A lot of times what usually breaks the Allies is how poor US reacts to what side of the world to fight on.
Alpha 3.9 Favors Axis
-
I understand why people use bids,
but if a game is unbalanced, then I prefer the game to be fixed
here is why:
Bids always end up being turned into a land unit which gets placed in some critical position on the board, throwing off the originally intended balance and strategies.
Then, the game starts turning into something that is basically mechanical: each sides has their “best” strategy to win.A much better way, is for the original maker (larry) to come back in 3 months and say, “hey look, the best way for the axis to win is for all axis nations to go 100% against russia and ignore all other possible strategies. So, I’m going to make that strategy less powerful, and make other alternative strategies for the axis more attractive.”
If we end up, in 3 or 6 months of continuous playing, to find that the best strategy for allies is KJF or KGF, then we should figure out ways to make both strategies equally attractive.
The changes required to do this are small incremental changes, like shifting 1 infantry back a territory, or moving the placement of a single boat, or changing the starting PUs up or down by 1-4.
Bids won’t do that, because bids always end up being a couple land units in a very critical spot, which only reinforces the previously found “best and only” strategy for that side.
I’m not going to weigh in on which side Global favors, because I haven’t played enough. I only wish to say that I hope Larry comes back and revisits Global in 3 months, and makes some very very small changes. I do not want to see any more big changes, because big changes cause everyone to have to start all over again with the whole giant project of balancing.
It took NWO (New World Order) 3 years of playing to get to a fully balanced state, and even now there are occasionally bids of 1-3 for one side or the other. But the main feature of those 3 years of balancing was all the fine tuning to make sure that each nation and each side of the conflict had different strategies they could pursue, and that there were many different hot-spots on the map, each with a finely tuned balance. That is what makes New World Order the most popular game on TripleA. And I hope that global can reach that level of balance and variety.
-
This discussion so cracks me up!
After all this time and waste of time and ideas and waste of ideas,
the game is still imbalanced!!!
We still play OOB rules with a few tweeks on one page
that indeed balance the game.
WHAT A WASTE OF INK AND TIME
-
I don’t mind imbalance if it fits some sort of rational dynamic that promotes interesting play. The older versions followed the dynamic that the Axis started out militarily stronger but economically weak for most the game. The Axis player had to be ruthless and cunning and use its resources sparingly.
Alpha 3.9 starts with the Axis militarily stronger and then economically stronger by turn 6 or 7 – game over. It seems to me if you are going to allow the Axis to easily gain economic superiority then get rid of the victory city system.
Sure, maybe I’m a mediocre player, but this is what I see so far.
-
Don’t get me wrong, the imbalance is part of the game in the 1st place.
The OOB rules are not broken, perhaps a few adjustments,
but not the wholescale panic that I saw here to revise the rules to ensure “balance!”
Or in the parlance of the public schools today “fairness.”
I enjoyed playing the Axis as basically OOB.
That reflects WW II, more so than all the panic sticken iterations of Alphas.
It is too bad that Larry Harris bought in to all this nonsense!
-
I think it is pretty balanced. 1-9 bid only helps allies out in one spot on the board.
I guess giving russia a bomber would be the ZERO bid needed way to do it. Russia getting a 4th air unit to do attacks with reliably is nice.
It’s kind of sad in aa50 1942 russia had 3 air units and germany 7 or something… but now germany has 12 and russia still only has 3.
Add a bomber to russia, game will be fine. or bid 1-9 for allies.
~I prefer a game slightly favoring 1 side. bidding makes it easier to pick sides.
-
the game is fine. I mean people knew axis wins in AA50 1941 more than allies… but no one cried imbalance. they just gave allies a few infantry and called it a day.
I did not realize people hate the bid system to even the tide. If such is the case, just add a bomber in russia whenever you play, prevents strategic placement of units.
-
one could maybe let the UK assimilate french terretories on the euromap, just like they can do with the indian.
that might give a slow advantage for the allies, alto abit slow
-
nah. but i do like my new uk play. convoy disrupt 97 is so cheese.
-
tanks are for losers, mechs are for winners
-
all units have their purpose. :X lez not argue about this.
-
I am not a big fan of the bid, but I don’t hate it. But I don’t think a bid corrects the Axis advantage, unless you are talking 20+. The only bid I’ve seen that makes any serious difference is allied ships in the med to aid Toronto raid… that can help by keeping the Axis out of the Middle east…
-
Karl, I’m not sure the axis have the overall advantage, but they certainly do in the first half dozen rounds or so that we are all most familiar with. If one side or the other seems to be winning too often even with players who are equally skilled, how about correcting that by giving Germany or Russia one of the techs as a national advantage (even in a no tech game). My picks would be to give Germany advanced mech if allies are winning too often, or give USSR advanced artillery if the axis win too often. It would be a house rule thing.
-
karl7 trust me, the bid should be fine.
-
The only bid I’ve seen that makes any serious difference is allied ships in the med to aid Toronto raid…
Taranto.
LOL…. you really had me there as I tried to figure out how in the world the allies would be raiding Toronto.
-
Well we invaded Oshawa just this weekend! :roll:
-
I left my stamp on that town… let me tell ya. :P
-
@Cow:
karl7 trust me, the bid should be fine.
Oh, okay. :lol:
We haven’t really experimented much with bids in any of the iterations of G40.
It’s definitely a very difficult thing to say. -
ha! I meant Taranto…. not Ohio… :-P
-
I left my stamp on that town… let me tell ya. :P
Yes you did. The battle for Oshawa was bloody and merciless, but the side of righteousness prevailed with the will of almighty God.
-
Hi everyone,
I think that this topic reflects less an assumed imbalance in favor of the Axis than the general difficulty to play the Allies well. Maybe because it has to fit to the enemies (first) moves, and that, counting a few turns, is unpredictible (and so necessitates adaptation skills and cold blood, calm mind).
Because G1 is, if we talk about strategies guidelines (Sea Lion, Barbarossa), quite scripted (well, G1 won’t be leaving France alive and play an East Coast invasion pattern, for instance). US1 is “completely” free, Pacific, Atlantic, both, no buy, etc. It requires, in my humble opinion, more comprehension of the game, and less tactical notions, as G1 would.So, even if I’ve played a too few Global games, but read much on that aa.org forum, I may say if there was such a imbalance we’d know it. By the way, I’ve heard that the Allies had a slight advantage so far in Global history, technically. I don’t know if it’s true though.
Let us play and see what happens. � :mrgreen:
Suggested Topics
