This’ll be my last post on this topic out of time constraints. I love the back and forth, but I don’t see anything here that is new or otherwise convinces me that the game is balanced or that it favors the USSR.
At this point, I don’t see there being any daylight made between us on game theory (which is fine with me). This is the main reason I don’t really like to write essays. I just don’t have the time, and minds generally don’t get changed via this method in my experience.
You have a point, but you’re also completely discounting the fact that NATO can only really act at 1/3rd efficiency with those units.
I did not discount this, but I didn’t share every detail of the valuation so it’s totally forgivable. My valuation does not include infantry from either side because there’s almost EXACTLY the same amount for each side at the end of R1. NATO has more stuff in every category at the end of the Soviet opener except tanks - it has way more stuff in every category at the end of the actual round once everyone has had a turn. Further, to be fair with regards to TUV, we’d have to count NATOs first round of purchases in the valuation. This essentially nearly doubles the TUV gulf. I didn’t mention this in the initial post.
Fruity pebbles is a phenomenon that exists to some extent in every version of axis and allies. This is extremely challenging for AnA players to handle on a good day. The response is to understand you only need to be winning in one area of the map and holding everywhere else to win the game. There are finer details, but this is the general concept. In E&W, its hold in India, hold in Europe and kick in the back door as the USA in Kamchatka. After the first two to three turns, the economy is balanced as you point out, but NATO has 200 TUV over the Russians (not including the Navy) and the Russians should be contained with their demise coming on their east front via USA. This is the best way to “see” the imbalance. There is a loss of kinetic energy as the Russians as the economy balances and then the USA is piercing through.
I could (and might) run the same valuation for Anniversary and Classic to have something to compare it to so this is better understood but I don’t know. Takes time to lay out and I’d rather be playing. I’m unchanged. NATO should win 6/7 games at least. If that’s not happening, there was some extreme dice event or NATO was mishandled. But I leave my mind open to being changed over the board. If something can be demonstrated repeatedly, I absolutely will abandon this position after investigating why/what was so misleading - but experience tells me that is unlikely.
If the game ends up being balanced or less in favor of NATO, I believe it will come from increasing the risk profile of the soviet opener to an… unreliable but at least threatening chance of success as @Ragnell804 did. But you’ll still need very good dice.
OR
…get to the Fusion bomb asap. This is the “heavy bombers” of East and West. Maybe through some combination of spies and tech, the soviets can make up the massive TUV advantage by blowing away pieces in a truly economical way.
As a side note: the NATO “at start” nuke is very impactful in the ways that are considered secondary. Removing 5 Russian infantry might be a letdown, but when you do this to the SFE industrial complex on the turn you land in Kamchatka, you ensure the Russian counterattack is less likely to succeed because they’re down five infantry and can’t move their fighters due to EMP. Finally, on the Russian turn, because the IPC value has been reduced, the Russians can only add two Russian infantries instead of four.
This typically forces the Russian player into a horrific choice. Abandon the territory leaving the fighters to be destroyed because they couldn’t move. Or fight a losing battle in SFE and die with the fighters albeit at higher NATO cost. If NATO is using the nuke in some other way, imo - it’s being used inefficiently. Full stop. The NATO nuke is for the critical territory of SFE timed when landing in Kamchatka.
