Teaching Newbies

[Moderator Sinister]

Tonight we are playing in a 5 player game. There's 2 vet players, one guy whose played a few times, and two newbs. How should we structure the game for the most enjoyment and instruction?

How do you teach new people?

[nlentz88]

Well, I voted for "Random Pick." I organize a fairly large playgroup of about a dozen players with experience ranging from seasoned vet to the freshest of newbies. It seems every other game includes one or two players who have either never played A&A or maybe only played the old MB version once or twice. Even though it is usually essential to have at least one seasoned vet on each side of the table, my group almost always goes with some form of random draw to decide which nation each player will play. We usually pick national marker chips out of a hat, but lately have been experimenting with dice rolling to decide. A&A contains much room for random chance that can alter entire strategies, e.g. the UK bomber being shot down by a German AA gun on a UK1 industrial bombing run. Our group lives and dies by randomness, figuring that war (and life) are subject to such chaos and therefore our games should reflect the same.

However, in your situation I think an ideal national distribution might look like this:

USSR - Vet
UK - Novice
USA - Rookie

Germany - Vet
Japan - Rookie

I think this would prove to be a fairly balanced game. The veteran players would be assured of a competitive game since each side has an experienced player. The rookies and novice would also have ample access to the veterans' experience via decisionmaking, and therefore learn the fundamentals of A&A, e.g. wise purchasing, cooperation, dead zones, etc.

Just my .02 IPCs, though.

[Vollick1979]

If you have vets playing on opposite sides we all know that the newbies are going to ask the vets for help and advice. If the vets are on one side then the newbies will be forced to rely on their own strategies and thoughts. Plus they will most likely understand their own strategies while the more advanced might not be understood. (i.e. sub-stalling).

You can always tell the newbies that if they lose they can always just blame it on how the sides were chosen. ;) They have nothing to lose and the vets have nothing to gain!

[newaxis]

It depends too much on the people. Some people learn better by leaning heavily on a veteran and seeing the wisdom of tried and true methods. Others learn better by experimenting and losing. There is one crucial factor that hasn't been mentioned: retaining the newbies interest in the game. That should be the highest goal, over an individual game. If the vets team up, crush the newbs (even spotting them some advantages) and then discourage the newbs from playing again, that is bad. Unless this is a one-off game, try to figure out the basic psycology of the newbs and adjust accordingly. Weird advice, but sound I assure you.

[series]

I think:

1 vet per side

2 noobs on allies

1 regular on Axis

Why?

Axis are mostly independent of eachother, so you can't have a noob fighting a war alone. The Ally Vet (probably USA) will pretty much say what to do and how to do it, so the other allies get hands on.

But I would at least give them some prior training, like rolling a few battles, maybe using only red territory for a mini-battle for training, etc.

[OctavianNT]

I'd go with this

Soviets- Vet
Germany- Vet
UK- Novice
Japan- Newbie
America-Newbie

Sometimes its funny to watch the Newbie's go head to head with Japan and America

[nerdx]

Who did we play in our first game octavion? I can't remember.

[admiral_yamoto]

is this revised?
i chose that the two vets be on seperate teams, one germany, the other ussr


and why is japan considered easy to play?

[RuHurt]

I'd say the vets should be on opposing sides, with the newbies on the Allies.

[series]

No allies, it's okay. The axis are supposed to get a +40 bid. But we are content with +30, since your new.

[oculona]

I said Vets on opposing sides, but it really depends on the players. I have tried it both ways. Games like the above I don't normally worry about trying to hard to win and let the new players learn by mistakes and actions.

Also let the new players help you set up the board. A completely set up board is intimidating, but if they get to help it is less ominous when they get ready to play.

Goodluck

[AxisRoll]

yes split them up. it will make the game go faster.

[Da Black Gobo]

Also I'd like to add something. Back in the day when I played A&A with old friends when the game was new (original MB), there was always one thing I really hated.

Nothing will turn of a new player more than tell that player what moves to make and what territories to attack. Aaaaaarggghhhh!! I use to hate it when bob, and Erv always trying to run everbody elses armies. Sure, they were the best players on the table, but it became no fun playing with them.

I say, let them make thier own mistakes and victories, then after the game if they want advice give it.

Sean

[Drax Kramer]

Every single game of A&A I played had powers distributed by random pick. My group decided to take this policy since our very first game. We wanted to prevent arguing over who was going to get Germans and specialisation of any player in playing one particular power.


Drax

[axis_roll]

Tonight we are playing in a 5 player game. There's 2 vet players, one guy whose played a few times, and two newbs. How should we structure the game for the most enjoyment and instruction?

How do you teach new people?
Define newbs... never played any A&A game before... a TRUE newbie then.

I doubt two new A&A players (plus 1 journeyman) could beat two vets....
Certainly you COULD play that way, but I think the newbs would take such a beating, they might dislike/hate the game. How do you build a gamers group like that?

Splitting the vets up and hoping they can make up for the newbies mistakes would be best. In Revised, I would suggest a vet play USA and a vet play Japan. They might be more apt to go after each other while the other players get a good feel of the game dynamics in Europe/Africa/Atlantic

[steben]

I'ld say give the 2 vets USSR and UK (showing their quality and the quality of the nations) and the novice USA (allready knows what USA is all about). The Rookies will be crushed and that with the biggest armies at the start. This shock will cause some learning effect.

I don't believe in the "disliking effect". After the only-30-minutes game :D , the rookies go to allies (UK and USA) side along with the novice on USSR. I'll bet you will have allready a good game then(still the vets winning ;-)).

[pagan]

Vets take the Allies and only get HALF production from UK & US

[melvin]

It's important that vets take opposite sides--otherwise it's a bloodletting.

However, I've played recently with vets, I'm pretty new myself, and the vets refrain from giving too much advice or questioning too much. They may not be good moves, but it takes the fun away if you aren't allowed to think through moves on your own and then see what the consequences are. this is an important growing process.

[El Ravager]

For true newbies, I think they should watch&learn for at least 1 game. It's no use letting them come up with their own moves, the telling them they are completely wrong because of this and this and this. Just play with 1 new guy, and explain what your (simple) goals are, then point out some strategic points and weak enemy territories and show what attacks you could make. Do this for one round (and always let the new guys figure out which dice to roll, let them roll, and let them take casualties). Once the game gets going, interested players will get the point and start contributing more themselves. It's no use throwing them in the deep against veteran players; they will only feel helpless and stupid when they get slaughtered.

[IBKsax44]

We usually stick Vets as either Germany and Russia or Japan and America. I prefere the second combo because Russia's screwed without allied help.

[Linkon]

I agree that splitting the vets up will speed up play by the newbs.

I also think that after round 2, there should be a 2-min timer rule on purchases, and a 3-min timer for combat move selections. $ 1 off for every min over.

The whole idea is to get everybody to get more efficient in using game time. In a 4-5 player game, every minute you waste is multiplied by the number of other players. A lot of people play no more than a single game b/c "it takes too long." You gotta show them that they can control the clock.