Domsterlord,
It’s an excellent point you bring up. Either Axis and Allies is balanced without NOs or it’s balanced with NOs. You can’t have it both ways.
I agree with your reasoning too. The Axis NOs are easier to achieve and meld into their “master plan.” The Allies NOs – a lot of them seem like Win-More propositions. We played several games where UK was held without NO for many turns!
Great discussion.
Agreed. NO’s favour the Axis. Which is why I think 1941 is unbalanced with NO’s: Axis have too great an advantage with NO’s (killer Jap, strong Germ, Ita taking all of Britains efforts the first 4 rounds by claiming Egy and getting 10 extra by NO’s).
Yes.
I Think some people missed my point…
I am NOT against Nos, I find they are a great rule in essence. My point is that Nos are an optional rule, but they skew the play balance. Now either they inbalance an otherwise balanced game or they balance an otherwise inbalanced one, taht remains to be determined. however for them to keep play balance about the same they would have to be modified slightly. For example, Japans second No could require to capture all 6 territories instead of 4. Its just that I dont find that its fair to think that they dont advantage a side…
I got your point at least. ;)
I think 1941 is balanced out of box without National Objectives. With NOs the Axis clearly have the advantage, though it’s not insurmountable.
In 1942… well I haven’t played 1942 enough yet. But I think 1942 is NOT balanced out of box (the Allies have the advantage) and NOs are need to balance the game for the Axis.
Anyone agree/disagree?
