• I need to point out that people need to stop assuming that Larry Harris is unable to make a game. If you think that the game is imbalanced it is probably because you need to sit down and think up some strategies for whatever side you feel is underpowered. Nerfing the opposition is not a viable fix, it is a band aid to people’s inability to be creative.

    Even if something did turn out to be imbalanced then it would be impossible to find out this soon after release.

    I say people show some respect and keep their temper tantrums to themselves. If they can’t phrase things with some logic and nicely then perhaps they should abide by the age old saying and say nothing at all. The game is not broken, you are broken. Stop complaining about the US income and use your brain to discover axis strategies that work.

    This is directed at no one in particular but rather at the community as a whole, myself included. Lets stop jumping to conclusions and instead be thankful for the great job and effort that went into this fantastic game. If we really thought we could do so much better than perhaps we should have done so and created our own game. Since we haven’t lets give credit where credit is due.

    Thanks for a great game Larry.


  • Preach it brotha.

    I agree. Although I’ve seen strong evidence that Pacific 40’ had major issues and it was nearly impossible for the Allies to win. I guess nearly is the key word. Larry agreed though and made changes. My opinion is they should’ve forseen this problem while making the game. Not sure if the setup on P40 effects gameplay with Global though.

  • '10

    Yeah, you’re totally right!

    Can’t make 10 - 15 games a month.

    Maybe 2, max. 3.

    It’s everytime a new challange with different ways to play. Each of our A&A comrades has his special way to play the axis or allied powers, to handle groundforces, ships and planes.

    To sit down with friends, drinking a few beers, to draw the sides an play 5 - 6 hours this great game, that’s it.

    …not to make as much games as possible to find this “one - game - breaking - bad - designed - setup error”. 😛

    Best game ever Larry.

    Hope you design a 1941 and 1942 setup. :lol:


  • Well said sir, well said  🙂

    The issue people are having with these new games, and G40, is that they are looking at them through past A&A eyes, if you will. In reality, the new games only share a passing resemblance to the previous titles. As the old saying goes, Generals are always preparing to fight the last war, at this is the issue here. Certian things have always held true in previous editions on A&A, and people are trying to apply them here, with limited success, and its creating the idea that the game must be unbalanced. For instance, it was always believed that the Japanese should quickly take all of China, in a turn or 2, so it could be in position to attack Russia. Now, it takes around 4 or 5 turns to conquer China, and it dosnt Bring Japan any closer to victory. Sure you get the 12ipcs, but no victory cities, which you need to win. The biggest issue is Japan and Russia. Every single A&A game, spare maybe A&A50, Japan has had to send the bulk of its army to help bring down Russia. Once Russia was down, the allies usually conceded. Now, however, if Japan goes all out in Russia, the axis cant win. Japan has several very obvious victory cities that it must take if the axis are to reach the 14 they need to win. The whole of Russia, will only get you 3 more, and cost the axis an addational 4 extra VC, which maybe the 4 that win them the game! What people need to do is forget everything form the other A&A games, and look at these games with fresh eyes, as if they were the first A&A games you have ever seen, and you will find it much more balanced.


  • Yes. I agree completely. Even if we assume the game is unbalanced or broken, people seem to forget that Larry has maybe 20 playtesters maximum to playtest for a maximum of 20 games. However, the AA community has at least a hundred people who have played games and posted about them, and since there are more people, they will very likely try out strategies that were dismissed or not considered by the play testers. In such an epic game, if the playtesters were made to make perfectly sure it was balanced, the game would not be released until 2013


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    Yes. I agree completely. Even if we assume the game is unbalanced or broken, people seem to forget that Larry has maybe 20 playtesters maximum to playtest for a maximum of 20 games. However, the AA community has at least a hundred people who have played games and posted about them, and since there are more people, they will very likely try out strategies that were dismissed or not considered by the play testers. In such an epic game, if the playtesters were made to make perfectly sure it was balanced, the game would not be released until 2013

    exactly!


  • this brings up an interesting point: how close does the game have to be to be acceptably balanced?

    obviously, a perfect 50-50 chance with ideal play would be a miracle of design. so, 60-40? 70-30?

    replayability is a big factor as well. one could develop a slightly less than optimal strategy that is nonetheless difficult to cope with - perhaps making the “unsound” strat have an even greater chance of success than an objectively better one. if a design lends itself to many such innovations, then talk of objective balance might be an almost moot point.

    finally, i agree with the basic premise of the original post: i.e. anyone who thinks they have this version figured out is deluded.


  • Well, it may be 50-50, but is only that way with very obscure strategies. With common strats, it will of course always depend on the experience of the player, the dice, and the inexperience of another player to your strat


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    Well, it may be 50-50, but is only that way with very obscure strategies. With common strats, it will of course always depend on the experience of the player, the dice, and the inexperience of another player to your strat

    when speaking of game balance we are always assuming perfect play and perfectly average dice. and it would be an absolute miracle to make a incongruous game (the map of the world in this case) and wide variety of differing numbers of units and types, and have it turn out perfectly balanced. even with years of toil. chess is balanced because of geometric and force equality, and even that it is not perfect, for the slight pull white gets because of the right to move first.


  • @rockrobinoff:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    Well, it may be 50-50, but is only that way with very obscure strategies. With common strats, it will of course always depend on the experience of the player, the dice, and the inexperience of another player to your strat

    when speaking of game balance we are always assuming perfect play and perfectly average dice. and it would be an absolute miracle to make a incongruous game (the map of the world in this case) and wide variety of differing numbers of units and types, and have it turn out perfectly balanced. even with years of toil. chess is balanced because of geometric and force equality, and even that it is not perfect, for the slight pull white gets because of the right to move first.

    The problem is that there is no one on earth who will play the game even close to perfectly. That is probably the source of most concerns


  • There is really only one guiding princable at the core of these new games, and that is the objectives. In order to win, the axis must capture 14 victory cities, and keep hold of one of their 3 cpaitals, while the allies have to capture the 3 axis capitals. Whatever strat you come up with, it has to answer this one question, “How will this bring me closer to captuering a victory city/capital?” If you cant answer this question, or see a way to benifit towards this end, then you probably shouldnt do it. Move only when it benifits you, as Sun Tzu once said


  • Fallacious.


  • @Bodeacious:

    Fallacious.

    What is?


  • @Blitchga:

    I need to point out that people need to stop assuming that Larry Harris is unable to make a game. If you think that the game is imbalanced it is probably because you need to sit down and think up some strategies for whatever side you feel is underpowered. Nerfing the opposition is not a viable fix, it is a band aid to people’s inability to be creative.

    Even if something did turn out to be imbalanced then it would be impossible to find out this soon after release.

    I say people show some respect and keep their temper tantrums to themselves. If they can’t phrase things with some logic and nicely then perhaps they should abide by the age old saying and say nothing at all. The game is not broken, you are broken. Stop complaining about the US income and use your brain to discover axis strategies that work.

    This is directed at no one in particular but rather at the community as a whole, myself included. Lets stop jumping to conclusions and instead be thankful for the great job and effort that went into this fantastic game. If we really thought we could do so much better than perhaps we should have done so and created our own game. Since we haven’t lets give credit where credit is due.

    Thanks for a great game Larry.


  • Okay. Now please support your assertion


  • @Clyde85:

    There is really only one guiding princable at the core of these new games, and that is the objectives. In order to win, the axis must capture 14 victory cities, and keep hold of one of their 3 cpaitals, while the allies have to capture the 3 axis capitals. Whatever strat you come up with, it has to answer this one question, “How will this bring me closer to captuering a victory city/capital?” If you cant answer this question, or see a way to benifit towards this end, then you probably shouldnt do it. Move only when it benifits you, as Sun Tzu once said

    true dat.


  • How long was Revised out before people started using a bid to balance it out? I think it is way too early to determine that AAG40 is broken.


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    The problem is that there is no one on earth who will play the game even close to perfectly. That is probably the source of most concerns

    you seem to be misunderstanding me, so perhaps i am being unclear. so, simply put, the ability of the players involved is irrelevant to the discussion of how well a game has been balanced. how can you take issue with that?


  • I think the issue most people are taking is that the inference is that G40 is unbalanced. Granted, in a perfectly balanced game, it wouldnt matter how good the players, at the begining everyone would have an equal chance, like Risk. However, this game is trying to recreate history, meaning that things can be perfectly balanced, like in risk, or the game would make to sense.

  • '10

    That is the point CLYDE!

    Nobody need this game to be perfectly balanced!

    We are palying Axis vs. Allies, not Risk, Dust or Attack!

    This game has an historical background and Larry took care of it.

    I like to play the axis underdog, who terrors the world with “Blitzkrieg” and finnaly surrenders unconditional to the economic powers of the Allies and Russia. :evil:

    …and I like to kick those axis hordes back to where they come from, too, hoping that the russians hold the line. :lol:

    This is the main stream of this games.


  • I think the consensus and point I was trying to make has been made. Keep attacks on the game away from these boards. The game is balanced as far as we can tell and new strategies just need to be created and found. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.


  • @Clyde85:

    However, this game is trying to recreate history

    this game is not trying to recreate history, it is using history to inform a boardgame, to provide a backdrop and a theme, not to as accurately model WW2 as possible. far from it.


  • @rockrobinoff:

    this game is not trying to recreate history, it is using history to inform a boardgame, to provide a backdrop and a theme, not to as accurately model WW2 as possible. far from it.

    Really? How is the initial set-up not ment to be a recreation of the historical situation of 1940? I think thats the crux of the whole game, taking the situation of 1940, and seeing what YOU can do with it, unless im mistaken.

    @marechallannes:

    That is the point CLYDE!
    Nobody need this game to be perfectly balanced!

    So we are in agreement then? cause that was the point I was making

  • '10

    That’s it.  8-)


  • Getting victory cities technically wins the game, but intermediary goals are necessary to capture the number needed. Trying to achieve some economic objectives and strike material blows to the enemies can put you in that superior position you need to meet the actual win condition.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

27
Online

16.2k
Users

37.8k
Topics

1.6m
Posts