Is this board dead?

In my opinion, there have been TOO many A&A games released lately.  I am a fanatic but do not have the time nor energy to keep up with all the new rules sets.  Others probably will disagree with my sentiments.  I have yet to look at the global game.  Probably a mistake on my part as ‘allegedly’ I am not playing the latest and greatest A&A global game.  I can live with this for the time being.

After many years of A&A 2nd edition, Revised came along: a welcome and needed change to reinvigorate the global war.  However, it’s life was cut short due to AA50.  AA50 has all the makings of a great game.  Personally, I think too many people have fallen in love with the National Objectives (me included).  These only sway the game balance more to the already favored Axis side.  Tech is (still) a crap shoot, but in the out of the box rules, maybe the only chance for the allies against a capable Axis player.

Capable Axis players push their initial military advantage to gain such a lead that the allies can never recover.  IMHO, the allies need at least a $5 dollar bid in a typically played game of 1941:  National objectives, tech/no tech.  If this results in Germany not attacking Egypt, then the allies have a chance.  If the Axis take Egypt on G1, the the allies better pray for either dice or tech.  Both are a crap shoot.

There are ways to give the allies a more even chance like not playing with National Objectives or utilizing some other official optional rules like Dardanelles Closed to Sea Movement.  See: http://harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Anniversary_FAQ.pdf for FAQ and other key information not in the Game box.

Unless you make modifications like these, the allies will lose most of their games (without a bid).  Sure, as you pointed out, a very BAD axis start might lead to an allied victory.  But the odds of that happening are slim unless the axis player attempts many bad odds battles or fails to withdraw from a battle as needed.  Most Axis players realize the limits of their forces and conduct attacks that are reasonable.

I think a huge key to the game is Egypt round 1.  If the allies hold off a G1 attack or Germany decides not to attack, then the allies may have a chance.  This is why a bid of $5+ is needed.  There’s been many discussions on this board about the importance of that G1 battle, but I still maintain my position:  If the Axis take Egypt on G1, allies have only 20% of winning (assuming no other ridiculous Axis battles).

@axis_roll:

Unless you make modifications like these, the allies will lose most of their games (without a bid).  Sure, as you pointed out, a very BAD axis start might lead to an allied victory.  But the odds of that happening are slim unless the axis player attempts many bad odds battles or fails to withdraw from a battle as needed.  Most Axis players realize the limits of their forces and conduct attacks that are reasonable.

I’ve played many many games of AA50 '41 by now and I have never, ever, ever used a bid (Except in a couple of games I played against myself on TripleA).  The only thing I’ve ever changed from the OOB rules is no tech.

In any case, we seem to see a pretty even split for wins.  maybe 55/45 Axis advantage.  A G1 capture of Egypt is bad for the allies, yes … but far from unrecoverable!  It just means the allied player has to be that much smarter with his spending and movement.

And those couple games of TripleA that I included a bid … one was an Allied bid of 100 IPCs … and the Allies still lost. 
A 5 IPC bid does nothing IMO … the game is determined by your die rolls and, to a lesser extent, what you buy/where you move.

The reason you won against a 100 ipc bid is because the AI is very stupid.

Have you played against an equal opponent?

@calvinhobbesliker:

The reason you won against a 100 ipc bid is because the AI is very stupid.

Sorry, you missed the part where I was playing against myself … not the AI.

The reason there was a win against a 100 IPC bid was because of bad dice … nothing more.  Dice will win/lose a game more than anything.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

The reason you won against a 100 ipc bid is because the AI is very stupid.

Sorry, you missed the part where I was playing against myself … not the AI.

I see. Was it because the axis rolled better or because you are better with axis than allies? Or is it that, for fun, you played bad moves for the allies?

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

Interesting. The usual bid is about 8 ipcs, so it’s not that much.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

Interesting. The usual bid is about 8 ipcs, so it’s not that much.

Right, it’s not that much, so my opinion is, why bid?  I see it as a futile exercise in trying to ‘balance’ a game that i find is already pretty well balanced.  I am, always have been and always will be against playing AA with a bid.

In my 100 ipc bid game I played all the ‘typical’ moves for all countries.  It all came down to bad luck for the allies.

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

Interesting. The usual bid is about 8 ipcs, so it’s not that much.

Right, it’s not that much, so my opinion is, why bid?  I see it as a futile exercise in trying to ‘balance’ a game that i find is already pretty well balanced.  I am, always have been and always will be against playing AA with a bid.

In my 100 ipc bid game I played all the ‘typical’ moves for all countries.  It all came down to bad luck for the allies.

Even games like Classic where, apparently, a 20-30 ipc bid was needed? Or in P40, where a J3 India crush always won the game?

Of course, keep in mind that I have never played AA50(except against the AI of TripleA). Thus, all I know is what I heard from other players on the AA50 threads.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Rorschach:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Have you played against an equal opponent?

Most games, yes.  And those who join in who are less experienced get a lot of help from those of us who are experienced (even if we’re on opposing sides)

Interesting. The usual bid is about 8 ipcs, so it’s not that much.

Right, it’s not that much, so my opinion is, why bid?  I see it as a futile exercise in trying to ‘balance’ a game that i find is already pretty well balanced.  I am, always have been and always will be against playing AA with a bid.

In my 100 ipc bid game I played all the ‘typical’ moves for all countries.  It all came down to bad luck for the allies.

Even games like Classic where, apparently, a 20-30 ipc bid was needed? Or in P40, where a J3 India crush always won the game?

I never used a bid in classic (And I started playing it when it first came out) … hell I never even knew about bids back then, and had pretty even Axis/Allied wins then too.

I only played one game of P40, and I don’t even remember how it went now.  I think it was a Japan win, but it was a LOT longer than J3 (We didn’t read about the J3 India Crush at the time … the game had just come out)

Ah. Have you bought P40/E40?

@calvinhobbesliker:

Of course, keep in mind that I have never played AA50(except against the AI of TripleA). Thus, all I know is what I heard from other players on the AA50 threads.

The TripleA AI is absolutely not something to base the balance of the game off.  You might as well be playing against a 3 year old.

As for other AA50 threads, there are several who say Axis always wins, and others who insist Allies always win!  You can’t take everything people say as gospel.  Including me, as it’s all personal experience and opinion, right?  lol.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Ah. Have you bought P40/E40?

I have not but the group I play with has.  We’ve played one P40 and one Global 40 so far (never did finish Global).

I am aware of all of that. Thus, my opinion on AA50 is not that trustworthy.

@JimmyHat:

I was hoping to turn to the people on this board for some advice on allied strategy.

AA50 is such a diverse game that it’s been out for 2 years and we aren’t close to figuring out what the optimal Allied strategy is.

There are a few schools of thought on how to play Allies.

If you look at Yoshi’s games on this board, you see a sophisticated version of a ‘global’ Allied strategy where USA spends primarily in the Pacific (mostly figs and acs for maximum control of space), and UK builds up its Atlantic fleet units.  IIC is a turn 2 option, depending on the board position.  USA comes forward in the Pacific, while UK builds up a transport fleet and contests Africa, forcing Germany to defend Western Europe territories.  The main virtue here is Allies are in a position to take advantage of all Axis errors or dicings and secure as much income as possible…all that is needed is to outspend the Axis and hold Moscow over the long haul.

I’m a skeptic on global strats because I think the map dynamics and national objectives favor Axis in the long game.  The alternative is KGF strategies, where all 3 Allies come after Germany, in a bid to kill or cripple Germany early in the game and hence turn the tables economically.  Germany stacking France is not an issue because Allies can also land en masse in Northwestern Europe.  With Russia coming from the east, Germany cannot guard everything.  There is ample time to wear down Germany/Italy before Japan can threaten Moscow.

You’ll want a bid of at least 6 to play Allies.

@Zhukov44:

@JimmyHat:

I was hoping to turn to the people on this board for some advice on allied strategy.

AA50 is such a diverse game that it’s been out for 2 years and we aren’t close to figuring out what the optimal Allied strategy is.

Playing 1941, National Objectives with no tech, I think there’s only so much the allies can do.  Alot depends on the axis first turn moves and rolls.  Non-agressive Axis or bad rolls may even the game, giving the allies a chance.  Look out for early pressure on Russia combined with fair dice, and the allies will struggle to stay in the game, let alone win it, which leads to something that you suggest:

@Zhukov44:

You’ll want a bid of at least 6 to play Allies.

@Zhukov44:

There are a few schools of thought on how to play Allies.

If you look at Yoshi’s games on this board, you see a sophisticated version of a ‘global’ Allied strategy where …all that is needed is to outspend the Axis and hold Moscow over the long haul.

I have realized that your assumption about economies in mid game is just not true.  Even IF the allies might be able to get close to economic parity due to some pacific pressure, those dollars/allied forces merely SLOW the japanese, but also strengthen the European Axis due to a lack of US forces there.  Everything is a trade off.

To me, the allies seem to be just barely one round behind.  However, that’s a significant time frame in the game.  The allies just can’t seem to make up the difference.

Let me add that the National Objective ARE optional rules.  Try some games with out them as they seem to help the Axis much more than help the allies, who seem to lose more than they ‘gain’ with NO’s in use.

In my opinion, there have been TOO many A&A games released lately.

Yes most definatly. And not enough time being allocated to produce mistake free games.

I think all these games is too much too soon.