• Correct, but Toronto can build 12 + IPC  Worth of units every turn, its like a bomber every turn in Exchange for the loss of 8 IPC

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    The inclusion of France is one of those game concepts that might have been interesting, but just wasn’t executed.

    In order for the French to have much interest as a player nation, they need at least an opening turn where their capital isn’t already occupied by Germany. I find it curious that the German balance was designed for them to take Paris immediately on G1. I think it would have been cooler if the balance was designed for Paris to fall on G2.

    I think the best shot at a more interesting France, would be a revision to the turn order sequence of some kind. For ease of use, you could preserve the same essential sequence but just change the starting point.  For example…

    Germany, Russia, Japan, USA/China/UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac/France > Germany

    Could change to…

    Italy, Anzac/France, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA/China/UK/Pac > Italy

    This sequence would have showcase the new player nations (especially Anzac and France) in a more engaging way than the OOB order. Anzac could snap up an NO and start in a stronger position vs Japan. Italy could screw with the Med sure, but this would be offset more or less, by the fact that France is still in play. To take France, G would have to bring almost everything available, which gives the UK the starting fleet that it seems to need. I mean remember that line in the manual about “Giving Germany their Stukas” ?
    Wouldn’t it be cooler if those Stukas were used against France on G1 instead of the UK in the channel?

    Then we could just offset things with cash. Whichever nation is screwed the hardest from this turn order revision, gets a starting income bonus of comparable value. Who knows? maybe you don’t even need a bonus? The change would surely favor Allies, and they are at a definite disadvantage OOB. Italy would be more powerful and be able to destroy Allied TUV in the Med/Africa, but Germany would have a much more challenging opener, with a more formidable Royal Navy to deal with on G2.

    Using such a system it’s possible to make every nation more interesting to play, since you can basically fast forward or rewind the sequence to give the game a new dynamic. In this case we rewind a bit… to an Italy and Anzac/France opener. Start date, vaguely May Day 1940  
    :-D

    I had some HRs to randomize the turn sequence in this way for AA50, with a 1d6 roll. I tried it a couple times in Global (though for G40 I used some other 6 position sequences as well, to split the Anglo-American turn.) In some cases the player could roll a turn sequence with France ahead of Germany, which allowed for the French to have some use. It of course collapses the following round, as German TUV is too powerful to overcome, but the stall allows the French player to have at least one real turn, before they hand over their cash to the Germans or Italians. This is a simpler version of that approach, it’s not a randomized turn order sequence per se, just a shift backwards in the sequence by 2 positions. With Il Duce leading the charge.

    Instead of being a useless afterthought, France would actually be pivotal to the opening round. They would have several options.

    Stack Paris for defense is an obvious one.
    But they might also abandon Paris and stack S. France. Maybe even build a channel or med fleet?
    Or perhaps they invest in the long term Allied war effort and buy some Bases in the colonies!

    It would just be a more fun game all around I think, whatever the balance by sides ends up being. Italy would be more fun. Anzac would be more fun. And France would definitely be more fun!
    ;)

    It might even work out so that you don’t have to change anything at all in the OOB set up, keep the same turn sequence, just go with a different start position.

    It, Az/Fr, Gr, Ru, US/Ch/UK:
    and then back to Italy

    Any thoughts?


  • That’s an interesting concept. Never thought about messing with the turn order. Italy going first really screws up a taranto raid and allows them to control what goes on in the med. Be awesome to see France have a turn, although it just prolongs the inevitable. More fun and different though. And yes more of the royal navy would probably survive. May have to give that a go. Or what about if Germany waited a few years to start the war until the Italians were more ready for war. Like a 1943 version with a larger Italian navy and air force. Believe that’s what Mussolini was trying to convince Hitler to do.


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @ghr2:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    But that weakens the UK a lot, in exchange for a country that can only build in faraway Canada…

    Not really.

    The British lose 8 IPC’s from Canada, which is about a third of their Europe income…

    The gain of having useful french IPCs makes up for it.


  • But British IPC’s can be used in Africa and London, while the French IPC’s can only be used in Canada (since no factory can be built in French Africa, and FIC will be taken by Japan). This makes British IPC’s more valuable.


  • @Black_Elk:

    The inclusion of France is one of those game concepts that might have been interesting, but just wasn’t executed. In order for the French to have much interest as a player nation, they need at least an opening turn where their capital isn’t already occupied by Germany. I find it curious that the German balance was designed for them to take Paris immediately on G1. I think it would have been cooler if the balance was designed for Paris to fall on G2.

    Technically France is a full player at the start of the game – more so than China in many ways – but the OOB rules condemn France to an almost immediate downgrade to a status that is arguably even more marginal than China’s.  I think one can get an insight into why this is so by reading between the lines of Larry’s introduction to the E40/2 rulebook.  My interpretation of what he says there goes like this.

    • The concept of setting this particular game in 1940 came from Brian Hart rather than from Larry (“Why 1940? That was my first question to Brian Hart, then Avalon Hill® brand manager, as he began to tell me about this idea he had.”).  Larry was initially dubious about Brian Hart’s idea (“I had doubts and lots of questions.”).

    • One of Larry’s concerns was that two of the major players, the US and the USSR, would have nothing to do for the first few turns unless the game scenario got into some serious violations of the actual course of events in WWII (“Historically, the sides hadn’t even been drawn up yet. When we think of the “Allies” in the context of World War II, we think of the United States and the Soviet Union as being at the top of the list. If we do a game that starts in 1940, we’ll have to start it with neither the Soviet Union nor the United States as members of the alliance, or even at war for that matter!”)  Larry’s introduction to the G40/2 rulebook indicates a certain willingness to get into alternate-history scenarios (“What if . . . What if the Japanese attacked the United States in 1940 instead of on December 7th, 1941? We, as players of this game, are about to explore that possibility.”), but the E40/2 rulebook strongly suggests that Larry wanted to stick as much as possible to the basic historical outline of WWII (“From a game design point of view, I’d have to bridge some spans of history. Spring 1940 through December 7, 1941, represented a year and a half. I wanted certain historic milestones to occur in the game and they had to occur in their proper order.”).

    • Larry’s introduction to the E40/2 rulebook doesn’t say exactly what Brian Hart meant by “1940.”  On the one hand, Larry makes references to 1940 in a general sense (“1940! What an interesting time to begin an Axis & Allies® game.”).  On the other hand, he also makes references to the specific time frame of Spring 1940 ("Spring 1940 through December 7, 1941, represented a year and a half. ")  This is where things get a bit murky.  Was Larry’s mandate simply to set the game in 1940 or was it to set the game specifically in Spring 1940?  It’s hard to say, but the impression I get is that Larry also had a mandate to include France as a player power.  Larry makes it clear that he considered France to be a problem from a game design point of view (“The problem was, France was no small, token nation, and its military was first class.”).  He presumably was concerned that if he gave France free reign the players might end up with a situation in which France avoids its historical mistakes and avoids being conquered by the Axis early in the war – something which would fundamentally have altered the course of WWII, which in turn is something which Larry probably wanted to avoid.

    • If Larry’s mandate was simply to set the game sometimein 1940, he could have made France a complete non-issue simply by choosing the second half of the year, after France had surrendered.  The Summer of 1940 would probably have been a good choice because the Sealion plans and the start of the Battle of Britain were historically set in that time frame.  But the fact that he didn’t set the game in the Summer (or Fall) of 1940 suggests to me that his mandate wasn’t just “set the game in 1940” but rather that it was “set the game in 1940 and include France as a player power.”  If that was indeed the case, then early June 1940 (right after Dunkirk) almost automatically becomes the starting date (“I quickly decided that the game would have to start with the Battle of France.”). Setting it in late June wouldn’t have worked because France had surrendered by then, thus violating the (presumed) requirement that France be included as a player power.  Setting the game in early May (before the start of the German invasion) wouldn’t have worked either because France was at full strength at that time, thus potentially violating the requirement that the game reflect the historical fact that France was knocked out of the war early.  So the basic solution was to “include” France but immediately eliminate it as a relevant power.  To make doubly sure that this happened, Larry used such “stacked deck” elements as a prescribed turn order which essentially turns France into a spectator at its own funeral.  And he made sure not to exempt France from the rule which says “no capital = no income and no unit purchases”, even though China has such an exemption.

    At any rate, I agree that it would be nice to make France more interesting to play, and to get to use more of those nice blue sculpts.


  • My group has played global dozens of times, and every time except one France fell in the first round. The time Paris did not fall my friend who was playing as France had an incredible first role hitting on all dice.  Also the Germans did not send enough troops to destroy France. After a few rounds of combat all German forces were destroyed with a French Infantry and Fighter Plane all that remained.  By the time it was Italy’s turn for whatever reason they did not attack. The British had sent fighters to help defend, and then the French bought a bunch of Infantry to defend with. The next German turn however France fell.


  • Here are a few lines of verse I’ve devised to show how the Global 1940 turn order of…

    1. Germany
      3. Japan
      7. Italy
      9. France

    …places France in a highly disadvantaged position relative to the three Axis powers.  Fans of J.R.R. Tolkien will recognize the source material immediately.

    Third place for Japan’s race towards the D.E.I.
      Seventh for Italians who seek lands to own
      Ninth for hapless France doomed to die
      First for the black sculpts near the sea zone
      That can lead to Britain if the Germans try

    [Edit] I’ve added some lines to cover the rest of the G40 turn order.  The complete sequence now reads:

    Third place for Japan’s race towards the D.E.I.
    Seventh for Italians who seek lands to own
    Ninth for hapless France doomed to die
    First for the black sculpts near the sea zone
    That can lead to Britain if the Germans try
    Fourth place for U.S.A., second for Russia
    Sixth place for the U.K. and fifth for China
    With remaining ANZAC in the eighth thereby

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    One Board to rule them all!

    Until someone from sales came along and said, “lets split it in two! so we can make more money!”
    :-D

    Honestly, when you read that intro, you get the sense that he’s kind of abdicating some of the responsibility for thing. Like ‘Hey, this seems a crazy idea, I know, but lets see how things shape up, and at the very least I’ll get you guys a bunch of sculpts out of the deal.’ heheh. Forgiven as always!

    But instead of one coherent vision, you probably had this back and forth, and the desire to shape it with specific rules and then more rules and scripts to follow, to force a 1941 game into a 1940 start date hehe.

    I’m a bit more extreme in my views. I think the best you’ll ever get is just a start date. The unit set up, and the round 1 attacks. Because as soon as the game starts you invariably throw out the script. Nobody cares what actually happened in 1940, once they get the dice in their hands… They want to conquer like Genghis! or Caesar!

    The idea of Time, and the general timeline from that point on in the game, is so abstract. OOB there are a lot of ways in which rules try to force a timeline onto you… “You can’t do this with that nation. Can’t do that until this thing happens” etc. and other rules of the sort to make the game fit the 1941 script.

    So why bother with a French player at all? Well, because I think the game needs more elements like this at the beginning, to randomize and revitalize it, while still working within the same general framework.

    There are a lot of advantages to starting with Italy, Anzac, France, going before Germany, just from a gamepace perspective. In a face to face game too, where pacing can often be an issue. Starting with 3 shorter/smaller turns, instead of 3 major/long turns, would allow players to ease into the game a bit more. Get invested in it, before crying foul on the dice and other stuff, which the G1/J1 turn invariably forces hehe. Unlike moving for a huge nation such as Germany, a player taking Italy would have a more manageable opener. One where you could see more clearly the things that can be pulled off, and anticipate the standard responses of the enemy. This would likely aid in determining where the basic imbalances are, and if they need correction with a small bid or set up change, (instead of a huge one.) Alas, Italy never gets to open! (except in that tripleA pact of steel game we made hehe). Not even in AA50 when they were supposed to be showcased. Always relegated to last!
    But why not first for a change? And then you get the France/Anzac boost as an added benefit, and more for the Germans to ponder and fret over, instead of the OOB model, where Germany always gets to hatch the perfect plan and steam roll.
    Maybe take a page from the old style, and skip the first Italian combat turn if you feel it might favor Axis too much (the way Russia used to be restricted in some version of Classic.) Even if you had the DoW/Politics such that Italy was not yet at War, it’d still be more fun than putting all these nations at the very end of the sequence. Having them start it would be more fun, because they could make a move, instead of just reacting.
    It’s not too crazy I don’t think. Same essential turn order, but the opener would be faster to play. Under such a game, what Germany gets to do, is based somewhat on what France does.  Germany has more starting TUV and more economic flexibility than any power, so they’re in a good position to adapt to whatever else happens, with Italy or France.

    Force them to make an even more complicated plan, one that takes into account the likely Italy/France opening. Instead of just what units to purchase hehe

    But I’m drifting HR again. I will take those thoughts to the appropriate forum.

    So yeah. OOB France feels pretty useless
    :-D


  • @Black_Elk:

    One Board to rule them all!  Until someone from sales came along and said, “lets split it in two! so we can make more money!”  :-D Honestly, when you read that intro, you get the sense that he’s kind of abdicating some of the responsibility for thing. Like ‘Hey, this seems a crazy idea, I know, but lets see how things shape up, and at the very least I’ll get you guys a bunch of sculpts out of the deal.’ heheh. Forgiven as always!

    In a sense the board-splitting issue is separate from the 1940 issue.  A positive way to look at the board-splitting would be to imagine that the concept for G40 was, “There has already been a Europe-alone version of A&A and a Pacific-alone version of A&A, but the two boards couldn’t be placed together to form a global map for players who might want a bigger game…so this time let’s design them so that they can be played separately or togther.”  Which sounds like a good idea to me.  As for the 1940 issue, the way I like to think of G40 is as an expanded map-and-sculpt set that gives players lots of scope to play both an expanded OOB game and an infinite variety of house-ruled game, with nine sculpt-owning powers at their disposal that they can use in any way they want on a map that’s set earlier in WWII than any other A&A game and thus which is very flexible for alternate scenarios because it’s (arguably) easier to adjust a WWII map forward in time than backward.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I mostly agree with that; there are definitely some positive elements to the the board split. Another positive element is that it facilitates simultaneous play – it is often possible for a European player and a Pacific player to move at the same time. I suppose they could have designed the maps so as to further enhance the simultaneity, but something is better than nothing.

    My main concern about the “infinite variety of house rules” is that the combined map is so enormous, with so many units and so much playtime required for a single game, that it’s very difficult to playtest new variants.


  • @Argothair:

    My main concern about the “infinite variety of house rules” is that the combined map is so enormous, with so many units and so much playtime required for a single game, that it’s very difficult to playtest new variants.

    Yes, that’s a very good point.  Any A&A game is a system consisting of multiple parts that affect each other to greater or lesser degrees; any change to any part potentially affects how the whole system works, and the only way to get a clear idea of these effects is to operate the system by playing a game.  For something as big and complicated as G40/2, “playing a game” is a very time-consuming proposition – so this acts as a disincentive to testing house rule in practice.

    It would be handy if the entire G40/2 system was modeled into a computer, with A.I. software taking the roles of each oth the nine powers, with a customization option that allowed you to change any variable you wanted, and with a “computer playing against itself really fast” function that allowed you to run through a complete Global game in just ten minutes to see the results of what you changed.  Alas, I’m not aware of any such tool existing.  :)  But here’s something I’m wondering: has there ever been any discussion of “scaling down” Global 1940’s key elements to the point where the small and simple A&A 1941 map could be used as a test-bed for G40 rule variations?  The maps are so different in their territory layouts and IPC values that, obviously, this testing method would have severe limitations – but perhaps it could be used to try out individual HR concepts in isolation, with the highly-simplified other elements of the game simply serving as a standard neutral backdrop from one test to the next.


  • How about you roll a d6 at the beginning of the game?

    1, 2, or 3: Germany opens (standard game)
    4: ANZAC opens
    5 or 6: France opens

    In any event, turn order is maintained just as it is in the standard rules.

    I think coming up with a custom setup for Italy to be able to open would be a worthwhile endeavor, but I believe allowing Italy to open using the existing 2nd ed. setup would change the game too much.

    I also think a UK start would be too much of an advantage of the UK and the Allies. German fighters in S. Italy would have no chance to help Italy fend off a UK Taranto raid, and consolidating the Royal Navy in the Atlantic is way too strong of a move. I don’t see how Germany or Italy has a legit chance to succeed enough to win the game.

    You may ask “how is a France opener not similarly injurious to German/Italian chances as a UK opener?” A France opener can definitely make Paris a harder nut to crack for Germany, depending on what the France player does on his turn. Germany would obviously need to devote more resources to conquer France, and it might even need an assist from Italy. Furthermore, a tougher France might mean the Germans will have to devote air power to this conquest, thus taking pressure off the Royal Navy. Looking at the setup, two German planes in Eastern Europe are in range of attacking France but are not in range of hitting the Royal Navy, so Germany’s Royal Navy attacks wouldn’t necessarily hamper their efforts in this regard if they threw only those two planes at France. However, it would limit the ability of those planes to help scramble in Italy against Taranto. Additionally, Germany’s opening move in the Balkans could also be hampered if Germany went after both the Royal Navy and France on Round 1. The reason I like this and why I think it’s not a game-breaker is that it forces Germany into some different decisions and forces a change in pre-ordained openers, but it doesn’t dramatically limit what Germany can accomplish in Round 1.

    Also, because there’s a 50% chance that France opens before Germany, I think it would be fair to dispense with any bids.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I’ve tried France first, and it has definite issues.

    My initial proposal way back when, (I’m not sure must be a year or two ago) was simply to move the turn order back 1 position, for a France opener. The concensus view at the time was that this screwed Italy big time.

    The French could attack the Italian transport in sz96. Taranto is a shoe in. This also allows a potential high risk hit on sz 95 (since the destroyer blocker is removed by the time UK gets to go.)

    Even more problematic, the French could attack Northern Italy at odds, destroying the Italian bomber and downgrading their major factory.

    This effectively turned Italy into the same kind of non-player that France used to be. So my solution was to move the turn sequence back 2 more positions, and have Italy open. This still allowed France to move before Germany, but didnt screw Italy in the process.

    So many people complain about how boring and inconsequential Italy is to play. Starting with the Italians gives them a lot more responsibility, more power and more income.

    I suppose the way I was looking at it, overall game balance is important, but equally important is the desire to make each nation fun to play. Since the openers are typically altered by bids anyway, I figured you could probably fix things with a bid if needed.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Ps. If you want to do France first, then a restricted opening would be best. Like Russia in some versions of classic. No combat on the first turn, just purchase, non combat and placement. Then you don’t have the issue of France running attacks, but they can still do defensive positioning.

    It might be advisable to do this with any nation, if you want to do a restart of the turn order sequence. So it doesn’t mess up the combat balance of the opener as much.
    :-D

    I started a thread in the HR section for anyone who’s interested in exploring the idea. I don’t want to derail the OOB thread overmuch, but the position of the French in the vanilla OOB game is just kind of sad. Maybe an HR where they go first could replace the current high bids to Allies?


  • Don’t forget, the French fighter in London can be sent to help defend Moscow. Also, the French destroyer off Madagascar can be sent East or West to help. If the Madagascar destroyer is sent to Europe, it can be combined with the French fighter in London.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yeah its a bind. Although honestly it might be kind of fun to return the board to an Axis bid instead of an Allied one.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Any rule changes to France have to take into account the range of bids for G40, which is what, in the neighborhood of 15-30 IPCs for the Allies?

    As Shadowhawk points out, 19 IPCs is a minimum estimate for the value of letting France play before Germany – not only does France get to drop new units onto the board, they also get to consolidate their existing units and block some of the early German attacks. I don’t think consolidating the 2 inf, 2 art is worth a full 14 IPCs, because if you stack everything in Paris, then you help Italy by letting it waltz into Marseilles. Call it a 10 IPC boost. Blocking the German attacks might be worth another 12 IPCs by forcing the Germans to bring in and sacrifice an extra plane. So the total value of France going first is something along the lines of 36 IPCs. Those 36 IPCs will be placed suboptimally compared to an Allied bid that can go where-ever the Allies want, e.g., Egypt, New Guinea, etc. So overall I’m not seeing that the value to the Allies is radically high. The Axis might need a bid in the range of 5 - 10 IPCs, or they might not. If you wanted to, instead of giving the Axis a bid, you could nerf Paris a bit by removing 2 starting infantry. The point, after all, is less to turn France into a powerhouse than to give France some flexibility and a chance to make at least some decisions before they get obliterated!


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    Letting france go first will break the game considerably

    Good point because it touches on a basic dilemma.  Redesigning parts of G40 (or any other A&A game) would be easy if nobody minded ending up with a completely different game; the tricky part is trying to redesign one part of it while still ending up with a game that still works more or less the same way.  That’s difficult to achieve because the game, like any system, consists of multiple components that interact with each other rather than existing in isolation – so changes to one component can have all sorts of unwanted ripple effects.

    One way of approaching the problem might be this.  Experienced players have put a lot of work into analyzing G40 and working out things like standard playbooks and sound fundamental strategies.  They’ve also analyzed what the probable effects on the game would be if such-and-such an element were changed by a house rule.  And they’ve also speculated (an example being my own post of a few days ago on the “Why 1940?” question) about what some of Larry’s reasons might have been for handling such-and-such an element of the game in the way that he did.  In a sense, what all this work amounts to is taking the finished product and trying to work backwards from it to figure out the game’s “source code”, meaning in this case the underlying design architecture of the whole game.  In principle, a detailed comprehension of this underlying architecture might help with house rule discussions.  The normal end-user approach to looking at a particular OOB rule is from the perspective of what it says, how it works and what effects it produces.  The “source code” approach to looking at the same rule would be from the perspective of why it was put in the rulebook in the first place, what it’s intended to accomplish, why it was chosen over the possible alternatives, what fundamental assumptions it embodies and how it’s meant to interact with the other elements of the game.  (Unfortunately, one kind of conclusion that might emerge from this approach would be to discover that Rule X was designed in a certain way because there’s no other way to make it work without wrecking the whole game.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case with a lot of the game’s elements.)

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I can’t say exactly what the design process looked like initially. How all these discrete “source code” elements came together in the first place, or how a given rule or set up change was proposed, but I can guess.

    If you look at how the Alpha process was handled, or if you look at how most original tripleA games are developed, its usually, 1 or 2 lead designers who set up the basic skeleton of a game (establishing the initial conditions and the core set up), followed by a bunch of people who come along afterwards and proceed to break that set up in beta, highlighting whatever gross imbalances might be present.

    Then you have a long process of revision, fleshing the skeleton out, where seemingly minor tweaks or minor rules are introduced, in an attempt to keep things on track. A unit here, an objective there, a rules restriction or two, basically to prevent the whole train from derailing (ie. one side always wins), all the while trying to preserve the basic flavor of the original design.

    Once the thing goes to print, or an official addendum is released to finalize things, this revision process usually halts. Some players with a lot of patience, or an interest in game design, might continue exploring House Rules or set up changes, but most players will just default to “the standard bid” process.

    It’s hard to jump start things again, once people are used to the “official” game and the “standard” bids.

    I still think turn order tweaks are probably the most interesting way to change the game. Allowing any one of the minor Allies to move before G, might be fun. China first, Anzac first, France first etc. Sure France can screw Germany with some blocks, and by making Paris do or die, but I get the impression that the designers might not have realized just how strong Axis could open.

    It always takes time before those opening playbooks are developed and fine tuned. To expect that the designers would have predicted all of those possibilities in advance, or tested all the contingencies to make sure that the opening balance fit with their exact vision, seems rather fanciful.

    I’ve seen how set-up changes are proposed to the official game. Usually this takes the form of a list, with territories and units, and then calls for feedback based on the new set up. But I don’t think its tested at anything near the speed, or with the number of games played in beta that we do here once the game is actually out. So far as I know, the boardgame is still tested the old fashioned way, not using a digital version for beta before it goes to print (which would be my clear preference, and something I’ve argued for more than a few times.) So its hard to imagine, how all this stuff could be evaluated in practice games by the designers. I imagine that, after a certain point in developent, its more like “ok lets just call it finished and see where things go” type process.

    Global is an interesting case, because there was a lot of opportunity for community feedback during the Alpha process between 1st and 2nd edition. Though not everything that was resolved in Alpha made the cut when the time to put out second edition arrived. Still you could make the case that the game is basically perfect at this point, and so any minor change has to be considered very carefully. Frankly, I find ideas like a France opener way more interesting than, “lets remove more Japanese planes again” or things of that sort. Since it changes the starting conditions up. You need a new playbook. Which makes the game entertaining again for people who like exploring that aspect of the game.

    I just wish there were more randomized elements at the outset, to make the overall balance less predictable in general, so people would get less hung up on round 1 rolls, and instead just try to play the hand they get dealt and enjoy it. It’s maybe too far gone at this point, but I still wish the game opened with a roll, you know something that sets the rest of the set up in motion. Something that would make it virtually impossible to plan for all possible outcomes, and thus make it way harder to exploit/break the opener. Maybe France doesn’t always make an impact, but if it could happen at least sometimes. Or if Russia didn’t always get nerfed, but maybe sometimes they get a boost. Or I guess you could just play the OOB game. Use all those Russian and French sculpts for birthday cake decorations or something. Because they’ll never get bought in the actual game. They’re a total tease! hehehe
    :-D

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 10
  • 12
  • 21
  • 20
  • 16
  • 13
  • 11
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

21

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts