@Magro said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:
@SS-GEN I will!
PM me your e - mail. May leave site after today.
@SS-GEN Don’t leave the forum.
@SS-GEN i would like them rules if you are still here.
You’ll have to refresh my memory on what rules you wanted.
Oh you want the 39 setup. I’ll have to look for them again. Once I find I’ll send u a PM here to you on this site
@Gary-Mark-Scott-Cooper said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:
@SS-GEN i would like them rules if you are still here.
PM me here on site your e mail. I can send a 39 rule and setup plus if you want have another file for house rules for anniversary game too
AA50 with 42 start and without NO’s is the most balanced version. Bids are usually a single unit.
@squirecam said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:
AA50 with 42 start and without NO’s is the most balanced version. Bids are usually a single unit.
If you want balance, don’t use the tech rules unless you want to add too much of an element of luck, IMHO.
Agreed.
@squirecam yups. tourney takes out NO and TECH. the NO are especially abusive (16$ for france per turn, with 2 powers getting $5 each)
also the 41 setup is really easy for allies to win–UK buys 4 fighters UK1 and flies to Russia UK2.
For me, it seems unfair to use NO’s and then complain about balance, when those are the reason for the imbalance. More $ doesn’t make the game better.
Luckily, 42 without them and tech, but with interceptors, is a fun and fair matchup.
@taamvan said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:
also the 41 setup is really easy for allies to win–UK buys 4 fighters UK1 and flies to Russia UK2.
I don’t see why this is such a ‘winning’ move…
Sure I get that this helps to cover any Russian thrust against Germany. But a German player worth his own salt will keep this incursion from ever causing Germany from Falling, especially before Japan wins the game from pressure on Russia from out east
@squirecam said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:
More $ doesn’t make the game better.
Well, more money to spend DOES give each side more strategic options, so in that sense, I have disagree with your contention that it doesn’t improve the game.
I think the issue with NO’s is that the extra money may benefit one side (axis) more than the other.
@axis_roll Russia never falls. It has way too many infantry, cheap tanks are its pat buy, and the pile of UK fighters sitting on its army means the Germans are on the defensive.
The 42 scenario is more balanced because some of that income is already allocated to the Axis
Give each country $50 extra a turn. There will certainly be more units all over the board. But it doesn’t make the game itself better. Just longer.
The lack of income forces choices among the players. Japan must choose navy vs infantry. These strategic choices make the game better. JMHO.
@taamvan said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:
@axis_roll Russia never falls. It has way too many infantry, cheap tanks are its pat buy, and the pile of UK fighters sitting on its army means the Germans are on the defensive.
The 42 scenario is more balanced because some of that income is already allocated to the Axis
Then that is poor axis play. Germany can cover Japanese advances, Russian income gets too low, and caucasus will eventually fall to combined axis pressure.
This is from our game play experience
@squirecam said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:
Give each country $50 extra a turn. There will certainly be more units all over the board. But it doesn’t make the game itself better. Just longer.
More money = more choices for units that a country would not normally buy. Sure, you can be a dork and buy more infantry or experiment with a Naval strategy for Germany, or Japanese thrust on USA…
The lack of income forces choices among the players. Japan must choose navy vs infantry. These strategic choices make the game better. JMHO.
So you probably buy into the marketing theory that:
“LESS is MORE”
Generally, my experience has proven that equation does not add up
@axis_roll
You are being too simplistic.
I am fine with Global NO’s because they add choices and complexity. Does Japan take +10 every turn, or go for attacks right away, but bring in the USA also. AA50 NO’s dont work that way. They simply give the axis alot more money to start with, unbalancing the game.
If there were a purpose to it besides just more income, then it could be fine. But it doesn’t add anything of value.
@squirecam said in 1940 vs anniversary balance:
…They simply give the axis alot more money to start with, unbalancing the game.
If there were a purpose to it besides just more income, then it could be fine. But it doesn’t add anything of value.
Your point was MY original point:
“I think the issue with NO’s is that the extra money may benefit one side (axis) more than the other.”
@axis_roll
That’s only part of it. Giving USA +10 for holding Washington isn’t a choice. Even if the NO’s were equal in amount, I would still not like them.
The NO’s should be more like Global, where they offer choices as opposed to just more $. The unequal balance just makes it worse.
NOs slant the game heavily in the Axis’s favor in AA50, I thought this was common knowledge. Removing them makes both scenarios better, as Axis can’t reach economic parity with the Allies on like turn 2.
Personally, I fall more in the camp of favoring lower incomes for all the countries, as it better reflects the reality of war. Typically, countries can’t replace their forces at the same rate they lose them. You shouldn’t be able to wipe out Germany’s deathstack in Ukraine on Russia’s turn only for them to be able to vomit out 14 more INF immediately.
