We need an allied playbook.

@arthur-bomber-harris

Only based on your bidding rules. My bids puts them in a power’s treasury (so they have to be spent later).

@ShadowHAwk not sure that I would want to play a 40+ round world domination game with stalemates in so many portions of the world. I assume that bombers would become the meta, being able to project power into so many theaters and preventing your opponent’s fleet from splitting to two forces.

OOB is just fine if you are relatively new to the game and playing face-to-face with no battle calculators. Eventually someone will make a mistake or two, and the game will be quickly over. The issue is with PBEM games where you can battle calc every possible option and figure out how many fighters will be required in Moscow to shift the odds from 50% up to 90%. That gives the Axis such a big advantage as they are the aggressor during the critical first 8 turns.

@JDOW also would you mind if I read your input on youtube?

I’d agree with everyting said.

I believe that any 2player game should be played with a bid or a handicap based on skill (in a broad sense of the word). We have had players here who believe the axis can’t win, and need a bid of 20. That is probably correct for the way they play the game. That being said, it is an interesting exercise to figure out what the bid would be on an expert level.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the game LL or not?
a LL game has to have a higher bid than a luck game. LL attacks can be optimized a lot better, an a smaller force in needed to ensure a win. Just try to calculate how much you need to be 99 % certain of paris falling in a LL game vs a regular game

Yeah the history is known, but the highlighting is also new to me. It seems like a good feature.

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.

@valtteri771:

why would japan have to attack russia I have won many times as germany without sealion and japanese help in barbarossa.

Oh ,  and if you check out the early GNazi buys,  my Axis opponent  even admits he didn’t buy enough tanks since he used his airforce to destroy the British Navy in turn 2 and the Mediterranean Navy in turn 3  early in the game.  so the extra 9 IPCs from the far east could have been elminated earlier.  He didn’t hit it till Japan Turn 8  which meant the Soviets colleted 72 IPCs for the game from the far east.  cutting it down by turn 5 or 6 well after Germany was pressuring the Soviets and with Japan stomping to to india could have swung the war against the Allies!  I had also moved 15 far east troops all the way back to moscow and they were big help in retaking Stalingrad.

Surrender isnt part of our vocabulary,  correct me if I’m wrong in alpha2 when London falls that brings the US into the war,      so why not fight    or just give it away  I game for the battles (Kursk) = big tank battles between Germany and Russia or (truk Lagoon) big naval battles between Japan and USA  or the Battle of Britain/Sealion.    and I like to win , to add or change the rules can be fun but this game was not designed to be redesigned by all of us, It’s a step up from the Anniversary edition.  If because the Axis won the last 4 games means the Allies cant win , then I think you may be missing some thing but I dont think so from what I can tell the people on the forum are skilled, experienced players.    There are a bunch of people who think the game is unbalanced with the Allies being the one with the upper hand. This subject might get ya to think that it is balanced the other way.  In 25+ yrs I’ve seen where one side will get a bunch of wins only to be offset by the other,  overall I would say that the score is about 50/50  we play on average 2 games a weekend.    How did Hitler say it……fight to the last man  I think Stalin said it to… Keep gaming and post the results.