Game: Axis & Allies

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

markus_kt — 2008-07-05T08:36:05+00:00

For a relatively simplistic game, I appreciate the fact that the industrial complexes give the players some logistical problems and opportunities to think about. I see them as a feature, not a bug.

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

usmc61 — 2008-07-05T08:00:23+00:00

GreyLord wrote:
Seth_Logan wrote:
usmc61 wrote:
I don't like the rule that you can only build reinforcements in territories where there is an industrial complex. I think this will lead to endless stalemates, with each side taking 2-3 turns to move troops to the front lines. Does anyone else play this way?

How about... reducing all the dice to, I don't know, let's say 3 for the attacker and... to make it more exciting... 1, no, 2 for the defender! No wait... that's already been done... :D

No seriously: you kind of take out one of the more important/interesting aspects of the game: planning ahead. But of course, it's your game and it absolutely will finish faster!

I probably wouldn't do as the original poster says, but it is an interesting idea. It's not a bad one, and I think you guys may be hitting him a little hard on his own decision on how to play his own game.

I think the above post however, captures where this player is probably coming from. It sounds like the original poster wanted the game to play a little more like Risk, and that's fine. He's someone that really enjoys that style of gameplay, and I think his idea on how to play without Industrial Complexes captures that feel.

Now personally, I don't think I'd prefer to play that way, but I imagine it DOES open up a LOT more options of different types of strategies above what a normal A&A game offers, since suddenly you have instant transportation of forces anywhere on the board. But it's an interesting idea. A more Risk game like A&A.I played a lot of Risk as a kid, maybe that's why I like playing Axis and Allies this way.

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

GreyLord — 2008-07-05T01:05:12+00:00

Seth_Logan wrote:
usmc61 wrote:
I don't like the rule that you can only build reinforcements in territories where there is an industrial complex. I think this will lead to endless stalemates, with each side taking 2-3 turns to move troops to the front lines. Does anyone else play this way?

How about... reducing all the dice to, I don't know, let's say 3 for the attacker and... to make it more exciting... 1, no, 2 for the defender! No wait... that's already been done... :D

No seriously: you kind of take out one of the more important/interesting aspects of the game: planning ahead. But of course, it's your game and it absolutely will finish faster!

I probably wouldn't do as the original poster says, but it is an interesting idea. It's not a bad one, and I think you guys may be hitting him a little hard on his own decision on how to play his own game.

I think the above post however, captures where this player is probably coming from. It sounds like the original poster wanted the game to play a little more like Risk, and that's fine. He's someone that really enjoys that style of gameplay, and I think his idea on how to play without Industrial Complexes captures that feel.

Now personally, I don't think I'd prefer to play that way, but I imagine it DOES open up a LOT more options of different types of strategies above what a normal A&A game offers, since suddenly you have instant transportation of forces anywhere on the board. But it's an interesting idea. A more Risk game like A&A.

Thread: Re: Poll: Axis need a Bid?

Seth_Logan — 2008-07-05T10:06:07+00:00

m3tan wrote:
Cantatta wrote:
Playing for only nine VC seems to favor the Axis, why would they need a bid in this case? The Axis begin with control of six VC. After T1, competent play should net the Axis a total of eight VC (taking Calcutta and Leningrad), leaving only Russia (Moscow), UK (London) or USA (LA and D.C.) cities as final targets. Moscow is the obvious choice, unless UK player leaves an opening and allows a German naval presence nearby, or the USA leaves the West Coast unguarded against a Japanese invasion for some reason.

The push to crush USSR as quickly as possible is the goal in a limited victory game like this, and the Axis are positioned quite well to accomplish this goal, if they stay focused and ignore the things and/or places that don't achieve that victory. Giving them an IPC bid would seem to over-compensate for a perceived allied advantage.

It's not quite that simple. It is almost impossible for the Axis to hold Western and Southern Europe if they make an all out push for Moscow.

IMHO Victory cities isn't something I would ever play unless there are time constraints. It encourages players to make short sighted attacks simply to achieve the magic number of 9 irrespective of the long term consequences. The game really should be played to total victory (or one side concedes) if you have 8 hours for each round. Also I STRONGLY suggest using the LHTR unless this is a friendly non-competitive tournament. The out of box revised rules are fraught with rules that can be exploited by experienced players to imbalance the game. A few examples:

1. Weapons Developments take effect same turn. This is devastating with Long Range Aircraft and Heavy Bombers. There are many instances when a desperate player otherwise in dire straits can resort to ALL tech rolls with his builds and if he lucks out, turn the tide or even win the game outright with one lucky roll. It is amazing how often Berlin or London can be conquered if all your fighters and bombers suddenly have a range of 6 and 8. By taking effect immediately, the other player has no chance to react or prepare to this luck driven desperation ploy.

2. Rockets are absurdly powerful for Germany. It costs an average of 30 IPCs (6 tech rolls) to develop. For 30 IPCs Germany effectively receives 3 "stealth" strategic bombers (AA guns in Western Europe, Germany, and Southern Europe) that cannot be shot down by AA fire. For another 15 IPC you can purchase 3 more "stealth bombers" and populate Eastern Europe, Balkans, and either Leningrad, Ukraine, or Norway with AA guns. For the grand sum of 45 IPCs you can deprive UK and Russia of 21 IPCs per turn (6 x 3.5) for the remainder of the game. If Germany builds a carrier in the Baltic turn 1 and rolls 2 dice for rockets per turn and gets it by turn 4, they are almost guaranteed to win a long game.

3. LHTR limits IPC damage to the territory value per TURN as compared to per ROLL with OOBR. The latter has almost no effect except with newly built ICs. Russia is very susceptible to being strat bombed to death if Japan builds 2 bombers per turn and Germany captures one territory adjacent to Moscow. Meanwhile if Germany builds 8 armor per turn, by turn 4 a massive confluence of 20+ German armor and 7 Japanese bombers spell certain doom for bankrupt Russia unless they roll well on AA fire. The game basically comes down to if and when Russia shoots down the endless barrage of Japanese bombers.

Good comments. I will discuss it with my co-organiser. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Poll: Axis need a Bid?

Seth_Logan — 2008-07-05T10:01:00+00:00

Bumble Bee Tuna wrote:
This poll is unnecessary. The whole point of a "bid" is that you bid how much you you think is necessary. If Player A thinks axis need a 12 bid and Player B thinks they need a 2 bid, Player B will play axis for a 2 bid and get to prove it.

You should definitely have a bid in a tournament- but it shouldn't be a set amount. It should be...a bid. IMO a written silent bid is the best bet.

The thread does not suggest 'setting' a bid. I was enquiring for my own personal curiousity. We won't be setting a bid. But I am wondering if we have to, or not, allow the system, since I myself am not convinced.

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

Seth_Logan — 2008-07-05T09:26:32+00:00

themaddoctor wrote:
And the game is definitely not designed to be balanced when played this way. It would give Germany a massive advantage compared to how they are designed, for instance. Britain would also benefit greatly. And Japan. Russia would be comparatively weak, as the Axis would be able to much better exploit their starting position.

Don't forget the Americains! Who needs boats when you can place everything in Sinkiang, or Algeria, or wherever...

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

Seth_Logan — 2008-07-05T09:22:25+00:00

usmc61 wrote:
I don't like the rule that you can only build reinforcements in territories where there is an industrial complex. I think this will lead to endless stalemates, with each side taking 2-3 turns to move troops to the front lines. Does anyone else play this way?

How about... reducing all the dice to, I don't know, let's say 3 for the attacker and... to make it more exciting... 1, no, 2 for the defender! No wait... that's already been done... :D

No seriously: you kind of take out one of the more important/interesting aspects of the game: planning ahead. But of course, it's your game and it absolutely will finish faster!

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

themaddoctor — 2008-07-05T07:55:40+00:00

So, play the game any way you want - but this sounds really really weird, to be honest. And it also seems much more likely to create a stalemate, because you are then unable to exploit the strategic weaknesses of your opponent. I would have thought that it would no longer be necessary to think more than half a move ahead. Somehow you managed to turn the game into even more of a dicefest than it is.

I wonder how often you have played the game, since you say you think it will lead to stalemates. It doesn't, by the way.

And the game is definitely not designed to be balanced when played this way. It would give Germany a massive advantage compared to how they are designed, for instance. Britain would also benefit greatly. And Japan. Russia would be comparatively weak, as the Axis would be able to much better exploit their starting position.

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

usmc61 — 2008-07-05T07:17:48+00:00

DrFlanagan wrote:
It doesn't lead to endless stalemates, but play the game however you want. I like the rules as written in the revised edition.
Basically the only thing I changed, I think it works out for the better.

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

usmc61 — 2008-07-05T07:17:08+00:00

Howitzer_120mm wrote:
How do you play then? With players being able to build up troops up to the territory value?

That would be interesting. It would open up some immediate "flaws", as UK would be able to reinforce instantly all over the world, Germany would have panzers on the Russian front in Turn 1, US would be building tanks in Sinkiang and China, Japan would do the same in it's 3 inland territories. Looks to me like a tank fest all pushing towards Moscow, about 3 rounds sooner than normal.Just as many troops as you want in any territory you own. Not a march to Moscow with Sinkaing and India threatening the mainland of Asia.

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-07-05T07:08:18+00:00

How do you play then? With players being able to build up troops up to the territory value?

That would be interesting. It would open up some immediate "flaws", as UK would be able to reinforce instantly all over the world, Germany would have panzers on the Russian front in Turn 1, US would be building tanks in Sinkiang and China, Japan would do the same in it's 3 inland territories. Looks to me like a tank fest all pushing towards Moscow, about 3 rounds sooner than normal.

Thread: Re: I don't play with industrial complexes

DrFlanagan — 2008-07-05T07:04:47+00:00

It doesn't lead to endless stalemates, but play the game however you want. I like the rules as written in the revised edition.

Thread: I don't play with industrial complexes

usmc61 — 2008-07-05T06:33:18+00:00

I don't like the rule that you can only build reinforcements in territories where there is an industrial complex. I think this will lead to endless stalemates, with each side taking 2-3 turns to move troops to the front lines. Does anyone else play this way?

Thread: Axis and Allies: The Tide of Iron. Tried it? discuss it

Darkan1 — 2008-06-30T09:34:51+00:00

Discuss it here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/323215