Revised vs. '42

[lukalion]

Dont know how we started this bb82 in this thread but nvm.
U took as example Hit and yourself, i have never played against u or Hit so i dont know u guys, but when i look at this forum and see that Hit won 1942 live tourney, he won AcesUp league with FP and right now his to play in semis of summer revised tourney against U, so for me the player who can achieve something like that in different variants is one of top players of this game. What when Global comes to GTO and some of so called expert players realize they are not good at it, will they finally admit that they are experts in their variations but limited to achieve anything else.

[bb82]

i dont know u guys, but when i look at this forum and see that Hit won 1942 live tourney, he won AcesUp league with FP

42 was very new. Give it some time as others specialize in it and I highly doubt hit would win it. It was also a live tourney. As for the league, that is his specialty (multi with FP) and live revised. So no surprises there.

and right now his to play in semis of summer revised tourney against U,

As for that, I'll believe it when I see it happens. He only plays live and now also forces his opponents to skype too and usually in a multi format with FP. He refuses to play me unless I do it live with skype. I'd be surprised if all his games thus far in the PBEM tourney were actually PBEM, more likely they were played live. So I will be very shocked when I see him play me in a standard PBEM game. But he does want the pbem tourney prize (so do I), so an exception is likely.

PBEM allows you to play your best and see your best from your opponent, so I wouldn't be betting on me to win, but I do see us on a more even playing field.


To summarize, I'm more pointing out his specialty and showing that you greatly limit/change the pool of players when you start adding restrictions on how they can play against you (live, multi, skype, LL, etc). Some restrictions have more impact than others. I do it too. I no longer will play a 'competitive' game in a live (especially not with skype) or multi format. I just don't have the time for a drawn out live one and I've slowly learned that I enjoy a slower paced strategy game. There is a reason I don't play RTS or speed-chess-like games. I also see no reason to rush my opponent unless it was a ftf tournament. I've found that lessor quality games are usually the result, unless my opponent was very use to live and had the time. But even in that case, to throw off my opponent and increase the chances of a win, I could do a few unusual tactics that my opponent is less prepared for and unlikely to adapt well too considering the time restraint (i.e. G Fleet buy, heavy KJF, etc). I play worse in a live setting too. Just not too use to it and I usually do all kinds of silly (sometimes big) errors, or for similar reasons as stated above.

To each their own though. We each have our specialty/preferences.

when Global comes to GTO and some of so called expert players realize they are not good at it, will they finally admit that they are experts in their variations but limited to achieve anything else

Of course when global comes out no one will be that good at it (takes years). But 'experts' in other A&A specialties will have a huge advantage when playing global against A&A novices for quite some time.


And it's much less about

limited to achieve anything else

and much more about

to each their own

[Demandred]

I gotta say, I find this recent trend of people attacking third parties by forum to be pretty distasteful.

Now ill admit im the first one who can get too heated in an exchange, and maybe escalate things when i should be extinguishing, but at least i generally stick with talking to/about the people im already communicating with.

I mean, how could BB82 know the ONLY way Hitman plays games? Does he follow him around and keep a log of the games he is playing?

Or, could it be a gross assumption based on one or two interactions, and then extrapolated to a firm belief that a person KNOWS everything someone else is doing?

Seems to be the height of arrogance to me, to make such grand assumptions based on so little, and to be so sure in them, that u are willing to post as fact the ONLY way someone does something. I mean seriosuly, what the hell is the point of saying something like "hes probably playing his games live and not pbe". How the F would u know? And WTF difference would it make anyway?

And all this towards someone whose not even involved in posting or communcating ANYWHERE, let alone in this or similar threads...

[bb82]

Your way off dem and your taking things too personal. No point trying to escalate issues. Was just talking about personal preferences and how preferences can effect games, along with how specializing can make you really good (perhaps one of the best) at a variant.

I mean, how could BB82 know the ONLY way Hitman plays games?

As for hit, common knowledge and what he explicitly told me. Not like i'm trying to mind read or something or be mean.

I mean seriosuly, what the hell is the point of saying something like "hes probably playing his games live and not pbe". How the F would u know? And WTF difference would it make anyway?

Why be so negative? And why assume the worse in what someone says?

You play a lot with hit. Are you telling me he didn't play those pbem games in a live savable fashion? It's not a big deal if he was, was just pointing out the field that hit specializes in as part of the above discussion.

[rockismyreligion]

If there is lets say 10 different variants, for me the expert player would be the one who can play all 10 in high level then just to be specialized in 1.

Then it is a semantics issue.

But truly, just like with companies or anything else in life, to be the topmost you need to specialize. Otherwise I'd argue that the pool of players in some variants just aren't that large/diverse, meaning not many experts in it.


But yeah, I could see a top player playing well in the different variants (given a little practice). But not many would want to or able to put the time into it. They find a variant that suits what they are looking for and stick with it.

And I'm really not sure how this got started in a revised vs 42 thread .

I agree. If you're decent in a variety of games, you're just mediocre by comparison. That's why college degrees come in the form of disciplines you "major" in.

[aagamer_kc03]

To me the main issues with 42 are as following:

At upper levels, the game is unbalanced towards the Axis. Bidding the Russians extra IPCs to spend on round 1 probably would solve this. Unsure how many IPCs would be needed, but probably between 2 and 10, depending on quality of opponents and the desire to handicap a match to even it out. Alternately, an extra infantry, or perhaps artillery in Karelia, is probably all the units the Russians would need to balance.

To me the bigger frustration in 1942 is how decisive the naval battles are (Due to transports and Sub rule changes, and cheaper bombers). A Standard Deviation in either direction can be decisive. To that point, I'm unsure how to fix the issue. Either naval units weren't discounted enough, perhaps 10-20 percent more of a discount over revised, or perhaps more naval units are needed on the board in the beginning to get them a little more "weight", and shrink the range of outcomes within a standard Dev. Low luck gets rid of this risk mid to late game, but not enough in the early rounds.

This is also how I feel. While I do like some of the rule changes the game appears unbalanced to me, especially early. I also agree that navy battles are far more decisive in this version as well.

Trying to decide who is a "better" player based on specilizing in one version or being very good at many is an age old debate that precedes A&A. It comes up in every MVP race in every sport.

I think an expert is an expert, whether they specialize in one version or play each well above average. A Superstar is one that is an expert at any version they touch

[bb82]

I think an expert is an expert, whether they specialize in one version or play each well above average. A Superstar is one that is an expert at any version they touch

Superstar seems more appropriate than saying someone 'mastered' A&A. I like your definition a lot .

[mmd1]

having played a bit of anniversary it is just hard to like '42 as an alternative to revised - revised only but i have little time anyway. i may ask rem to send me a 42 challenge sometime so i can see where it is currently.

i also dislike the fact that uk can lose their starting fleet and germany can stack in karelia from the game start. this is a game flaw in my opinion.

in classic uk often lost the starting navy but russia held karelia.

in revised it is risky for germnay to stack karelia because of a double hit from uk and russia.

in 42 it seemed to me with a small number of games that if germany can hold karelia it was usually game over - they didn't need africa. happy to be told i'm wrong though...

[zues_mastus]

I'm too lazy to read all the posts so if I double up on a topic, please excuse me.

Reasons I like '42 over revised:

1) Unit costs are lowered. this is just nice.
2) Aircraft Carrier Defense value are more realistic. I mean why would an aircraft carrier defend at a 3? It makes no sense, I mean its just a floating airfield. The fighters are what it brings to the table.
3) Transports cannot shoot back. This just seems to be more realistic. By their very nature, they are weak and defenseless and should not get a chance to fire back and take out a destroyer or fighter or whatever.
4) Strategic bombing damage to IC's and not money. When I first started playing 1942 I didn't like this, but I think it is the right way to go. It seems more realistic this way.
5) Landing aircraft on a newly purchased aircraft carrier. I guess this is the publishers way of making up for the reduction in defense value of the AC.

Things I Disagree with in 1942:

1) Aircraft cannot hit subs. I like the aircraft/sub rules in Revised better. Aircraft should be able to attack subs before they submerge. Aircraft spot and kill subs. That's how it was and is still done today.
2) Bombardment casualties are not removed immediately from combat. Enough said.

-Z

[GTO_Krieghund]

Let me try to shed a little light on why the rules you don't like were changed, zeus_mastus. Maybe it will help you to accept them. If not, it will at least give you some insight into our thinking.

1) Yes, planes were very effective sub killers in reality. However, reality suffers a bit when translated into an abstract board game. Sometimes the designers have to "fudge" one aspect of a reality-based game in order to deal with the limitations of another aspect of it. Hopefully, in the end, the two balance each other out to create a whole that abstractly mirrors reality even though the individual parts may not. The interaction between subs, destroyers and planes is a perfect example of this.

The range of air units and the size of the oceans in the game make it very easy for air units to find and eliminate subs in the game, if air units are capable of hitting them on their own. This gives subs no place to hide and makes them "sitting ducks" for air attacks, as was demonstrated in the Revised edition. This simply doesn't reflect the realities of anti-submarine warfare as it occured in World War II, at least until long-range aircraft were developed later in the war. Until that time, subs were very safe in the middle areas of the oceans, as planes didn't have the range to hunt them effectively there. Most were sunk only when they were caught in the act of raiding shipping.

Adding the rule that destroyers are required as "spotters" for air attacks against subs represents the concerted effort needed to hunt and attack subs hiding out between raids. This gives subs more longevity and makes them more the fearsome foes that they actually were in the early to middle days of the war.

It also promotes the purchase and maintenance of more well-rounded fleets, as destroyers are necessary to guard against the threat of subs. This reflects the reality that subs were a constant threat to military shipping as well, and that no convoy would travel without destroyer escorts because of that threat. At the same time, it keeps them from being used as cheap "cannon fodder" in naval battles, as they were most often not used extensively in fleet operations, but rather as harrassing hunters where their unique properties were best utilized.

From an economic standpoint, the necessity of buying destroyers for protection against subs also reflects the economic losses sustained by raids against merchant shipping by submarines.

All of these points, taken together, allow the game to abstractly represent the economic and military threat posed by submarines in World War II. This makes subs a useful and strategic purchase in the game.


2) The philosophy of shore bombardment in Revised was that ships literally fired at targets on the shore before the amphibious troops hit the beach. This is really a little too tactical for a game on a global strategic level. It simply doesn't work on a global scale, where all of Western Europe is one game space. It implies that naval gunfire can wipe out entire divisions, even troops in Paris, before the troops wade ashore in Normandy. The new philosophy is that the casualties of offshore bombardment are only a part of the casualties inflicted by a campaign that begins with an amphibious assault. This is what led to this rules change.

Also, from a practical viewpoint, the addition of cruisers was making opening fire offshore bombardment way too effective, especially against sparsely-defended islands in the Pacific.


I hope this helps.

[Yoper]

And to further add to what my fellow A&A playtester/developer has put forth, you also have to remember that the changes that were made were specifically done with AA50 in mind.

The items that you list in your post that you like are great ideas for AA50, but I see that a few are problem areas in AA42. The main ones are the lower cost of units- with bombers being the big one- and the defenseless transports. Don't get me wrong, I like the defenseless transports. But the early game playout is seriously changed by this issue. The UK is behind the power curve even more so than in Revised.

The AA42 game is a retrofit of the AA50 rules onto the Revised map. While the idea of having a base game that operates with the same core rules of AA50 and AAP40/AAE40/AAG40 is a laudable idea, I don't think that a great deal of though was put into what issues may arise.

I hope that helps.

[RobEng]

Let me try to shed a little light on why the rules you don't like were changed, zeus_mastus. Maybe it will help you to accept them. If not, it will at least give you some insight into our thinking...

I hope this helps.

Thank you for this insightful answer.

[zues_mastus]

Ditto Rob

Thanks for the feedback.

[mmd1]

thanks for that info krieghund, it was very interesting. that approach with subs would be even more powerful if subs could cause ipcs losses by blocking shipping lanes, as in europe and pacific.

was there a clear justification for allowing transports to do amphibious attacks in zones with enemy subs in it - that rule did annoy me, but maybe i'm missing something.

some minor tweaking to 42 could make some improvements - replacing the russian sub with a destroyer would make the sinking of the uk fleet a bit more risky as in revised. it is still an option, as it is in revised but there is more likely to be a cost. other fleets were tweaked to introduce the cruisers. perhaps this could be the change made with a two ipc bid for the allies.

[GTO_Krieghund]

was there a clear justification for allowing transports to do amphibious attacks in zones with enemy subs in it - that rule did annoy me, but maybe i'm missing something.

The only justification is the blanket rule that subs never block movement. Of course, an unescorted transport moving into a sea zone with enemy subs will be toast on the subs' next turn, but that doesn't prevent the amphibious assault.

This "hole" was plugged in the 1940 games. In those games, unescorted transports may not freely carry out amphibious assaults in sea zones with enemy subs.