A & A Just Seems Fatally Flawed - please tell me I'm wrong

[Guest]

Yea I never really had a problem with the strategic bombing runs….if the allies continuously do it then you will eventually shoot them down. And if they keep buying bombers (15 ipc each) then you should be able to easily wipe out their remaining land forces. :smile:

[Guest]

I disagree with any statement that the game is “unbalanced”. If you have an experienced player vs a newbie – that’s an imbalance – and it hardly matters who plays which side. I have seen too many victories for both sides to agree with any bending of the rules to offer “a better balance”. The one handicap that could be considered is “Russia’s restricted first turn attack”. I argue that the game is equal if Russia is restricted on it’s first turn. This pits Axis’ # of pieces on the board vs the Allies econcomic Superiority. Who will win? It’s supposed to make for a good game!
It also makes for a very tense and frustrating game with the large element of luck that people don’t seem to talk about very much.
A&A is “flawed” in design not because of “imbalance” but because it combines the strategy of turn based war-strategy genre with a large element of luck (the die-rolling system). If you want to play a totally balanced and unflawed game: play Chess. You’ll find it’s not as fun.

• brother_fideles@hotmail.com

[Guest]

The first few times I played I couldn’t see how Germany could possibly win, then I couldn’t see how Germany could be halted, now I’m thinking that Japan is far too powerful. If all countries are equally imbalanced the game designers must have got something right.

[TG Moses VI]

From what I’ve seen, a experienced Russian player can cripple Germany within the first turn. And that’s even before the German even has the chance to get his pants on.

[Guest]

I would just like to say that I have never had a problem with the game’s “historical accuracy” or production, or front problems. I have consistently been able to win against allied players as Germany, even though they are about the same level of skill as I am. In fact, I think it is quite balanced the way it is set up. The only rules that I have trouble with are the strategic bombing runs and perhaps the rather vague transport rules. All other aspects of the game are quite balanced, IMO. Maybe its just me…

[Xi]

Hey, it’s just a fun game, for wialing out loud!
If you play the straight rules it’s almost impossible (except for bad rolls) for Axis to win-
1)If, on T1, Russia attacks Manchuria, Finland, and Baltic SZ…don’t forget to use SS from Barents SZ in attack with one fighter on German units in Baltic SZ and move Barents SZ TRN to UK SZ to support UK in expected attack by Germany(see STRATEGY on home page),
2)and, on T1, UK builds 1 AC, 1 TRN, and 1 INF to place on or around Great Britain (UK SZ cleared by UK air force if needed), in preparation for
3) US flying 2 FTRs from US to UK SZ to land on AC as fleet support, along with moving 1 TRN with 2 INF from US E. SZ to UK SZ (dropping 2 INF in GB for later movement leaving the UK SZ with at least 1 AC, 2 FTRs,
and 2TRNs in preparation for Germany’s next (weakened) attack…READY TO BUILD A POWERFUL INVASION FLEET.

[TM Moses VII]

Everything seems pretty standard for an Allied victory, but with Russia, I am passive in the Far East.