not seeing it

[kungfujew]

No, if you played any other wargames you'd see that figure something out means come up with a new plan (especially as the axis when you have the initiative and can direct the war, so the allies have to think on their feet and won't know just how to stop you), and seeing it through.  You can brainstorm a set of goals and try different ways to acheive them each time, you just need to play any strategy smart and leave yourself able to capitalize on your opponants mistakes.  Cokkie cutter games kill that fun because there's none of that.  One on One games have none of that since everyone works as a complete team.  Etc...

[rockrobinoff]

Ummm, I don't think the game was designed to be a one on one match-up over a multiplayer scenario.  I daresay that many problems only arise when you have one whole side being controlled by one person and one faction moves soley to support the others on their team or having everyone move in rediculously perfect harmony, likely in a way that you would never have in a real multiplayer game.  If you want that kind of game and descover that it's not balanced for scripted movesets perfected over dozens of games with all sides moving in perfect sync then either realize your playing the wrong game or just use a bid and be done with it.  The only balance that really matters is the multiplayer one, 'cause if you try to balance the game for the "perfect move match up" then anyone who doesn't use those moves are screwed.

That's a fine theory you have there. Unfortunately it is completely unfounded.

1. the rules are designed in such a way that despite any given power doing poorly, as long as their side wins, they win too. if A&A was a 'real multiplayer' game (your words) then that would not be the case.

2. there is rich variety in all A&A games, and these 'cookie cutter' worked out strats aren't really all that scripted (again, your words). yes, standard openings get worked out, but that is not any more due to heads up or multiplayer games, but due to A&A players becoming better educated in their A&A game, and irrespective of the format.

[chompers]

Isn't it logical to assume that as the Axis players learn how to play their side more effectively and are figuring out what they need to do to be competitive, the Allied players should be improving at the same time?  I think the core of Maher's argument is that amongst players of equal ability, the Allies win a very high percentage of the time.  I haven't really seen anything on here so far that really addresses that point.

[MaherC]

ty chompers.

[Dark_Destroyer]

You guys are trying to hard to figure out what's wrong with balancing issue of Global A&A1940.  They screwed up with USA.  2 step fix:  USA can declare war at the very end of turn 4 (after collect income phase) and Japan attacking Anzac and India doesn't bring USA into the war.  PROBLEM FIXED lol...  

[Funcioneta]

1. the rules are designed in such a way that despite any given power doing poorly, as long as their side wins, they win too. if A&A was a 'real multiplayer' game (your words) then that would not be the case.

That only means that A&A is not a competitive multiplayer game (like, say, Risk or many eurogames), but a cooperative multiplayer game

[gsh34]

You guys are trying to hard to figure out what's wrong with balancing issue of Global A&A1940.  They screwed up with USA.  2 step fix:  USA can declare war at the very end of turn 4 (after collect income phase) and Japan attacking Anzac and India doesn't bring USA into the war.  PROBLEM FIXED lol...  

This is a powerful statement.  If something must be changed for balance's sake, and I'm not sure we can totally say that yet, the simpler the solution, the better.

I just conceded a game in which I attacked with Japan on turn one.  On turn three I captured Sydney, Philippines, and Hawaii collecting a total of 72 ipc for J3.  On successive rounds, Japan would've collected 65+ and I already had a major complex in Kwangtung turning out 10 units per turn for the mainland.

The problem is that in order to get Japan this big, this fast, you must attack UK and Anzac on J1.  That was a catastrophic success for me because it brought the US into the war on US1 and they were quickly able to crush Germany before they got going.  Now, some of that was do to my mistake as Germany of doing a major complex in Romania on G1, but even if I had done a successful Sealion, having the US in the war on US1 is crushing.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Well, in Risk, as in Diplomacy, you do have to have some cooperation but no specific alliances are forced.

[Karl7]

Having played the axis and having won several times, I will agree the Axis are hard pressed but in no way forlorn to win.  I think the critical move to win is J1 attack. This effectively prevents UK East from reinforcing Egypt, allowing Italy to take Egypt with the forces it has on the African continent, nullifying the effectives of Toronto.  With the southern flank secure for a time, Germany can then isolate UK West with subs (no sea lion), build up its forces and assault the USSR turn 4 (with perhaps an Italy3 can opener attack) with all its got.  The trick then is to defeat the USSR quickly before the US can draw off Axis forces to the West.  In my experience only very savvy Soviet players can effectively withstand the onslaught, and even then if Moscow holds with Leningrad and Stalingrad taken, Germany will be pulling down around 80, enough to hold off while Japan expands.   The game then enters a new phase of actual parity, unless Japan can take India.  Then the allies or on the defensive.  

[gsh34]

Karl,

I'm confused.  If you attack UK and Anzac on J1 (which I just did in a game), America is immediately able to declare war.  This has horrible consequences for the European Axis powers so early in the game.  I suspect that if you are winning as the Axis even with a J1 attack on UK/Anzac, your opponent is not of comparable skill as you.

What is the US doing when it is brought into the war so soon?

[Karl7]

I agree a J1 is dangerous if the US goes KGF.  I managed to delay US intervention in Western Europe in force by keeping about 5-6 subs on the board with Germany's air force in Western Germany.  This allowed some degree of tactical flexibility for Germany to attack the USSR and be in range to hit any fleet that came Germany's way. Obviously this posture was only temporary as the US fleets grew in strength and would be able to handle Germany's subs etc.  It's really a question of timing.  On G4 with German sub still in play, the US usually will need another turn before they can move in force toward Western Europe beyond pot shots.  This allows Germany to throw most of weight east for at least one/maybe two turns with Italian help.  Subsequent turns obviously Germany will dedicate more forces west but if Germany can keep its momentum for a few turns the USSR will fall or Germany will be able to achieve some level of economic parity.

I won't say its easy and bad dice will kill you.  But it's a strategy that will at least give Germany a fighting chance.

 

[Themistokles]

I have the feeling that it will take some time until we all use the rules correctly

Even after several matches I always find out things we did wrong so far ...

So far I agree to the opinions that it is harder for the Axis to win but not at all impossible and that the character of a match depends a lot on the types of players. 

[RedHunter]

How does Germany have the forces to fight Russia and hold off the USA in the west? I am confused about that Karl?

As the USA player I would just take Rome if Germany focused in France or I would Japan crush. Either way Axis loses.

I have said this before and people can b���� about it but its true...for the Axis to win they must plan out their moves and pull them off. If the axis plays as 3 players with no plans as a group they are screwed. 

[Karl7]

How can Germany not?  US cannot even attack W-Europe or Italy by US3 with anything approaching a viable force. It will take US 4 or 5 for this happen and maybe even longer if there are sufficient u-boats around.

[SgtBlitz]

Is it perhaps the larger map in Global40 that's screwing everything up?  The Axis have a lot further to go for Moscow and are a lot further apart for cooperation than they did even in AA50.  And perhaps the crazy ridiculous NB/AB rules that let people zoom halfway across the map in a single turn, especially for the Allies, those might be OP?

The fact that America can reach Gibraltar in a single round is BS (and THEN be able to go to both Germany AND Italy from there) when Germany and Italy simply HAVE to use that SZ to combine naval forces; and would STILL lose in a straight up IPC fight against the US, never mind the UK.

I think AA40 was designed with a dedicated Sealion in mind; its just too easy to beat up the UK at the beginning of the game without US help for the first 3 rounds to not seriously threaten it.

Also, J1 attack...  It might actually be balanced, game wise, in that if Japan waits till round 3 to attack, the UK and ANZAC are making about 10-15 extra IPCs between themselves vs. Japan NOT making those 10-15 extra IPCs for those first 3 rounds...  Adds up to about 30 IPCs, the US war NO.  Only difference is that the US is MUCH better positioned to use those extra 30 IPCs than if they are split into two 15 IPC bonuses for UK and ANZAC, there's much less those two powers can really do with a 25 IPC/turn than the US's 82/turn.