I think this poll may be a little early. I have only played a couple of full global games with the final rule set(alpha+3) so I have not created an informed opinion yet.
It takes many games and many hours studying both sides before you can find out if one side is favored.
This reminds me when revised was released and every one was posting how axis have an advantage. Allied play takes more co-operation and long term strategy which usually takes longer to learn.
However, when pacific 40 was released it only took me a couple games to see how horribly axis favored it was, and I had to hear uninformed people tell me that I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet.
I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet
And you never did! :)
Screw wasting more time on “balance”
Issue mutiple setup cards, for multiple games from the same box!
Yes, a 3 side game with Soviet Union out for its own bloodthirsty aims.
I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet
And you never did! :)
…and I had to hear uninformed people tell me that I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet.
…and I had to hear uninformed people tell me that I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet.
Well that’s not the case here : informed people are telling you that you just haven’t yet found a good enough allied strategy !
It’s funny you say that…
lol LOVE, I recall being the ‘Uninformed’ person, and I almost, in my last post said “FUNinformed” person.
funinformed!
nice one garg.
…and I had to hear uninformed people tell me that I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet.
Well that’s not the case here : informed people are telling you that you just haven’t yet found a good enough allied strategy !
no such thing. you can not be informed and still think that allies have a fair shake.
I say, if you make russia able to counter attack harder, it could screw up germ’s time tables in taking moscow. Any buff one way might require a nerf somewhere else. The allies got a huge buff for the last update witht he advant of a stronger sealion defense. Uk can actually afford to screw over 97 and be able to defend sealion. I say an extra sub in the med means germ should start with a dd or another sub to help against silencing the royal navy for the same reason as why the Uk needs a sub for 97, bad dice are REALLY bad dice.
no such thing. you can not be informed and still think that allies have a fair shake.
Such NAY SAYING! :P Bribery works wonders…
I don’t know man, I remember aa50 everyone said it was balanced, now we got bids for it.
Good discussion. Units for Russia are a good suggestion since Russia seems underpowered in cases where Germany doesn’t Sea Lion.
That said, I prefer some imbalance. Bids add to the fun, variety and staying power of a game. A bid around 9 is excellent and offers good variation–as we saw in Revised and AA50.
It might be worthwhile to ask whether Axis or Allies should be the side that gets the bid (in the interest of the most fun possible).
hey allweneedislove…!!! have not seen you around since revised.
Wow…great discussion. After hearing all the arguments, I too as well as Garg, change my vote to “Game IS balanced”. That makes near 50% for that call.
I also like the bid idea- always have. I mean, if the bid is under $12 consistently then you really have a pretty balanced game as far as Axis and Allies goes. Revised and AA50 were both consistently under $10-$12 all the time- a lot of times under $7-$8.
As for Global, which side does the bid go to with solid play on both sides, I’m not so sure the bid cash needs to go to Allies. As with others, I think better Allied strategies are forming right now against the early gambits and attacks by the Axis. Allies have the advantage over time (past round 10 especially). The learning curve for Allies is a little longer in this game so I believe we will see a small bid money go to the Axis pretty soon once people learn to “weather the Axis storm”.
well what is the current allied strategy? convoy 97, fly stuff into russia, exploit russian NO off of afrrica, stop japan from winning. That is the only way I know how to win with allies, convoying italy out of the game, stalling germany from russia, prevent pacific win and either convoy or start taking back dutch islands.
If russia goes hopefully you have the japan puzzle solved to a point where you don’t need further investment. so you can start bringing boats and oceans to the atlantic and protect london/egypt.
Unless axis get diced hard somewhere, I seldom if ever see allies winning with another strategy, sometimes a surprise germany takeover to a beginner axis player works, but I don’t see that happening often since both west germany and germany became major complexes.
Right, that seems to be the formula that players are now perfecting. Once, its (or if) its proven to consistently work, that may be standard, at least until another Axis gambit is popularized. That’s why for now, I say its even then the game may slip into the “Allies slight advantage” category soon. Small bid cash given to Axis.
This strategy works like 1/3 of the time, allies get screwed in sz 97 round1 =GG. japan blows up harder than usual = no russia help = probably lose russia too soon = GG.
It is not like you have a real choice in sinking 97 and taking medit seriously.
I am all ears for new ideas, containment strategy is the best allies have to offer at the moment.
HOLD THE PHONE, Before people start complaining allied strategies are 1 dimentional.
The Axis win by securing a certain amount of victory cities on either side of the board. What cities they choose, where, and how they secure them is their business, the options are almost endless.
The Allies win by STOPPING the unknown Axis plan on Both sides of the board permanently. Hands down, that’s it. If allied “strategies” are accussed of being too simple, or too one dimentional, it’s because the axis builds/attacks are standard. The Allies do not have the initiative for the first few turns. Don’t forget that.
That said, the allies should be easier to play, and are in my opinion, because you just have to make sure your opponent doesn’t win. How hard is that really? Especially in a game, where the economic climb is SO STEEP for the axis, that they can’t reach economic parity easily.
So the next question becomes, how do you play PREVENT against an axis economic equality game plan? Easy.
Spend every nickel, unit, and resource you’ve got in range, preventing italy from scoring it’s NO’s.
With that done, and Italy neutered, Europe is basically solved. Just make sure you build infantry in russia, and support it with allied planes, even if that means you land 10 american bombers there for defense.
That leaves the situation in the pacific. And if you turn ANZAC and HAWAII into super fortresses of allied might, that you launch attacks from, the Japanese are doomed. The bulk of their economy is exposed to you, and you get to pick and choose when and where to strike.
Obviously things can go either way for a number of reasons, but the principle is simple. If you’re the allies, just play prevent, buy time, and watch the dollars.
Wow Garg, you’re a friggin genius. :roll: :roll: :roll:
All I’m trying to say is that it’s not rocket science to play as the allies.
But if you don’t have a cohesive plan OF SOME KIND, you are going to lose.
