Roger's Scenario Thread

RogerCooper

@board-3659 TripleA's political model is not very flexible and the AI can't really handle freedom of action. The best policy to make peace with all but one foe.

Next year, I will semi-retire and I am thinking about getting involved in the coding end of TripleA. A flexible, automated set of political rules where the nations will join and leave loosely-defined camps would be a possible project.

RogerCooper

Name Neuschwabenland North vs South
Description Conflict by land and sea over a fictional set of continents
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Neuschwabenland_north_vs_south

Good Points

Balanced
Straight-forward unit set

Bad Points

No victory conditions
Relatively symmetrical start lacks dynamics

RogerCooper

Name Star Wars: Tatooine War (4 teams)
Description 4 alliances fight for the planet Tatooine
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_Tatooine_War_(4_teams)

Good Points

Lots of Star Wars specific units

Bad Points

The usual problems of free-for-alls, mitigated by some alliances
The inability of spaceships to land on "the interior" is strange

RogerCooper

Name AA50-42-Build Caps
Description Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition 1942, with limits on how many units can be built
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/AA50-42-Build_Caps

Good Points

No mega stacks
Diversified units are used

Bad Points

Favors the Axis (but the Allies can be interesting to play)

RogerCooper

Name World At War
Description World War 2 starting in 1939, on large map
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/World_At_War

Good Points

Reasonably balanced
Conflict all over the map

Bad Points

Lots of gegraphic anomalies and unusual production values
Victory conditions don't work

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

Victory conditions don't work

May you please double check this and provide a save game or precise instructions to reproduce it or both?

RogerCooper

@cernel The game didn't end when 5 capitals were held. I didn't save the game.

It could easily be fixed by designating capitals as victory cities, rather than using triggered victory.

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

It could easily be fixed by designating capitals as victory cities, rather than using triggered victory.

If there is anything to fix. Do you remember which those capitals were?

RogerCooper

@cernel They weren't specified the game notes.

RogerCooper

Scenario World War II Global 1942 2nd Edition
Description World War II starting in 1942 on the Global Map
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/World_War_II_Global_1942_2nd_Edition

Good Points

Reasonably balanced
Few confusing political rules

Cernel

@rogercooper Are you not bothered at all by the sheer amount of historical inconsistencies, often gratuitous? I remember I could not play this game because those were well above my limit of tolerance.

board 3659

@cernel Eh. I don't mind too much if it doesn't make the game actively worse.

RogerCooper

@cernel The historical problems of A&A do bother me some, but especially when I am talking about scenarios from the actual boardgames, I don't need fell a specific need to discuss them.

Bad Points

Allows the Japanese to conduct an implausible campaign in Asia, allowing them to eventually threaten the Russian heartland.
The defender can not retreat from a battle and combat can continue as long as the attacker wants, unlike historical campaigns which often bogged down.
The economic might of the US is understated.
The map is greatly distorted.

I do make a note of a scenario tries handle this more realistically than the boardgames.

Cernel

@rogercooper I was actually referring of all of a series of inconsistencies which make this game (in my opinion) the worst of all basic games as a matter of historicity on top of the issues which are common or even ubiquitous amongst the basic games.

RogerCooper

@cernel said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper I was actually referring of all of a series of inconsistencies which make this game (in my opinion) the worst of all basic games as a matter of historicity on top of the issues which are common or even ubiquitous amongst the basic games.

What specifically makes the Global game worse than others?

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@cernel said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper I was actually referring of all of a series of inconsistencies which make this game (in my opinion) the worst of all basic games as a matter of historicity on top of the issues which are common or even ubiquitous amongst the basic games.

What specifically makes the Global game worse than others?

I was just referring to the 1942 scenario, not any Global game. Of course, both have issues, but I'm just amazed at how the 1942 one is so much worse than everything else which I've ever seen in any basic games.

RogerCooper

@cernel Again, what is specifically wrong with the 1942 scenario? It seems to play fairly well in a game against the AI.

Cernel

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@cernel Again, what is specifically wrong with the 1942 scenario? It seems to play fairly well in a game against the AI.

I'm just talking about historicity: nothing about playability (against whatever) at all (which I cannot seriously judge having never played the game). Stuff like this territory is owned by this power, whereas it should be owned by this other power if it is 1942 etc.

RogerCooper

@cernel said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@cernel Again, what is specifically wrong with the 1942 scenario? It seems to play fairly well in a game against the AI.

I'm just talking about historicity: nothing about playability (against whatever) at all (which I cannot seriously judge having never played the game). Stuff like this territory is owned by this power, whereas it should be owned by this other power if it is 1942 etc.

Except for the French still being with the Allies, the territory assignments seem reasonable for 1942. I have seen plenty of scenarios with much worse geography. (World at War comes to mind).

board 3659

@rogercooper Honestly I recommend Global War 1936. It's an Axis-Allies adjacent game that overhauls the system and makes it much better in many aspects to A&A.

There are 3 sides, Allies, Axis, and Commiterm adding an interesting diplomacy element to the game
Starting in 1936 allows for a steady build-up with the Nazi annexations, Spanish Civil War, Abyssinia, and Chinese Civil War (which yes is a major part in this Pacific Theater)
Tech system that isn't as luck-dependent as the one used in A&A (you need to get through 4 stages to get the tech and roll above average rolls to progress each stage. However, tech tokens are given for each major factory you own)
A convoy system that is crucial for Germany and Britain for any significant strategy. Encourages submarine production to some extent as well as force British Navy to split up to cover their convoy lines.
Terrain that helps prevent rapid movement in more mountainous regions (Siberia, China, etc) making many of these situations not occur, simulates desert warfare in North Africa, etc
US actually having the largest economy in the game but starts at 0 and has heavy restrictions. Required to roll each turn to increase IPC each turn and get to wartime level to declare war
Blitzing is more complex with tanks able to do attack again in their blitz attack other units instead of empty land
Proper Victory conditions that are more than capture opponents' capital.
Variety of facilities (Ports, Sub Bases, Factories, Air Bases, etc) that help with movement, building units, etc
Good job simulating Vichy/Free France, something most games tend to fail at doing

Theres more but honestly just search Global War 1936 on youtube, it has a small but dedicated subcommunity. You can try getting the units and map on your own but that's an expensive hobby sort of thing. It is best to get Tabletop Simulator if you want to enjoy the game.

The only "issue" is the really distorted map but that's more acceptable in a board game IMO than in Triple A personally.