@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
You’re trying to do the “crying poor” argument as the USSR, and it doesn’t wash because I’ve already laid the numbers out.
I think games played and demonstrated is the acid test for this type of discussion. I don’t typically go down these rabbit holes but I will here because there is something missing that is very clear to me so…
You’re not entirely wrong, you just don’t have all the information or a hugely critical component is left out: the total unit value of each sides armies/airforces on the board. You appear to be assuming they’re equal after the Russian opener. They’re not.
Most TripleA players will know what board TUV is. After a stock opener as the Soviets the TUV is usually 77 IPC in favor of NATO with land/air alone - to say nothing of the navy. This is an imbalance that is not made up for by the 40 or so IPC “transport tax” that NATO ends up paying in the early game.
Worse, while the Russians claw their way up to parity with NATO in the opening turns in a manner similar to what you describe, they’re all the while further suffering a TUV tax for all the neutrals they’re forced to attack further deepening the TUV divide. I don’t see you address this anywhere. Total Unit Value (TUV) is a very common tool used on TripleA to measure overall performance/balance. That’s why I mention it.
If I play seven games as NATO, I might lose one. My mind can be changed if I lost two out of seven games (I think I’ve lost as NATO…once in the last two years having played 7 or 8 games in that time - and that was that crazy game @Ragnell804 and I played).
Further, I’ve never seen a game of E&W stagnate. I think I’ve had one or two go up to turn 7 or 8? I would say one of this game’s strengths is that it doesn’t go on forever like so many other AnA game titles - perhaps I’m misinterpreting your use of the word though.
