• @hakan:

    Personally, I don’t like the NO, yet I understand that it is a simple way to simulate the “real war”. All games has their way to “simulate” history. In World in Flames you have a tension table towards the entry of USA. Here you have the NO.

    I have changed my mind. I also think the NO’s are brilliant! Not only because they make the strategies look more like in the real war, but also (don’t bark at me Krieghund) because you can balance the game yourself, or to simulate for example the “Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”, just by adding a few lines in the NO. Much better then to add complicated Optional Rules.

    Two examples so far:

    Soviet National Objective
    Stalin would never sacrifice Soviet troops to defend British territories, and Churchill would never allow them to enter. Hence, you may add the following line in the soviet National Objective: “Gain 5 IPC if no other Allied forces are present in a territory controlled by the Soviet Union, and if no Soviet forces are present in any other Allied territory, and if the Soviets control Archangels.”

    Japanese National Objective
    During the war there was a Non-Aggression Pact between Soviet and Japan. To simulate this, the rule above give a 5 ICP penalty if Soviet attack Manchuria (hence enter a Allied territory). To make it less favourable for Japan to attack Soviet, you also may add this line in the Japanese National Objective: Gain 5 IPC if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Manchuria, Kiangsu, French Indo-China/Thailand, and if no Japanese forces are present in any Soviet territory."

    //Håkan


  • Hehe, well… You might have a point. Every solder knows that: “No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy”. So you have to be flexible… :-) But when playing a strong enemy, you are better off if you study a strong opening and try to stick to a sound strategy. Just like in chess. The problem in A&A is however the damn dices! You don’t have those bastards in chess! :-)

    Regards,
    Håkan

    @Unknown:

    @hakan:

    A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins.

    I disagree on both accounts.  :-D

    A&A is obviously quite different in many respects. A big one is that new pieces are constantly coming on the board in addition to pieces leaving the board. If you have more material coming on board than the opponent, it doesn’t really matter if your opening is suboptimal.

    As for chess, openings are important but very overrated. A better midgame/endgame player will beat a better opener virtually every time.


  • @hakan:

    The problem in A&A is however the damn dices! You don’t have those bastards in chess! :-)

    There are some of us who have been playing lots of games with ADS/regular dice, but have become frustrated with the randomness which often happens in games with regular dice. Low Luck is a method of dealing with this issue. With LL players will have close to average dice rolls throughout the whole game. Randomness is not removed with LL, but there’s substantially less luck involved when using LL.

  • Official Q&A

    @hakan:

    I have changed my mind. I also think the NO’s are brilliant! Not only because they make the strategies look more like in the real war, but also (don’t bark at me Krieghund) because you can balance the game yourself, or to simulate for example the “Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”, just by adding a few lines in the NO. Much better then to add complicated Optional Rules.

    I have nothing against house rules, per se.  I use them myself.  I just think that some people are too quick to implement house rules to address perceived imbalances in games, before enough games have been played to determine whether there actually is a balance issue.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

40

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts