First, I want to say that while I share some disappointment over some of the components etc, there is a lot to like about this game. The victory conditions, airbase/naval base concepts, tac bombers, new SBR rules, even the mech infantry add something imho. The China rules (though still imperfect) are a great leap forward (pun intended) from AA50. Above all, I love the new board. More territories with more possibilities, and already huge. Once the global game is out, the board will be awesome; not perfect, but better than anything we have had to date.
There seems to be an overwhelming (though not universal) consensus that Japan has too easy a time in this version as presented out of the box.
In this thread I would love to hear constructive suggestions for simple adjustments that might make the game more balanced without throwing it out of whack too far the other direction.
This is NOT a thread to argue about whether the game is balanced, or to bash the game. It is a collection point for suggestions for SIMPLE modifications that might tip the scales just enough to make it a fair fight.
For example, Funcioneta suggested in another thread to nullify the rule that Chinese units cannot leave China.
Another possibility would be to change the turn order. This could mean anything from China before Japan to starting with the Allies all the way around.
A third idea would require Japan to keep at least 1 unit in each Chinese territory as a garrison or lose that territory to China.
Any other suggestions? Any thoughts on any of these ideas?
Let’s keep it constructive, please…
Thanks
I think its a bit too soon for this kind of a discussion, but when in doubt use the bid system. As in i’ll play allies with a 6 bid, then you decide the nation to get the IPCs and they spend them to place units on the board before the game starts.
i tried playing with china first and it absolutely neutered japan’s chance of winning. i wouldn’t suggest it.
Yep, I agree that’s too early to tell. The first step would be to identify IF a problem actually exists before it would be possible to start to define a solution.
That said, my initial inclination would be to limit the number of aircraft that can ‘scramble’ to 3 minus 1 per damage. But even that I would not want to implement until I feel we’ve exhausted Allied options to winning.
Yep, I agree that’s too early to tell. The first step would be to identify IF a problem actually exists before it would be possible to start to define a solution.
That said, my initial inclination would be to limit the number of aircraft that can ‘scramble’ to 3 minus 1 per damage. But even that I would not want to implement until I feel we’ve exhausted Allied options to winning.
I actually like that idea alot, perhaps even allowing for a major airbase or some such with a larger capacity. This would even work with coastal airbases to scramble for adjacent sea zones without being too broken. Although I think I would prefer a limit of 5, increasing the SBR capacity to 10, I guess this is house rules concepts though.
