Interestingly, the teams doing the first two decks were pretty much unanimously against doing operational variants. However, that was because we felt there were still a lot of new ships and classes to be done, and we weren't sure how many decks would be made. They simply were not a priority. And we really, really didn't want to get into "fixing" old cards. Starting with deck three there began to be some serious discussion over doing a few operational variants. One, we really were starting to get thin on capital ships, and two, there was a pretty significant turnover in the team membership (mostly intentionally to let others have a chance) and a corresponding change in preferences. There is no way to please everyone. The "rancorous debate" over RB's opening salvos "back in the day" were far more heated and lengthy. You guys are too nice!
The "rancorous debate" over RB's opening salvos "back in the day" were far more heated and lengthy.
There are some exceptions of course. Remember that excellent collaborative effort on the Aufgsomethingorother Scharnhorst not-Gneisenau thing? There were a few more, like that US cruiser that was dangerously close to being OP (I had no horse in that race but the commentary from the non committee members was passionate).
The first 2-3 decks had some serious poo-flinging. The latter decks, less so.
Awful Scharnhorst (nee Gneisenau), was a classic case of a three-way stalemate with the weakest option finally winning out. That said, it is a pretty popular unit in our game club.
Few of the debates on the board have exceeded the arguing among the dev team members while working on the cards. Some of those threads could start WWIII!
We are passionate fans.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
As for Implacable, I don't really like the idea of BWF on a carrier of that defensive caliber. That thing will be absolute murder when paired up with a smoking DD on the back line. I also think this one is undercosted by a point or 2, however I really gotta go back thru the team deck UK carriers to be sure.
Your concerns were mirrored on the team. Air attacks are local so you only have concealment for her on 5-6, an the first turn air phase allows you to knock out an opponents destroyer before bwf can be triggered. Probably wont change your perspective, no hard feeling on that.
Each unit was exhaustively considered on a wide range of merits
waratsea4 (and Fear God...) You have a right to your opinion. And I think those opinions should be expressed. Critiques have always had a useful influence on future deck development as they should.
RB (and a lot of others) thought the first Set would be the only set ever produced. WaS turned out to be a surprise hit, and it took almost two years to get Set 2 out. There is no question that RB made some "stat adjustments" to ensure the game was balanced with Set I. However, several of those "adjustments" went on to haunt him (and us) in the future. From Set II onward it has only been necessary to maintain balance between Axis and Allies across all sets. No individual set after the first one is balanced if you try to play with one exclusively. You can make a balanced match out of any set, but you have to work at it. Set I had to stand on its own.
Although I wasn't one of the team to vote for an Operational Akagi, I also don't mind it. The alternative was to do a "what if" sister to Taiho (which I favored) that would have been hated on by the "anti-fantasy" faction. So there is no winning at this point. We are out of "capital ships" and those drive the game - like it or not. RB already felt it was necessary to do operational variants by Set VI to maintain interest. We are far beyond that now and I think we have done a good job of 1) minimizing the creation of operational variants to areas where we are out of alternatives and/or 2) focusing mostly on variants where the original units were little used for one reason or another. The original Akagi clearly had the wrong hull points by the guidelines worked out from the first six sets, and that provided a hook to do a variant. With the appearance of USS Midway and a bunch of Essex class sisters for the US there was an identified need to help the IJN out in the CV area. As I stated above, in this case we knew the existing Akagi was already a very good unit so we went out of our way (with a very, very long development thread and playtesting thread) to make sure this was an "alternative" rather than a replacement. I think we did okay..
I've been here from expansions beginning and heard from you many times; we can't correct units "no errata," its not expansions job. I argued than realized your right who is anybody to correct the creators work, except the creator himself. Somebody is always going to disagree. If you strongly believe a unit akla Haguro; Balzano and in my case Shokaku is grossly wrong don't use it or work it out with your opponent. Expansion went ahead and did some nice work adding new units like Hiryu or a slightly corrected Hiei or even the fantasy Imprero. Fantasy does drive some people away, but it is a must for game balance, nation building and the longevity of expansion.
Some units probably should not have been made aka Midway;ME 262; expansion Montana RB; reading some on line matches i've seen them dominate builds. Than this ridiculous Operational Unit thing comes out under the guise RB opened some flood gate; OC HOOD obsoleted the other and you know as well as i the Shokaku Zuikaku costing was not fixed by a CS Zuikaku; now we touch a unit we presumed done wrong by the creator with guide lines created clearly by whom??
Your first instincts were right the only way the IJN is going to compete with the added Midway, Essex Class CV's was with Fantasy CV's; not redoing Akagi creating alternatives units for the game should not be expansions job it effects all aspects of the game, not just dealing with late war balance. Many as Fear God and Dreadnoughts may tell me to stuff it; but I can't see how going in this direction effects the game in a positive manner.
There simply arent axis carriers to compete fantasy or otherwise. Taiho Kai was the other japanese option and there was an awareness that the list already had a number of contentious hypothetical units and few 'big name' historical units. You cant please everyone buy you cant forget people either
I don’t use fantasy. RB doesn’t own the game anymore, we do. If we don’t keep going forward we will stagnate and die. New decks keeps the community alive, even if we have fantasy in it. Though my preference would be to add more small ships ( bring on Bathurst class).
I think the most important thing is to provide a balance of options. Historical stuff, fun stuff, big stuff, little stuff, just have something for everyone and it's all gravy.
I don’t use fantasy. RB doesn’t own the game anymore, we do. If we don’t keep going forward we will stagnate and die. New decks keeps the community alive, even if we have fantasy in it. Though my preference would be to add more small ships ( bring on Bathurst class).
True most players would applaud an Ice Cube with the right numbers; good for them; RB doesn't own the game any more and WE don't either. To do right by the game we should add to it. not alter it; personally can't see how anyone can say this Akagi is not Fantasy. Nothing wrong with changing a units SA's to make it fit a need; But changing its core values without it being a REFIT; no way and than call yourself the keeper of the game; Hypocrisy. The problem here is a certain few want to make the game theirs without bothering with the input of the whole Forum, if as you say its a community why aren't all involved; is it throw a few bones so the Team can have its explosive "Opening Salvo" Keeping the community alive by none involvement seems strange to me; reading new unit remarks most would be happy with anything, just a sign of apathy, laziness not caring what goes into the game. Weeds was one i always felt, although i disagreed on some measured would keep it away from this. Thats way I was Really Surprised to this this unit done as so.
WAS. I understand your frustration really I do. I would have left the old card as is but it was clearly wrongly statted. There are several others that need fixing. Canberra being one of them.