After Three Games of Global



  • Strictly speaking, I have played five games of Global, but I don’t put much stock in multiplayer games, so I form my impressions mostly based on my head to head matches.

    Thus far, we have had two Allied wins, and one Axis win. Our lone Axis win was our first head to head match, involved many more mistakes, and the Allies still had a couple of decent shots at winning that failed.

    Simply put, we are running out of ideas for Germany/Italy. Zooooma has worked out Sea Lion in detail, and has concluded that Sea Lion is only worth it if UK skimps enough on defense. In our first game he went for it, in our second Germany suffered terrible luck in the water and attacked Russia on turn 3, and in our third game Germany went for a turn 2 Barbarossa.

    Game three was by far our best game, and even though it can be safely said that Axis had the better share of the dice, it still wasn’t that competitive. The allied victory was overwhelming. The best Axis could really hope for was winning a 31% German shot at Moscow, and trading USSR for Germany.

    I am not ready to say that the game is broken, as fascinating ideas about Japanese threats on North America are cropping up, and the intricacies of this game are extreme. That said, autopilot Germany attacks Russia sinks UK ships and waits for Japan to help strats fail miserably.

    Game on.



  • Rock,

    Play a few more games before throwing out the “its broken” card. Your axis may find that they can overcome. I have seen it. Also many games have been called too short (after 5 turns or so it seems) before a good counter can be made. Over time granted the allies will win but a smart axis will not “go for broke” on a plan that does not offer alternatives if dice become too much of a factor.



  • @deadbunny:

    Rock,

    Play a few more games before throwing out the “its broken” card.

    @rockrobinoff:

    I am not ready to say that the game is broken…



  • Your right Rockin,

    I made a mistake about saying you actually said it, but your post has an underlying meaning as it is, no offense intended.  Also a sample of 5 games is pretty low when statistically speaking about outcomes.



  • Yep, 5 is very low. That said, it is not an analysis based on statistics, but an analysis based on first principles, plus anecdotal evidence from the boards.

    I do not think it is time to say the game is broken However, if the Axis are in the game, then “the hows” are not at all obvious, for typical Revised/Anniversary style strats are just not happening for them.

    Everyone was saying that Anniversary was broke too when it came out, that the Axis had an easy victory. Nowadays, very sophisticated Allied strats have come out, and I willing to say that game is balanced to within a few IPCs. Will such balancing strats materialize for Global? Perhaps, but the onus is on those who claim Axis is in the game with an (nearly) even chance, not on those who say “ok, but how?”



  • An analysis based on principles (of an old game and its mechanic and even anecdotal evidence of others opinions on a board) is still just opinion. Statistical analysis aside, play the game, looking for balance is a lost cause unless its real life and you have a lawyer and this is a game. The IPM (infantry push mechanic which has been around since the first edition) seems alive and well in this game for the axis, try not waste IPC’s on a lost cause such as a German Atlantic fleet or a one hit wonder like sea lion and see how hard it is for America to break the wall of infantry you can amass in Europe. Even if unbalanced it is still a game that I would play just for the fun of it and a chance of winning. My group has been playing A&A since the eighties,  AA50 since it came out and with no bids, we have now moved on to Global. The Axis could win most of the AA50 games based on IPM, not bidding for an extra troop here or a transport there. Once again an opinion, yours to take as an attack or information on the subject.



  • I am failing to see your point… I keep telling you I dont think the game is broken, and you keep responding as if I think it is.

    also:

    An analysis based on principles (of an old game and its mechanic and even anecdotal evidence of others opinions on a board) is still just opinion.]

    I said “first principles” which means a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. Not from what I know of other games.



  • I said “first principles” which means a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. Not from what I know of other games.

    But you said:

    Yep, 5 is very low. That said, it is not an analysis based on statistics,but an analysis based on first principles, plus anecdotal evidence from the boards

    Which means you have an awareness of the situation and others propositions and assumptions, and your forming an opinion based on it.

    And then I said:

    Once again an opinion, yours to take as an attack or information on the subject.



  • but you said:

    @deadbunny:

    (of an old game and its mechanic)



  • And my counter:

    Everyone was saying that Anniversary was broke too when it came out, that the Axis had an easy victory. Nowadays, very sophisticated Allied strats have come out, and I willing to say that game is balanced to within a few IPCs. Will such balancing strats materialize for Global? Perhaps, but the onus is on those who claim Axis is in the game with an (nearly) even chance, not on those who say “ok, but how?”

    You brought “other games” and their mechanic into the discussion. Obviously this will lead nowhere. So I sign off from this discussion Rockin, good luck in A&A



  • one of us is not understanding the other person’s words. i write for a living, and english is my first language, so i don’t think it’s me, despite my disinterest in caps 🙂



  • I will break my vow of leaving this discussion.

    i write for a living, and english is my first language, so i don’t think it’s me, despite my disinterest in caps

    A disagreement does not mean an attack on ones intelligence, but for you it seems so, and qualification of your background seems important for you. So I will indulge you. Writing for a living does not mean your good at it, example: some doctor had to be the last of his class in grades but he is still a doctor. I understand what “first principle” means. English is my first language also. I have served in the military in a command situation and understand warfare and its logistics (does this mean I’m good at A&A no, does it mean I have a different view yes) And what is with the Caps comment? What are you referring to?

    And here is another you will never find in my posts a emoticon:  :?



  • i never took anything as an attack. i don’t see why you took my responses to your concerns as attacks. i thought i was being very clear and stated several times i didnt think the game was broken, and yet you continued to behave as if i thought so despite what i said so i was left with the natural conclusion that either a) you weren’t being clear or b) you werent understanding me, despite my being clear.

    i am, frankly, completely mystified by all of this, and my caps comment was directed at my posting laziness.



  • all i have said was:

    i dont think it is time to say the game is broken

    axis seem to be having a hard time of it.

    what, exactly, are you taking issue with?



  • Rockin,

    I think we have had a disagreement that is not easily defused by the medium of posting boards.

    To your last post:

    i dont think it is time to say the game is broken

    axis seem to be having a hard time of it.

    We are in agreement on one of these two statements. I am not taking issue with either since my support of them are my opinion. And I offer my hand (of course symbolically since this is a board) as a sign of an agreement to disagree.



  • shakes symbolic hands



  • Well met my friend shakes hand.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    But you said! But you said! But you said!

    You guys sound like a pair of old ladies at a quilting B.

    The issues come from the 1939 start date and the political rules.  It’s inherently impossible to perfectly balance, because you don’t know what people want to do, what they are going to build when not at war, and that determines the best turn for Axis attacks also enough.

    The 39 start also means the axis have a STEEP climb to reach relative economic parity, and if they F*ck up early along the way, or gets dice it Exponentially slows them down.

    Time will tell with this game, we can’t call it “broken” until there is a strategy (Japan or America) that is so tight and perfect that solid dice can’t even prevent it. (Like A Brazil Factory in Revised, or German Super-Stack in original Europe)



  • A Brazil factory never beat anyone in our revised games. A super stack can be countered with a defensive super stack, neither made an assured game win.



  • @rockrobinoff:

    Simply put, we are running out of ideas for Germany/Italy. Zooooma has worked out Sea Lion in detail, and has concluded that Sea Lion is only worth it if UK skimps enough on defense.

    Whoa!

    We are just scratching the surface of ideas (I really don’t have much time foe A&A).  I’m still exploring Sea Lion in conjunction with A Japanese invasion of America.  My Mediteranean game plan has been neglected  - I’ve only just clued in to a decent Axis start there.  And I’ve devoted next to zero thought about solid Barbarossa play.

    Our last second game involved a half baked unconventional strategy on my part that I was really just feeling out.  I abandoned this last game because I simply didn’t have time to adjust for your preemptive response to said strategy.  So I played Barabrossa which I hadn’t thought about much at all.



  • maybe i am not being clear, but all i am getting at is that Axis strats are not at all obvious, and that the obvious Axis strats, are failing. yes, you havent had time to work out complicated and nuanced axis attacks… well, we are both working things out over the board. i think i have been winning not due to superior play or to fortune, but for having the much easier job.



  • @rockrobinoff:

    maybe i am not being clear, but all i am getting at is that Axis strats are not at all obvious, and that the obvious Axis strats, are failing.

    I think you also said something about me running out of ideas.

    I don’t think a strategy can be said to be failing when we tried it but once.  In those three games the Axis used three radically different strategies.  We’ve been stumbling through - We’ve played sea Lion with no forethought of post sea Lion, we played a Japanese KAF which had barely been analised and was uncoordinated with the European Axis powers, and I played a Barbarossa which I’d devoted roughly zero thought towards.

    I’m now finally starting to think about Barbarossa a little.  But it’s slow going.  I’m still working out KRL and its counters.  Basically, I’m nowhere near out of ideas.  The players who are out of ideas already are playing alpha I think.

    @rockrobinoff:

    yes, you havent had time to work out complicated and nuanced axis attacks…

    @rockrobinoff:

    …Will such balancing strats materialize for Global? Perhaps, but the onus is on those who claim Axis is in the game with an (nearly) even chance, not on those who say “ok, but how?”

    I’m saying there is insufficient evidence to suggest the Axis don’t have a roughly equal chance.  The onus is on anyone else to give me sufficient time (and a freakin’ break) before expecting an answer to “how”.



  • zooooma:

    all of my global games have been played by the seat of my pants, with no advanced working out of ideas. sure i occasionally muse for a few moments on what i might do in my next game, but without a board or a detailed knowledge of the setup. you, on the other hand, have put at least some serious time in working out ideas for axis, and have failed miserably.

    now, i think you are at least as good as me, and probably on the balance of things, still a solid notch above, and yet our games have not been all that competitive. all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top. this suggests to me, that ideas for axis are at a minimum more difficult to come by, and that, again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position. the evidence thus far suggests axis does not, even though it is far from conclusive.



  • now, i think you are at least as good as me, and probably on the balance of things, still a solid notch above, and yet our games have not been all that competitive. all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top. this suggests to me, that ideas for axis are at a minimum more difficult to come by, and that, again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position.

    @rockrobinoff:

    the evidence thus far suggests axis does not (have an equal position), even though it is far from conclusive.

    I disagree.  The evidence is that Axis optimal strategy (or even sound strategy) is far less prosaic, and far more precise than sound or optimal Allied strategy.  It is highly conclusive!  There is no evidence either way as to whether or not the game is ultimately balanced.

    @rockrobinoff:

    …you, on the other hand, have put at least some serious time in working out ideas for axis, and have failed miserably.

    That’s not fair.  To the extent that I’ve put serious time into ideas, I have not failed miserably, and o the extent that I’ve failed I have not put serious time into ideas!

    I put lots of thought into accomplishing Sea Lion (less into post Sea Lion).  If you recall I won the Sea Lion game.  I got lucky at the end, but I blundered at the end too.  We both played poorly early game.  I Don’t see this as a miserable failure, and haven’t ruled out Sea Lion.

    Game two was KAF which hadn’t been thought out at all.  I had a terrible time G1, and did not try and could not play Sea Lion which was the purpose of KAF to begin with.  Germany did almost nothing that game, including not attacking Russia soon enough, and handing over Southern Europe to the UK.  I consider that game was a wash, but not a failure!  I think You’ll be buying ground units US1 from now on - and that still might not stop me…

    Game three I tried a “standard” Axis approach, but this was really the only time I’d ever tried this, and I’d not put any thought into how to play it.  This a loss but not such a defeat that I can’t look back and think about what I could have changed to possibly come out ahead.  I don’t consider that a miserable failure.

    In all three games I played the Med like a newb.
    @rockrobinoff:

    i think i have been winning not due to superior play or to fortune, but for having the much easier job.

    @rockrobinoff:

    …all i have done is simply react to your ideas, and come out on top.

    Is my job easier because the Axis are inherently disadvantaged, or because there strategies are more limited, more complicated, and harder to refine?

    You seem to believe the former. But your evidence rests on your impression on how much thought I’ve put into the game, how much of this thought has translated into my performance (surprisingly little - I’ve cleaned up several strategies but then not tried them again) compared to how much room I have left to refine and improve these strategies.

    Me, I agree it’s been harder for me to discover a sound Axis system.  I also think this has caused me to make far more mistakes than you (by virtue of having more vital moves to miss).  Put another way, My position being more complicated than yours means you easily have outplayed me - despite my having put in extra thought and a possible skill discrepancy.  Although your moves may have been more obvious than mine, I nonetheless think your play has been more sound than mine.

    @rockrobinoff:

    …again, the onus is on the axis player at this time to demonstrate why they have an equal position.

    Personally, I believe I have to explore and improve with both KRF & KRL.  Maybe I’ll discover neither work.  But I insist there is no onus on anyone to demonstrate optimal play 'at this time".  That is not reasonable.  The onus is on the kindred intellect to look thoroughly for non prosaic winning Axis strategies, and for everyone else to give us time.  Ask me in six to twelve months.



  • @zooooma:

    Is my job easier because the Axis are inherently disadvantaged, or because there strategies are more limited, more complicated, and harder to refine?

    You seem to believe the former.

    I keep saying this, over and over again in this thread, that i dont think the game is broken, and by that i mean, that i do not have cause to conclude that the axis are inherently disadvantaged. i am clearly aware of the concept of harder to play/ objectively disadvantaged (we have discussed that at great length about anniversary). by “onus” all i have meant was, that axis seem to be having a hard time of it, therefore, people who claim that axis have an even game, or think it likely, or what have you, have the burden. as things stand now in our games, and in the general consensus of this board and those people’s experiences, axis “having a hard time of it” is the norm.

    as for failing miserably. that wasn’t an estimation of your ability or play, but the result of the games from the axis side. not even close in my opinion, given the final positions of the last two games, and even with axis having the better time of the dice.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 11
  • 9
  • 7
  • 4
  • 7
  • 24
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

41
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts