Personally, I don’t like the NO, yet I understand that it is a simple way to simulate the “real war”. All games has their way to “simulate” history. In World in Flames you have a tension table towards the entry of USA. Here you have the NO.
The problem is that I cant use my poor imagination to see what the NOs could be in “real life”… A morale boost for the people? Nah… Instead of making a -5 IPC rule when you land a RAF fighter in Russia, Larry could have made it less effective to defend together, and made a +5 IPC lend lease rule if Russia control Archangel. And why not make a rule for Gibraltar (impassible if you don’t control it, fort, coastal artillery etc) , rather then -5 IPC for the UK? Etc. etc. You see what I mean.
However, my friend like the NO, so I guess we will use the NO every second time. The positive thing with this is that we probably will play it for another 40 years or so!
I like the NOs because without them, the game seriously leans in favor of the allies. With them, the axis earn enough to make it a fair fight.
NO’s make it a global war much more easily. without them you can go KGF or KJF so much easier, which will end up bringing you back to the AAR bids.
I like playing with the NO’s because with more $ in the game, it makes it easier to pursue various purchase strategies, and it seems to make the game shorter, because when one side is getting most of its NOs and the opposing side is getting almost none, the game will end soon because of the IPC imbalance.
It seems like the real meat of the playtesting was put into 1941 with NOs, because that scenario is the most balanced. The Axis absolutely need them. Without them, it’s KGF mania and with JP collecting 15 IPC less per turn, that’s an entire IC worth of units they’re not pumping into Russia or one less full transport going to American shores. It’s already pretty difficult to win when the Allies are well coordinated and goal oriented.
Agreed, I cannot imagine that Anniversary was play tested without NOs. Perhaps originally and that could have spawned the creation of NOs, but even that seems doubtful. (I don’t credit WOTC game testers with that much ingenuity and intelligence if you want to know the truth.)
1942 is hopelessly unbalanced in my experience. So far, in 10 games I have played with 10 different opponents (because outside Botider, I have yet to find someone to play it twice in a row, and he’s only doing it because I want to see if I am good enough to get the Axis to win) I have seen 10 Allied Wins.
1941 seems unbalanced without NOs. You’re talking -5 IPC from Italy a round, -10 IPC from Germany a round and -15 IPC from Japan a round, every round almost. (Yes, Italy and Germany could have more income from NOs, but it’s not as sure as the ones I gave them.) Countered by America at -5 IPC a round and Russia at -5 IPC a round from lost NO income. (England never has NOs unless America goes heavy in the Pacific, and they won’t if there are no NOs and America would have another NO if they went heavy in the Pacific, but why would they if there are no NOs?)
I don’t see how it can be balanced when the axis are at -30 IPC a round in combined income and the allies are only at -10 IPC a round in combined income, on average. Even a bid wouldn’t make up that much of a difference I don’t think. That’s a pretty huge difference if you think about it. In a 10 round game, you’re talking about a -200 IPC penalty against the Axis (net), and that’s not accounting for America completely ignoring Japan and focusing on wiping Italy off the map early in the game instead.
@Cmdr:
1942 is hopelessly unbalanced in my experience. So far, in 10 games I have played with 10 different opponents (because outside Botider, I have yet to find someone to play it twice in a row, and he’s only doing it because I want to see if I am good enough to get the Axis to win) I have seen 10 Allied Wins.
The -42 games, all 10 of them with NOs off?
I have lost 2 and won 3 -41 games as allies, the 42 game was an obvious victory for allies, all these with NOs off, but with more experience I expect both my self and other players to win much more than 60% in both scenarios, if we’re playing without NOs.
I have only played 3-4 games with NOs, I have not yet lost as axis.
Even if we cannot conclude with certainty yet, compared to AAR, it seems like allies have advantage both in 41 and 42 with NOs off.
About the balancing problems with NOs off, if the bid is high enough, I would definitely want to play axis.
It might be premature to start discussing bids already, but I’m a bit surprised that all players take allies without bid in 42 using NOs, same goes for playing axis in both scenarios without bids, if NOs are off.
No, all 10 1942 games were with NOs. So even with all that extra cash for the Axis, they still lost 10 out of 10 games so far. Working on Game 11 right now, but if the Axis win that one, it might be because of dice…I kinda went ballistic with the Germans in hopes of overwhelming the Russians before the allies could set up a defense. Even that might not help, looks like Japan (round 2) might already be in trouble.
wow, the after action reports give the other impression, with the Axis winning most of the games listed so far, 10 to 6 with 1 draw…
wow, the after action reports give the other impression, with the Axis winning most of the games listed so far, 10 to 6 with 1 draw…
You mean the After Action reports for 1941, right? I’m talking about 1942. In 1942 the allies are way more powerful, the axis seriously depleted. (Japan goes from 5 transports to 1 for instance while America and England gets significantly more navy and Russia starts with a really nice air force.)
A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins. I am sure that the axis have a good 50-50 chance to win, even without the NO.
A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins. I am sure that the axis have a good 50-50 chance to win, even without the NO.
I can’t say that. You’re talking -200 IPC worth of units and technologies over the course of a 10 round game if you remove the National Objectives. -400 IPC worth over a 20 round game.
That’s a significant amount of equipment we’re talking about.
@Cmdr:
I can’t say that. You’re talking -200 IPC worth of units and technologies over the course of a 10 round game if you remove the National Objectives. -400 IPC worth over a 20 round game.That’s a significant amount of equipment we’re talking about.
You might have a point.
Jennifer, do you think that you have to balance the game with some National Advantages when playing without the NO:s?
@Cmdr:
I can’t say that. You’re talking -200 IPC worth of units and technologies over the course of a 10 round game if you remove the National Objectives. -400 IPC worth over a 20 round game.That’s a significant amount of equipment we’re talking about.
You might have a point.
Jennifer, do you think that you have to balance the game with some National Advantages when playing without the NO:s?
I’ve played the game a couple of times without NOs, but what we did was build in an extra 10 IPC into German and Japanese territories (original orange ones, like Carolines was worth 2, Formosa 2, Japan 10, etc.) and 5 IPC into Italy/Balkans to make up for the lost income.
A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins.
I disagree on both accounts. :-D
A&A is obviously quite different in many respects. A big one is that new pieces are constantly coming on the board in addition to pieces leaving the board. If you have more material coming on board than the opponent, it doesn’t really matter if your opening is suboptimal.
As for chess, openings are important but very overrated. A better midgame/endgame player will beat a better opener virtually every time.
yup, true, but best of all is endgame when you have pieces on the board and your opponent does not, whatever it takes, opening, middle or later, the goal is the same.
Strange Jenn. In our 3 '42 games Axis is 2-1 over Allies. Now granted the 2 Axis wins were early on, but…
Oh and so far that is the ONLY Allied win I have seen and I surely hope you would not point to that as a typical game.
Strange Jenn. In our 3 '42 games Axis is 2-1 over Allies. Now granted the 2 Axis wins were early on, but…
Oh and so far that is the ONLY Allied win I have seen and I surely hope you would not point to that as a typical game.
Hmm, I musta forgotten a couple of Axis wins. My bad.
So it’s like 8 to 2 for 1942 for me then.
PS: That is my absolute favorite game though, forgot it was a 1942 game. That game rocked, England fell so dang early in the game and then the Allies stormed back and took out the entire board. You gotta admit, that was probably the most fun of any AA Game in history, or darn close!
A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins. I am sure that the axis have a good 50-50 chance to win, even without the NO.
I believe you are incorrect sir. Have you actually played much 1941 yet?
As someone who has more than 10 games played or in progress, I can safely say with some certainty that playing without NOs is both unbalanced and incredibly boring (because it is just a slow grind to the death for the Axis with little hope on the horizon).
Personally, I don’t like the NO, yet I understand that it is a simple way to simulate the “real war”. All games has their way to “simulate” history. In World in Flames you have a tension table towards the entry of USA. Here you have the NO.
I have changed my mind. I also think the NO’s are brilliant! Not only because they make the strategies look more like in the real war, but also (don’t bark at me Krieghund) because you can balance the game yourself, or to simulate for example the “Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”, just by adding a few lines in the NO. Much better then to add complicated Optional Rules.
Two examples so far:
Soviet National Objective
Stalin would never sacrifice Soviet troops to defend British territories, and Churchill would never allow them to enter. Hence, you may add the following line in the soviet National Objective: “Gain 5 IPC if no other Allied forces are present in a territory controlled by the Soviet Union, and if no Soviet forces are present in any other Allied territory, and if the Soviets control Archangels.”
Japanese National Objective
During the war there was a Non-Aggression Pact between Soviet and Japan. To simulate this, the rule above give a 5 ICP penalty if Soviet attack Manchuria (hence enter a Allied territory). To make it less favourable for Japan to attack Soviet, you also may add this line in the Japanese National Objective: Gain 5 IPC if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Manchuria, Kiangsu, French Indo-China/Thailand, and if no Japanese forces are present in any Soviet territory."
//Håkan
