Before I comment on this point about SG let me make sure I have it right.  Suppose there is a scenario where I am intending to defend a territory and it is maxed out with units.  I choose to not attack from the territory but instead fortify/retake it from an adjacent territory.  If my order goes off before my oppent attacks, is my order ignored because I cannot fortify it past the max? 

That is my understanding; the action will be carried out as a reinforcement (*edit when it is reached in the queue of orders), but since the territory is maxed out, no units will be sent.

Ok, thats the way I was thinking it would work.  That being the case, it is one thing that is a bit frustrating about SG on the A&A board.  If I am playing Russia a couple rounds in and need to hold the line against German or Japanese attacks I may want to choose a tactic as mentioned above, max out a territory, wait for it to be attacked then reinforce or retake.  However, with so little to move about, I won't have a lot of orders so my opponent can delay the attack or multiple attacks late in the turn and take the territory without an opportunity to counterattack.

I can appreciate the sense of realism and uncertainty the order execution imparts in the game, but it is a big disadvantge when your opponent has many more orders to allow them to implement important movements last.  I would like to see perhaps incluing some logic that can group orders per territory before executing them.  So that in the scenario above the counterattack would not be ignored. 

 

There are ways to string out quite a lot of orders even as Russia (ie 18 to 20) and still be effective.  That being said, the same player would still be able to work substantially more orders playing Germany.  Germany's order advantage is, I think, factored into the balance of the game to give the Axis a chance to win.

Though Germany has the advantage of being able to string out more moves, Russia has the advantage of being able to attack first.  There are some options there that sets the Allies up for a good second and third turn.

Agreed that Russia can attack first, but after a few rounds and an aggressive Germany Russia is often on the defensive.  So it is often not a good first choice to attack - better to defend and counter.

I have also 'strung out' orders by putting troops in territories and just shifting them back and forth to get my last order executed.  But it seems wrong to have to 'game' the game like this.

SquintGnome wrote:

I would like to see factories added. 

I believe Toaster has tinkered with this some as well.  Not sure where it's at now though.

Ok, thats the way I was thinking it would work.  That being the case, it is one thing that is a bit frustrating about SG on the A&A board.  If I am playing Russia a couple rounds in and need to hold the line against German or Japanese attacks I may want to choose a tactic as mentioned above, max out a territory, wait for it to be attacked then reinforce or retake.  However, with so little to move about, I won't have a lot of orders so my opponent can delay the attack or multiple attacks late in the turn and take the territory without an opportunity to counterattack.

I can appreciate the sense of realism and uncertainty the order execution imparts in the game, but it is a big disadvantge when your opponent has many more orders to allow them to implement important movements last.  I would like to see perhaps incluing some logic that can group orders per territory before executing them.  So that in the scenario above the counterattack would not be ignored. 

In my opinion this is a design flaw, which could be corrected by using attack fatigue. 

I agree BlackDog that adding fatigue would be helpful and I volunteer to be involved in a game where we can see its effects.

SquintGnome wrote:

I agree BlackDog that adding fatigue would be helpful and I volunteer to be involved in a game where we can see its effects.

*cough* Blackdog's WWII European Theatre Board that's still in Development *cough*

:)

As I reflect more on the idea of adding fatigue to the A&A board I am not convinced that it is the right thing to do.  Penalizing countries for many attacks in a turn may be contrary to the underlying premise of the game.  Inintially the Axis has more units on the board but less production capability (bonus units).  In order to win the Axis must convert their extra units into bonuses.  The only way to do this is to attack aggressively.  So penalizing multiple attacks via a fatigue setting may add a disadvantage to an Axis team that already has a tough time winnig.

Of course, this means that there would be no solution to the problem that I outlined above (in a seperate post), but perhaps it is just the nature of the board to give some advatage to aggressive attackers and Russia just has to 'deal with it'.

 

SquintGnome wrote:

As I reflect more on the idea of adding fatigue to the A&A board I am not convinced that it is the right thing to do.  Penalizing countries for many attacks in a turn may be contrary to the underlying premise of the game.  Inintially the Axis has more units on the board but less production capability (bonus units).  In order to win the Axis must convert their extra units into bonuses.  The only way to do this is to attack aggressively.  So penalizing multiple attacks via a fatigue setting may add a disadvantage to an Axis team that already has a tough time winnig.

Of course, this means that there would be no solution to the problem that I outlined above (in a seperate post), but perhaps it is just the nature of the board to give some advatage to aggressive attackers and Russia just has to 'deal with it'.

 

But more units on the board doesn't necessarily mean more attacks.  Germany starts out very tight and concentrated...so attacking aggressively is important.  However Germany (and Russia both, really) don't have that many "effective" attack points in the early turns of the game.  The German opening will be aggressive, true, but by means of few attacks with a large amount of units.

If fatigue was in place I think you would see less overall troop movements by Germany in the early turns but still the same effectiveness.

I think as USSR you are supposed to feel on the defensive!! It is all about holding out, and finding ways to make the Axis pay while USA moblizes. USSR is a real blue collar type of job- dirty, but very much appreciated by the team!

I don't think fatigue makes sense, since the defenders already have other advantages. But what if attackers and defenders hit at the same rate? No sea-to-land attack penalties? Maybe fatigue after 16 orders or so?

A harsh fatigue is just going to take away creative options and plays. After a certain point, defenders can be pretty confident that the attacker will not attack, so they can attack if they think it will be helpful. It would also take some of the aggresssion out (at a high rate remember).

If it is a low rate, is it really gonna matter much? I am pretty happy with the balance, but from my recollection, more people believe the Allies have an advantage. So nerfing the Axis early seems bad (USA can probably also pull it off once they get to the actual fronts).

So we can discuss options, but I think it is mostly a matter of acceptance of Russia's role. In the game they have like 40% of the income and starting units of Germany, so seems they are meant to be beat on!

What he (Gimli) said.

You talk about a high fatigue hurting the axis, while a low fatigue would not make enough difference.. to me this would suggest we need moderate fatigue.  However, a more general solution is that if fatigue hurts the axis more than the allies, then the axis just needs to be strengthened proportionately.

I also don't see this disadvantage that people think the axis has.  I generally feel like I have an easier time winning as Axis than Allies.

I'd like to see Toaster weigh in...there has probably been noone who has played/tested the map more than the creator.

OK, I have a new scenario employing what "functions" as a factory version. I need testers to help balance play. Also, a couple questions:

1) Where should the factories be located? I tried to match up to the board game, but switched the Caucusus factory placement to Karelia instead as otherwise, the balance would overly favor Russia. I was thinking of adding a Japanese factory at New Guinea and switching the W. US factory to Pearl Harbor. I'd be very curious to hear others input on this.

2) How can I replicate the allowance of placing units on the sea zones adjacent to the factory without allowing an opponent who conquers said sea zone to be able to place their own units there? For example, I want Germany to be able to place units in the Baltic, but I don't want Allies to be able to when they first gain control of the Baltic. Ideas?

3) Who would be up for testing this?

Thingol wrote: OK, I have a new scenario employing what "functions" as a factory version. I need testers to help balance play. Also, a couple questions:

1) Where should the factories be located? I tried to match up to the board game, but switched the Caucusus factory placement to Karelia instead as otherwise, the balance would overly favor Russia. I was thinking of adding a Japanese factory at New Guinea and switching the W. US factory to Pearl Harbor. I'd be very curious to hear others input on this.

2) How can I replicate the allowance of placing units on the sea zones adjacent to the factory without allowing an opponent who conquers said sea zone to be able to place their own units there? For example, I want Germany to be able to place units in the Baltic, but I don't want Allies to be able to when they first gain control of the Baltic. Ideas?

3) Who would be up for testing this?

Count me in! But I'll be on vacation in Cancun until the 22nd :-D

Here is the link to the test game:   http://www.wargear.net/games/join/216649

Still need 2 more testers for this one if anyone has the time...