can make changes to every other piece that has been thrown into doubt. I will not argue to the changes in the slightest bit.

[Cruizin2000]

Bridges really don't make a big difference in this game. I do agree with the Sherman being flammable. Also, give the Jagdtiger a speed of 3 instead of 2. It went the same speed as the Pnzr IV.

C2000

[shadowhooch]

Good thoughts. This is what I'm hoping for too.

[Qmark]

I know that with the new wave of A&A minis coming soon, as well as the advance rules coming out, I think it is time to fix other things that have been overlooked. Namely, I want you to fix the historical accuracy of certain pieces.As long as this is done going forward. Leave the first five sets set in stone, as the "historical gamers" will eventually avoid them like mis-scaled leprosy if the game survives the next two sets.

This way, when a powergamer does bring an older and non-flamable sherman or bridge-crossing tiger to the table, plenty of off-color "size" jokes can abound.

[Remember-OWS-]

Hey... Make Commander Cards and Extra ammo for some Tanks...

[Remember-OWS-]

What I meant by Extra ammo is specific ammo, more expensive if buy separately, but with more effectiveness

[Tico303]

I don't see a reason to fix these things in that manner (e.g. Tigers can't cross bridges). You can easily houserule such changes. The AAM gaming experience will always tend to the Beer & Pretzels side as opposed to accurate historic simulation. The real problems comes with ueber units like crack shot tigers, american mortar, and 5/5 infantry (Concerning the later, the recent point increase should fix it).

[malcolm_river]

maybe you are correct that it can be houseruled. But, the game is already straddling the fence when it comes to historical accuracy. If it is not, the Chinese military would have some anti-tank stuff besides the tank, there would be no need for undermanned tanks, there would be no opened back vehicles, and the Carro would not be highly flammable. They would all cost about 15-25 points and they would all have similar statlines.

At the same time, shouldn't the 5/5 infantry, the crackshot tigers, and the god gun be houseruled as well? We placed a limit of two 5/5 infantry per 100 points in my local area and it worked fine. Why should Wizards come down on the Munchkin and fix all of their b.s. and not go with the other way and fix the other complaints about it not being historically accurate?

[horacus]

Good thoughts. This is what I'm hoping for too.

Me too. Me too. Always have hope that things can go better.

[RommeL BombeR 77]

since your changing things..., change teh future minis you hope to sell back to regular size :)

[Richter von Manthofen]

Make real panzergrenadiere for example :D

Tiger - don't admit with can't cross bridges, but maybe must make a movement roll (the tiger could cross bridges only wek structures were impossible - but wouldn't that be overly complicated.

All/some Tank destroyer should get a SA like Agression to simulate that they were used from concealed positions and did hit and run tatctics - maybe limit this if the TD starts the Agression movement from a cover hex - would surely make some TD more playable

[angelofdeath]

I'd prefer some kind of army book publication to go along with the advanced rules. In these army books (yes, very GW, I know) they could publish all the soldiers and vehicles in a complete and balanced expanded point value system.

Maybe even with a different point value range :
Not having 3 or 4 point infantry as a basis, but maybe 10 points, so they would have a bit more space to diversify different units.

In such an army book (one for Axis, one for Allies, I guess) they could publish all things like platoons (I quite like that idea), and restrictions on certain units like the elites and specials ( SS PG , Snipers, Rangers, etc.).

Would be a massive project, but what the heck, I like to advance, and I think I am not the only one on that.



To elaborate on this ( ) :
One can statistically solidify this kind of army list (ok, this might be bad english) with historical numbers. For example, a Tiger would be a relatively rare sight, as only 1355 were ever built. A Tiger II (King) would be even more rare as only 487 were built. And to top it all off, an Elefant was extremely rare as only 98 were built, of which 48 with improved defence (a machinegun).

In comparison, the T34 had an overall production of 84.070 models (between 1940 and 1956..). Which would make it a lot more common. But not as common as the household common Soldier, of which millions saw the battlefield.


I dont mean I like to see an army that is statistically correct (because statistics cannot be applied to individual situations), but I do like to see some kind of appreciation for actual historical numbers in the point values. There is a reason the Eastern Front had (from memory) 1000 soldiers to 1 tank and 1 plane on the USSR side and 500 soldiers to 1 tank and 1 plane on the German side.

If a Tiger is rare, a lot of effort would go into getting some of those on the battlefield. It might be an awesome tank, but it comes at a higher price.

[Khayman7]

I know that with the new wave of A&A minis coming soon, as well as the advance rules coming out, I think it is time to fix other things that have been overlooked. Namely, I want you to fix the historical accuracy of certain pieces.


I think this would be a great idea but here the biggest problem with them doing it. It would make anything they change incompatible with the old set, which is the biggest carrot that keeps getting dangled in this whole mess. Statements to the effect of we're making it so you can still use your old pieces, they will just look differant would no longer be true. Why would I use a larger Sherman tank that has the Flamable special ability when I could just use my smaller one that has no drawbacks? It would result in me not purchasing new Shermans and therefore hurt their budget, which we know they won't do.

For example, lets say I play in a tournament and all the ver 1.0 stuff is legal I will have a build with non-flamable midget Shermans and Crack Shotting Tiger with walking tank SSPGs. While my opponent who has the ver 2.0 with more historically accurate units will have flamable Shermans, a Tiger that is prone to breakdown and non superman SSPGs. I doubt he has much of a chance to win even if the costs are somewhat lowered on his units, and I also doubt he would consider this fair.

I'll say it again, I would LOVE a change of some units to make them more historically accurate, costed correctly, etc... but if they do this instead of making us buy the new pieces they should make a nice downloadable PDF so we can print out cards for the units we already have. Let the "quality" of the mini be its selling point like Gamer Zero keeps citing as the value we should look for. The quality of the mini is also the only selling point to the FOW player that they are now trying to court. So as others have pointed out, throw a bone to the customers that supported the game this long and give us SOMETHING minorly positive in this mess. This way they are showing some kind of support those of us that gave them money to let us playtest a game.

[malcolm_river]

Why would the players use different sets of rules when they are playing? Are there people so hellbent on winning that they would cheat that badly?

[Khayman7]

Why would the players use different sets of rules when they are playing? Are there people so hellbent on winning that they would cheat that badly?

It wouldn't be cheating because the games are compatible.
Its why they shouldn't change the stats on cards if they do then they will be incompatible with AAM XP errrr ver 1.0.

If they do then they better do something like I keep harping on to give us cards to replace our old ones.

[NorthernRommel]

Why would the players use different sets of rules when they are playing? Are there people so hellbent on winning that they would cheat that badly?

In a manner of speaking......yes.

Perhaps the word "Exploit" the rules is a better term then just cheating. But the mentality is more or less the same.

There are people who play the rules, not the game. Exploiting the flaws is how they win. Kind of like Warhammer -- except with WH its more about using things that befuddle the opponent by throwing his entire army plan out of wack with some obscure spell/ability.

Some rules sets out there now are so full of holes that when it comes to tournamanent (and even friendly play) there are gamers that use the rules hitch to swing the game dramatically in their flavor. It is more an issue of bad testing and bad design, and then a refusal by some companies to fix problems that high spending customers want. In short some people want games where they can pay the money for the newest and greatest piece/card/etc so they can cheat their way to victory. Some then actually have the gaul to consider themselves "smart" or "resourceful" to win in this way.

AAM's flaws from set 3 to 5 have been huge enough to make them give people the game. The Bren gun thing and the Hard Charger type ability being a couple of the more glaring examples. Read the forums if you want to find out the others.

[Khayman7]

In a manner of speaking......yes.

Perhaps the word "Exploit" the rules is a better term then just cheating. But the mentality is more or less the same.

There are people who play the rules, not the game. Exploiting the flaws is how they win. Kind of like Warhammer -- except with WH its more about using things that befuddle the opponent by throwing his entire army plan out of wack with some obscure spell/ability.

Some rules sets out there now are so full of holes that when it comes to tournamanent (and even friendly play) there are gamers that use the rules hitch to swing the game dramatically in their flavor. It is more an issue of bad testing and bad design, and then a refusal by some companies to fix problems that high spending customers want. In short some people want games where they can pay the money for the newest and greatest piece/card/etc so they can cheat their way to victory. Some then actually have the gaul to consider themselves "smart" or "resourceful" to win in this way.

AAM's flaws from set 3 to 5 have been huge enough to make them give people the game. The Bren gun thing and the Hard Charger type ability being a couple of the more glaring examples. Read the forums if you want to find out the others.

Exactly, it isn't fun for most people to play this way, and then people leave the game. You can't have 2 sets of differant cards for the same unit and say they aer both legal, these issues will come up and do further damage.

Speaking of other things to change...ditch the random and collectable. Let people see what they're getting. Themed sets, battles, etc...

[Qmark]

Some then actually have the gaul to consider themselves "smart" or "resourceful" to win in this way.Because those who cripple their own play with idealism and blissfully ignore rule interractions are "stupid" and "naive" when they chose to lose in this way.

[Khayman7]

Because those who cripple their own play with idealism and blissfully ignore rule interractions are "stupid" and "naive" when they chose to lose in this way.

I agree with this ONLY when playing for $.

[Qmark]

I agree with this ONLY when playing for $.Absolutely.
However, massive rewrites to "fix" the "$" environments for the benefit of naive idealists is just silly. Obscure and exploitable rules interactions are impossible to eliminate entirely in any "mix & match" type of game, and those exploits lose obscurity virtually instantly after being discovered.

Only the most power-mad ***holes will be unresponsive to a simple "That's great, you won. How about trying something else for once?" in non-$ play.