@oysteilo:
Although this may not be directly relevant to the topic, I still think it fits here. Well, the question is what to do with the axis advantage. I think it is also reasonable to discuss the following. Basically you have different ways of playing the game, but to simplify there are three main groups:
- Dice game
- Low luck game
- Tech/no tech with dice/low luck option
I think it is possible to win a dice game as the allies with original set-up. I think it is close to impossible to win a low luck game as the allies with original set-up. You will have to play a rookie to win. I think it is possible to win as the allies with low luck and low luck on tech.
Bottom line, different games need different solutions in my opinion. In the dice game maybe a 10-12 IPC bid is good enough. In option 2 especially if no tech is selected I think the allies need a huge bid or remove a bunch of axis planes. What I find is technology will change the game quite a lot and maybe technology is not used enough by the allies? Especially if the low luck on tech is selected USA should spend 30 IPC and go for chart 2, where all is pretty useful maybe with the exception of radar. Thoughts?
My position on LL is that the outcomes in such games are hugely weighted on the results of the opening round. By its nature, where every pip is relevant, bidding in an LL game is a more exacting process, and the starting unit set up and production limitations are critical. The air advantage in the opening round is magnified under such conditions.
I favor dice generally in A&A, but specifically because of the way it randomizes outcomes for the game, not just in the first round, but throughout, and especially during the endgame. I favor randomization, whether through cash bonuses, or technology advances, or turn order, or just about any thing, over the pre-placement bid. Because its just so easy with a bid to break the game’s set up.
I think the best solution on game balance is to give everyone more money, through whatever mechanic you like. But do it for all players, not just the one side. The spread doesn’t have to be equal, by nation or side, but if you give everyone something then the likelihood that you get a unique game, and a game not as dependent on opening rolls, is increased. More money allows for more tech, if that is your preference, or more unit replacement as the driving force in the game, instead of putting the whole emphasis on the starting units and whatever imbalances my be inherent in the set up. The game evens out and feels more glorious when you are defeating your opponent (or get defeated by them) as the result or your purchasing decisions rather than from the dice in the opening round scripted battles. That’s my view anyway.
The Axis advantage in any case, is not so much the air units themselves, as it is the lack of Allied cash to respond to the Japanese planes more expeditiously. :-D
More money likewise accelerates the gameplay, at least in the respect that people are more willing to engage their units when, when the relative cost of unit replacement goes down.
As to the split US, or split UK. I’m not a huge fan of the rules which treat both sides of the map separately for the purposes of income collection or turn sequencing and the like. Its supposed to be global after all. Some might dig that split approach, but if you are going to split, then instead of splitting the USA into what is basically 2 players, I much prefer a hard map restriction on movement by theater. For example, if you just enforce the borders of the full map, and do not allow the map to wrap at the Atlantic/Pacific/Americas boundaries, then you can achieve basically the same effect, but without having to change the rules with the sequence of nations or phases in a given turn. The only thing you have to do is restrict the map the connections to match the display of the physical board on your table. In its simplest formulation this means no movement through the Panama canal, and no direct transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific around cape Horn, or across the North American continent.
This makes the game on W. USA a bit more interesting as well, since it is more viable as a target, with the production limit that results from not being able to move units Atlantic to Pacific. It is essentially impossible in OOB G40 for Japan to take W. US with any real effect, but this not so if you restrict the movement down the middle and simply dont allow it aross theaters, along this route.
From a USA gameplay movement restriction perspective, this could be justified in game as the result of how the US allocated different troops and funds to the war effort in Europe and the Pacific. From the Axis movement restriction perspective I would justify this by basically recognizing that the rocky mountains exist, and that the panama canal was basically on lock, and traveling around S. America (while novel) isn’t really necessary for the game to still function. This is basically a distraction route anyway, people generally transit as part of a feint, and then they double back, which basically wastes more time for the player attempting it, than it does in confusing the enemy. Plus there is virtually no money on this southern Atlantic part of the board, so its not often missed. But what you do get out of the situation is a more dedicated approach to US spending in both theaters, since they can’t rely on a rapid transit of air or men or ships from one theater to the other. In this respect, I would favor giving the USA something extra to assist in prosecuting the dual theater war.