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
-
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.
-
@Cow:
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.
buy some bombers and SBR germany and possibly italy into rubble, depending on what the allies still have in the meds. SZ 97 isn’t the answer btw to an allied victory. I always put up a US fleet strong enough in SZ 100 (I think? the channel) to protect 5 UK transports and ferry 10 troops across each turn while I keep SBR’ing Germany with enough bombers. If I could do this from turn 2 or turn 3, some axis player would make me really happy, let alone turn 1. Offcourse one would have to consider the Pacific but with Japan weakened since OOB rules and now an extra Russian front, they don’t move that swiftly as they do in OOB.
-
You can SBR west germany but not germany… where will you land if you bomb germany?
Japan is still strong, any half decent japan player can force USA to spend at least half his income on the pacific to stop you from taking all the VCs necessary for a pac win.
-
Sometimes you can land in Novgorod
-
early mid game yeah, but it is -5 russia bonus at least. late game hopefully you have taken russia or at least middle east and egypt. bombers usually do other things than SBR majors in europe.
-
@Vance:
Sometimes
-
agreed axis are pretty well favored. I think allies need at least a 12 bid at min. Problem is even if US goes 100% pacific Japan can hold off US for 8 rounds of US buys of all pacific. Then by the time US lands in europe, round 10 or 11, Russia is dead and Italy has 50+ ground units and Germany has 100+ units… Game unballanced sorry.
-
Planes as allies to russia does nothing. Just more units for germany to kill in moscow. Japan is a lot more powerful than what people are are indicating. I agree with carl that adding an airbase in gibralter would help out a ton with ballance issues, and possibly giving US an extra sub off panama or something.
-
it is not too bad though. just slight edge for axis, g1 is a bit dicey and so is japan when it uses all air to hit infantry stacks.
It is still the best version so far and many believe it is well balanced. The russian NO from africa is what is holding the allies together it seems.
-
Isn’t it a problem though, when the metagame develops towards requiring Russian units to blitz around in a very non-Russian theater?
I liked Global’s compartmentalization of powers. It made this game unique among other AaA games.
'42 is a good game too, but the convention of Japanese fighters in France seemes a bit odd at times.
It works, and the game is very balanced, but I like G40’s lack of situations like that. I’d prefer it not to move in that direction. -
@Cow:
You can SBR west germany but not germany… where will you land if you bomb germany?
Japan is still strong, any half decent japan player can force USA to spend at least half his income on the pacific to stop you from taking all the VCs necessary for a pac win.
You don’t need to bomb Germany, bombing all the other IC’s from Germany is enough. That way Germany has a hard time reinforcing western-europe or Italy and has to spend less IPC’s on Russia.
-
not really. the 3 minors off russia and germany itself is good enough. you got to do at least 10 to west germany and 3 to france which is fine.
-
Completly agree with Alsche. Love this game. I’m not complaining I just wish the allies would get a couple more units. In my oppinion it is easier to play as axis, so the allies should have a small advantage. Something like 52% chance of winning would be great since the allies are a lot harder to play.
-
Well most A&A games involve bids for a reason. Perfect balance is hard to test out when dealing with a game that involves dice as they can swing either direction. Plus bidding down is a nice way to determine who plays what.
I like the africa/medit setup the way it is currently. I would like the russian NO from africa to go away, Iraq is fine. In compensation a russian bomber and an artillery somewhere would be nice, in fact it would make russia less boring to play.
-
@Cow:
not really. the 3 minors off russia and germany itself is good enough. you got to do at least 10 to west germany and 3 to france which is fine.
ehm we’re talking about a J1 or J2 attack here… Germany won’t have ANY of the minor IC’s from Russia. So their only functional IC is the one in Germany by G3 (or G4). Therefor the USA is still able to land in Novgorod and make a bombing run back to the UK while bombing Germany again. The IPC’s Germany has to spend to be able to buy some units to attack Russia are way too valuable.
Unless you’re going all out on a pacific victory, I don’t think pulling the USA in the war too soon, is advisable.
Also because Japan is a lot weaker compared to OOB and has an extra front with Russia compared to the Pacific stand alone version.
-
I usually do war round 1 or 2 with japan. So you start bombing with 1 bomber on round 2 and 5 total at most round 3. Germany usually has enough interceptors as deterrence in those rounds.
-
What are the advantages of bringing U.S. in early? I agree with Rhey that bringing U.S. in early is tougher on axis. Why give them the extra cash? Use the extra time to build up axis and stage themselves for whatever their strategy will be.
-
- it is not much money 2) japan getting income is better than waiting.
think of it this way if you don’t DOW japan 2 then uk pac anzac and china will double your income… that is silly.
-
Round 1 or 2 attacks are gambits. � You are allowing US to make cash early for a quick strike hoping to stay ahead in position and tempo. � If you’ve studied/played some chess you really understand this. � The trade off is position and tempo for material. � The only thing with playing gambits, as in chess, is that you have to continue to play very tactically, keeping ahead in position and tempo (leading to the win), b/c if you don’t, then the material that you gave up will overwhelm you quickly.
Personally, I like the G2/J2 gambit options. � G1/J1 are really gambity (if that’s a word)- hyper-gambit opening that are high-risk. � Not convinced they are playable in the fact that lead to a lot of wins. � Although Cow would disagree.
Suggested Topics
