Axis & Allies: Guadalcanal Developer Article, Part 2

[WotC_Matt]

This is a discussion thread for the second in Nate Heiss's Guadalcanal article series.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20071108a (Axis & Allies Guadalcanal Developer Aricle 2)

[elbowsanchez]

coolness, now how about a guadalcanal forum room before the release of the game???

ES

[Autarch]

Thanks for the heads up, Matt.

Great article Nate! The combat system seems simple and yet give interesting results.

I am curious though if the box is large enough to allow the dice to tumble along all three axis and not just one. David Jensen, who has written some great reviews of the game, points out that the dice box can be bowed (distended) outward without damaging it to maximize randomness. But the box would have to be bowed out to two times the width of the dice inside of it to allow them to tumble freely.

This may not seem to be a big deal, but a 1 in 3 chance of a hit vs 1 in 4 is a statistically significant enough difference to affect the outcome of a game, that is if one person bows and the other does not. :)

I suppose both players could agree to do it one way or another.

Which raises another point, assuming the game was tested without bowing out the dice box, it may play a lot differently if the chances of a hit is increased. For example, there may be far more damaged ships requiring more resources to repair during the game and a lot fewer units toward the end of the game which could make the game either significantly shorter or longer.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I think i will simply roll die after the other normally and then line them up.

I am a die hard dice ROLLER

[lozmoid]

I have the game already and can confirm that there is plenty of space in the box (when you shake it) so that the dice can all get a very good mix, overtaking each other in the queue. By that I mean that the individual dice do not need to be able to turn on all three axis. Give it a try - you will never get the same 12 numbers come up in a row. :)

[elbowsanchez]

I dig the whole screening concept, this one looks like a real winner!!

Thanks WoTC for providing your customers a chance to get the correct parts. I hope the rest of the world gets them too!!

What would really be cool, and I have to speak for myself on this one...I really had a hard time grasping BotB. Perhaps do some articles or give us an pictoral examples of a full game or at least a few turns showing us how to play the game. Sometimes the rules are understood better by the creators, and those who have exclusive access to the designers/developers.

someone on a website did a video "help" for revised. the same should be avail for your newest AA games BotB and AAG.

ES

[Autarch]

I have the game already and can confirm that there is plenty of space in the box (when you shake it) so that the dice can all get a very good mix, overtaking each other in the queue. By that I mean that the individual dice do not need to be able to turn on all three axis. Give it a try - you will never get the same 12 numbers come up in a row. :)

Yes, but you only need to worry about 1s and 2s. Depending on how the die is loaded in, it will hit only 25% of the time (1 hits and 4,6,3 misses or 2 hits and 4,5,3 miss) or 50%(!) of the time (1 and 2 hits and 6 and 5 miss). So depending on how the dice fall into the box on initial loading, it could make for a very long and drawn out game or a short and bloody one. I guess with twelve total dice in the box that would be enough of a bell curve to even out the hot dice vs the cold dice.

[xxstefanx]

Thanks WoTC for providing your customers a chance to get the correct parts. I hope the rest of the world gets them too!!


Hello elbowsanchez!

What does that mean???

Did you eventually get a reply from WoTC regarding the incorrect cruiser pieces?

[Krieghund]

What does that mean???

Did you eventually get a reply from WoTC regarding the incorrect cruiser pieces?
See this thread: Guadalcanal Production Error (http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=24050)

[nateheiss]

I can confirm that there is enough room in the dice box for the dice to completely randomize.

You cannot 'kill' two sides, if anyone is familiar with the craps terminology. This was something we were careful to look into when determining the dimensions of the box.

-Nate

[AG124]

Any word on whether or not replacement cruisers will be available to customers outside of the United States?

[Autarch]

I can confirm that there is enough room in the dice box for the dice to completely randomize.

You cannot 'kill' two sides, if anyone is familiar with the craps terminology. This was something we were careful to look into when determining the dimensions of the box.

-Nate

Thanks for the clarification, Nate.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Any word on whether or not replacement cruisers will be available to customers outside of the United States?

Yeah - it would be a nice move...

[WotC_Matt]

Hi all, just a quick note: I'll have Nate Heiss's third dev notes article up tomorrow.

[elbowsanchez]

teasing us is not nice :P

ES

[nateheiss]

Replacements are available, call customer service.

[nateheiss]

I just wanted to thank David Jensen from http://www.axisandallies.org/ for providing many of the questions that you see in the Guadalcanal FAQ. Thanks to his questions hopefully the FAQ will be more helpful than ever!

-Nate Heiss

[Todw]

There are two area boundaries that have 'do not enter' signs on them. It's obvious that sea movement is prohibited across these boundries. But is Air Movement also prohibited?

[Krieghund]

There are two area boundaries that have 'do not enter' signs on them. It's obvious that sea movement is prohibited across these boundries. But is Air Movement also prohibited?
Yes, it is.

Welcome, Todw!

[Todw]

Thanks

It seems a little odd but the designer has to be given some leeway with the board.

My first impressions are quite favorable. Interesting game. I think there will be some initial rules questions but after that I hope it will prove to be a great game.

Us older guys will have a problem with the small typeface but it's easily overcome. :)

[TrimChris]

There are two area boundaries that have 'do not enter' signs on them. It's obvious that sea movement is prohibited across these boundries. But is Air Movement also prohibited?

Yes, it is.

Welcome, Todw!

Where did you find that in the rules? I glanced through this morning and did not see that as a rule.

And it doesn't make sense as there wouldn't be any obstacles to restrict air movement.

[Krieghund]

Where did you find that in the rules? I glanced through this morning and did not see that as a rule.
It says "the island zone is between those zones" in the sea movement example. Since the island zone is between the sea zones, air units must pass over the island to get to the other side. I am trying to get this added to the FAQ (along with some other stuff).

And it doesn't make sense as there wouldn't be any obstacles to restrict air movement.
It's an aesthetic thing. The map is just drawn that way rather than have the island itself extend all the way to the next sea zone border.

[GeneralDiCaro]

Air movement isn't blocked by the "do not cross" sign. You just have to count it as 1 space in the aircraft's movement because it represents the island zone extending to the sea zone border.

[Krieghund]

Air movement isn't blocked by the "do not cross" sign. You just have to count it as 1 space in the aircraft's movement because it represents the island zone extending to the sea zone border.
I suppose you can look at it that way. Either way, it cost an air unit 2 movement points to get from one sea zone to the other.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I do have problems with the do not enter sign.

Either the island extends there then the island should be attackable from the other zone (not adjacent due to map) too, or it should not extend and then i don't see why it should block air movement (sea movement maybe due to shallow waters maybe)

[Richter von Manthofen]

BTW when do we get a separate section?

[Krieghund]

I do have problems with the do not enter sign.

Either the island extends there then the island should be attackable from the other zone (not adjacent due to map) too, or it should not extend and then i don't see why it should block air movement (sea movement maybe due to shallow waters maybe)
Conceptually, the island does extend to the sea zone connected to it by the prohibited boundary, interposing itself completely between the two zones that boundary seperates. However, the island meets that sea zone at a point, making the island and sea zone not adjacent to each other.

Rather than extend the islands in question artificially to make the point connection, the map artist chose to place a "no" symbol there to indicate that the two sea zones seperated by the island are not adjacent. He chose aesthetics over functionality. It's not the choice I would have made, but there it is. "No" means "no". If this were clearly spelled out in the rules, I doubt anyone would have given it a second thought.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Why extend the islan?

Why not moving the sea zone border, so that it reflects the intention of the designer?

I admit if the movement would be possible the "game board" would effetively be smaller.

[toxic9_1_1]

Does anyone know if there is an online version of the rules for Guadalcanal? I'm getting it for christmas and want to read the rules before so I know how to play when I open it.

Thanks,
Toxic911

[Krieghund]

Does anyone know if there is an online version of the rules for Guadalcanal? I'm getting it for christmas and want to read the rules before so I know how to play when I open it.
No, there is no on-line version right now. However, there are links to the designer articles on the Product Page (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/axisguad). That will at least give you some idea.

[frimmel]

Perhaps at the "no cross" portion of the island the sea is not deep enough. Is there some sort of reef at that end? Ships would have to steer beyond the outside of the reef making it unattackable from that end.

Or that portion of the island isn't usable. Big enough to be on the map but not big enough to fight on (in an infantry and make airfield sense) while also too big to fight over (in an artillery projectile trajectory sense) forcing movement to another zone to get a better bearing, or landing zone.

[toxic9_1_1]

No, there is no on-line version right now. However, there are links to the designer articles on the Product Page (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/axisguad). That will at least give you some idea.

Thank you.

[warspite]

Why extend the islan?

Why not moving the sea zone border, so that it reflects the intention of the designer?

I admit if the movement would be possible the "game board" would effetively be smaller.


Probably trying to avoid a corner, where the island looks like it touches another sea zone, and raising another question about adjacency. Easier to just put a "no-go" icon than address endless debates about corners.

Instead, a debate about the "no-go" icon erupts, instead. :D

On a practical note, the sea zones should only border land where there is enough coast for amphibious landings, and for sufficient access for bombardment to/from shore. Corners would definitely be too small, so there should be limited access. Those areas where the coast seems small but still adjacent to sea must be natural harbors, rather than beaches, and/or high points where artillery ranges would be well out to sea.

I'm satisfied with my rationalizations. ;) How are yours coming? :D

[frimmel]

:) Warspite, I'm pretty satisfied with both of our rationalizations. :)

I'm also usually satisfied with the "that's the way it is" answer too. :cool:

[rapugnak]

for the banzi charge it states roll of 3 or less in land combat is a hit. my question is do your planes art. and ships involved in that combat also hit at
3's, or just the infantry?

[Krieghund]

for the banzi charge it states roll of 3 or less in land combat is a hit. my question is do your planes art. and ships involved in that combat also hit at 3's, or just the infantry?
All dice in the attack hit on a 3, regardless of their source.

[rapugnak]

this question is for those of you that have played this game quite a bit.
In your personal opnion do you think this game is balanced or is it like the original requiring a bid to make a balanced game? if it is unbalanced who has the advantage and why?

[frimmel]

this question is for those of you that have played this game quite a bit.
In your personal opnion do you think this game is balanced or is it like the original requiring a bid to make a balanced game? if it is unbalanced who has the advantage and why?

Too soon to tell as I only have two games in but it seems balanced. If there is an advantage at the moment I would say it is that the US moves second on turn 1. But it really seems to be pretty even.

[Krieghund]

I'm not ready to say yet which side has an advantage. There are a lot of variables at play.

[warspite]

The half dozen games I've played seem to favor the Japanese, based upon a specific opening. I'm still looking for a solid American counter to it. I'll post the opening in detail elsewhere, as there is no set AAG thread yet, and there's the move to Gleemax to deal with.

In summary, the Japanese push hard to hold New Georgia as long as possible. They take the Bougainville supplies and AA gun there, and build an airfield on New Georgia turn one. The Americans are very limited in what they can send there turn one, so Santa Isabel seems a better turn one American objective, and the Japanese can encourage it by underdefending it. The Japanese build 6 supplies on 3 transports turn one, use them to build two more airfields on Bougainville and Choiseul, and start scoring 4 per turn, until the Americans can start bombing them, which becomes very important to restore the balance. Getting extra AA guns by Japanese airfields becomes important, as well as replacement fighters to base forward to shoot down US bombers. Game ends with Japanese at least 1 point ahead, if the Americans don't start taking chances.

[Marshall]

OK, question about the rules... Nate states in his developer notes:
So you might be asking yourself what the best way is to move your supplies around. The answer is easy, because there is only one: Transports. While destroyers can move infantry around, Transports are the only way to move supplies or artillery into position.
However, the rules state that destroyers can move any type of unit, but that they have half the capacity of a transport. So which is it?

Normally I'd go with the rulebook, but what Nate said makes more sense to me intuitively. I have a hard time picturing them loading artillery pieces onto a destroyer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe either side equipped their destroyers with cranes.

[Krieghund]

The rulebook is correct. Sometimes designer notes are written before the rules are finalized, so they can contain minor inaccuracies.

[Marshall]

I would be interested to hear Nate talk about the thought process that went into developing this rule. The idea of loading cargo onto a destroyer seems highly irregular to me. They're destroyers, not "assault transports". And if destroyers can carry cargo, it seems like transports should have a larger capacity. You're telling me a Liberty Ship's cargo hold is only twice as large as that of a destroyer? (I'm by no means a history expert, so if there is historical precedent for any of this, I'd be interested in hearing about it.)

My game is still in transit to me, so I haven't actually gotten a chance to play yet. (Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut until I've actually played a few games.) Would it be game-breaking to have the destroyers only be able to transport infantry?

[Krieghund]

I, too, have a hard time visualizing destroyers ferrying artillery units about. As for supplies, I have mixed feelings. Japanese destroyers did carry supplies to units in the Solomons, but they were more along the lines of food and ammunition. The supplies in the game seem more like construction materials than war materiel because of what they are used for. This is harder to justify, at least to me.

As for game balance, it's hard to say. I've never tried it with destroyers just being able to move infantry. It might make an interesting twist.

[Marshall]

I'm definately going to try just allowing destroyers to transport infantry as a house rule and see how it works.

I haven't posted here in quite a while, and I just discovered the "new" forums. I'll have to pose this question to the community at large over there.