Those are some good ideas. I think to make this game balanced, I do need to make some adjustments. Just giving Italy the Axis NOs and ANZAC the Allied NOs doesn’t quite work. It seemed to be working for a while, but once ANZAC got the upper hand, it just gradually got worse and worse for Italy. I know that happens even in some games of regular A&A, but I don’t think there was any hope of Italy turning things around once ANZAC started getting ahead.
We just finished this game tonight. It took 15 rounds before Italy surrendered. For the first three rounds, Italy really grew and just about closed the gap between them. Rounds 4-8 were somewhat even between the two. If Italy did well on one front, ANZAC was doing well on another front. From Round 9 on, Italy was more and more defensive. ANZAC managed to take Japan and pretty much ruled all the Pacific and Asia within the next 2 rounds. Once all other Italian presence was eliminated, all ANZAC had to do is keep pounding on Europe until something gave way. Between amphibious landings every turn in Western Europe and a flood of tanks, mechs and planes rolling in from Russia, Italy was finding it harder and harder to maintain any kind of border.
For a while, whenever ANZAC would land somewhere in W Europe, Italy had enough to take it back. There were a few sparks of good for Italy, like when they sacrificed most of their European air force to kill the ANZAC fleet outside of England, including a stack of transports. That delayed ANZAC for a couple of rounds, but soon they were making landings again and Italy couldn’t afford a whole new air force to risk against the navy.
While playing the game this way makes each round go somewhat faster, it is pretty hard keeping track of all the different fronts. You literally have attacks going on in every point of the map on some turns. It’s a little easier when Germany is dealing with England and Russia, Italy is dealing with the Med and Japan is dealing with China and the Pacific. Still, it is kind of cool to be able to carry out ALL your ideas in the same turn.
Alpha 3.9 Favors Axis
-
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:
-
Axis advantage???
Yes during the first 6-7 rounds. Â After that they seem to lose steam. Â I will say this, I like a G2/J2 attack with the Axis. Â I think it gives them the best chance to win, not G1/J1 or G3/J3. Â Sealion is great cash for Germany but you keep Russia alive too long and it eventually comes back to bite you late.
If players can play Allies with efficient buys, combat moves and NCMs then they should overwhelm the Axis as the game moves along into the middle rounds. Â Coordination is the key for the Allies IMO. Â They must coordinate their movement and plans together, especially in a Russian crush strat.
Overall, I still think Axis need a little bid. Â I don’t think people will see this though until they play Allies more efficiently and cooperatively like they are meant to be played.
-
In our games it seems that the Axis are always in advantage on the Europe board and the Allies on the Pacific board. The Axis just roll up Russia and defending Western Europe is too easy even if the Americans are comming.
On the Pacific board, Japan can’t make a move until the USA is in war. When that happens the Allies will have a lot of infrantries on the mainland and Japan will have too little ground forces (as they couldn’t make enough IPC’s before allowing the Americans in the war, wich is crucial to keep them out because of the Europe board).
-
On the Pacific board, Japan can’t make a move until the USA is in war.
This is probably why you got so much trouble with the pacific theater.
If Japan Wait J4 to start attacking, then yeah, they’re in big trouble… -
On the Pacific board, Japan can’t make a move until the USA is in war.
This is probably why you got so much trouble with the pacific theater.
If Japan Wait J4 to start attacking, then yeah, they’re in big trouble…but if they don’t, Germany and Italy are in big trouble.
-
germany/italy can hold their own. What can USA possibly do to them? Takes awhile to get a fleet strong enough to hold sz 97 or drop enough men to cause trouble.
Suggested Topics
