3 is enough for balance and I’d play out of box and still have fun and think its balanced.
Also a side note on allies have to be lucky in order to smash japan in the pacific.
The key is that allies choses if they go after japan in the pacific or not dependning on how round 1 rolls goes.
The allies go position in that regard and thats worth more then many people understad when it comes to balance.
Hello. And Bye.
Hello. And Bye.
The key is that allies choses if they go after japan in the pacific or not dependning on how round 1 rolls goes.
The allies go position in that regard and thats worth more then many people understad when it comes to balance.
Very true.
9-11 bid is given to allies in dice games for a reason.
13 bid is given to allies in low luck games for a reason.
@Cow:
9-11 bid is given to allies in dice games for a reason.
13 bid is given to allies in low luck games for a reason.
Online, on this forum, yep.
TripleA games as well… though it has risen to 13 for dice games, which is kind of brutal sometimes. Since axis tend to lose a 95% chance to win battle (Japan and Germany have over 10 attacks, bound to get diced in one or two of em).
If I only had a dollar for every time 1 sub 1 fighter 1 bomber failed to sink UK’s battleship or 2 subs and a fighter when I randomly do egypt instead (yeah it is easier to retreat after losing 2 subs without a hit, so you don’t air at risk).
0,95^10 = 0,6 so its only 40 % chance you fail one.
The Axis isn’t too strong. Why not? No matter how much IPCs they make, they can only place a limited number of units. Wahat e.g. Germany may need at a certain time to strike the fatal blow to Russia is a lot of infantry and tanks. However, should they build 2 inf in Karelia, 4 in Caucasus, 5 in Germany, some of which will reinforce the coastal areas and some of which will be sent to the East, then they typically still have 20-30 IPCs left. That could be spent on naval buys e.g. but those are not usually truly worthwile as they will lose on the end to the combined fleets of US and UK. I do like this though, as e.g in Europe 40 it’s possible to buy only inf one turn and the next only tanks, the next only a fleet etc. That’s not really historical. This seems to work much better in AA50.
Russia can be relieved by UK attacks on Norway and/or Karelia. However, we use a houserule that Allied units may only enter Russia on non-combat phases and that in the place new units phase of the Soviets they must be converted into Russian units. They do keep their 5 IPC for their NO as long as they hold Archangel. The Allied units are considered lend-lease equipment. I believe this rule is quite similar to the one in the original A&A Europe.
The main Problem is, the game isn’t fun for every player, if you can only win as allies by almoust complete neglection of Japan. The Japanese Player will have a poor gaming experience. On the other hand, you won’t win the war in the pacific.
I recently invested loads of Russian troops, a UK factory in India and the US heavy into the pacific (1941 scenario) and didn’t come close to a win in the pacific and lost to europe. Eventough the Japanese player made a major mistake and i got lucky when he attackt some groundforces with mainly planes. The best I could achieve was a stall with Japan earning somewhat 50 IPC a turn (playing with NO).
While Germany on the other hand was playing extremely conservative, but finally crushed the USSR (rolling really good dice), so the US Invasion froce stationed in the atlantic.
Whats missing in this game?
I guess a industrial complex in India to start with could slow the japanese advance, while still saveing IPC for UK (doesn’t have to build one). This would make the game more challanging for the Japanese Player (otherwise there is no opponent on the continent) and gives the UK player more action on the pacific side of the board, while still able to build up some fleet to fight the Germans/Italians.
