So basically the counter arguement is that the game is not broken is…we can’t (or won’t) demonstate that it’s not broken, just take our word for it, the play testers are smarter then we are. I’m all for reasoned debate, but, that line of thinking brings nothing to the discussion.
So basically some of WOTC’s sharpest brains started to playtest this game back in 2005, and you know what, some of the playtesters are actually lurking this forum, and they laugh at you at this very moment, when they see your level. So let me get you straight, you purchased this game two months ago, right, and how many games have you played, less than 10, right, and now you claim the game is broken ? Dude, come back to me next year, and if you still think the game is broken, I just might wrote you an strategy essay and explain how the allies are played correctly. Obviously you dont have a clue.
Wow heated debate… I’m not sure that agree with you, is your arguement that Larry Harris has never released an unbalanced game prior to this one and we (all the online forum(s) players over the years are just not near as clever as he and his play test group?
Most, NO, all of the Axis & Allies games prior to this one have had significant balance issues with them. It would take an army of players a million years to create a game of this complexity with the balance of a chess game. It is simply not possible. Hell I’m impressed that Harris is able to create games that are this entertaining and have a feel and flavor of the real war.
As either you’re right and I’m (I being myself and what seems to be most of the players on the forum) just too stupid to figure out the obsure Allied strategy that balances this this thing up or I’m right and the game has some balance issues when the Japanese player pushes India t3/t4. In either case unless you care on sharing the afore mentioned obsure Allied strategy, what do you think a far bid is for the Allies to stand a snowballs chance? Gwlachmai I would love to hear your thoughts on a far bid system / number for future forum games.
Also someone had mentioned rules changes, although I HATE with capitals HATE house rules and tinkering with games rules does anyone have thoughts on what could be changed.
I think that a NO new navy / air base rule would quickly help balance the game, knee capping the speed and strength of the J1 -> india push.???
I’m curious at what point during game development Harris et.al. added the buying of airbases (as they where fix in the last pacific game)
And be nice to each other…
I don’t think that bidding is necessary for the allied player but … one idea already broached somewhere would simply relocate the UK Batteship and 1 or more transports to Calcutta from Malaya at the game’s outset. They could not be sunk on J1 and the UK player could transport units to Sumatra and especially Java to serve as fodder for ANZAC air that would stage there in ANZAC1. The UK collects an extra 8 IPC and probably can preserve 2-4 Anzac fighters for defence of the India/Burma by J3.
I don’t know, I’m not quite willing to say it’s broken yet. I think it’s quite possible that my group and I fell into a rut, but, it’s reinforced by the play I see on the forums. I did have some luck against Jim010 with feints towards Japan, but, that game had a bid that ended up hurting his airforce quite a bit. I’d like to try a few more non bid games as the allies and see if the India rush can be mitigated with a Korea counter push.
Gwlachmai,
Just finished report cards - I’m good for another go if you want to try w/o bid.
Ohhh….how did I do?
As long as your not the kid in the back for whom I named a poped vein after, you’r ok.
Set up a game at your convienance sir…F+ is passing right?
My experience with the game so far is that Japan starts with enough units that there is nothing the Allies can do to stop either an Australian or India crush move. Heck, there’s even a 40ish % chance they can take America.
However, the balance comes into play in that even if they take any of the three capitals, they haven’t won the game, it’s about VSs now. In one game where Japan crushed India, America was able to remove the Japanese fleet and they couldn’t recover, eventually losing all island territories, and America landing in Korea.
Even in one crazy game where Japan won against America in an experimental game, the UK player had taken all of the DEI, liberated China, and taken all Japanese territories on the mainland. The UK had more income than Japan, and a similar sized navy by the time Japan started to swing back West from America. They couldn’t retake those VCs on the mainland and lost.
People may be just giving up after one of the factions fall to Japan, other than China of course. Sometimes you have to continue the game on and see what develops. Also, be aggressive when attacking the Japan fleet with the USA. They are the one ally that can trade blows with Japan and try to really pull off pressure off of Calcutta and even Sydney.
Exactly. I think people are just quitting too soon.
“Oh-oh, there goes Calcutta, J5! Game over, I guess…”
Not so.
In fact, that’s precisely when this game gets tense and interesting.
No one is quitting, however, what you run into is India falling on J3, leaving the US with 127 IPC’s worth of builds to catch up to Japan, which really isn’t a huge amount. So then China is isolated and the bulk of Japans airforce flys to one of the DEI or the Phillipines and controls the area along with Japans fleet. Japan is likely out producing the US along with having more land/air strength to boot. Against two fairly evenly matched players this is a huge disadvantage to overcome.
