Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Larrymarx and allweneedislove's Global balance solution



  • There have been multiple threads that deal with the problem of the Global game being imbalanced because the US goes 100% in Europe and creams the Euro-Axis.  Whether is a real problem or just a perceived one because not enough good Axis counters to the US going 100% in Europe have been developed remains to be figured out with certainty.

    However, if changes must be made, go with allweneedislove’s (ANWIL) change.  Instead of changing the setup or NOs, alter the victory city conditions.

    If the Axis can hold seven of the eight VCs on the Pacific board, they win the game regardless of what is happening in Europe.

    If the Axis have eight of the eleven VCs on the Europe board, they win regardless of what is happening in the Pacific.

    Specifically, if the US goes 100% into Europe, it is a breeze for Japan to grab seven of eight Pacific VCs.  If the US is 100% in the Pacific, Germany does Sealion and the Euro-Axis can cruise to capture eight of eleven VCs on the Europe board.

    By altering the victory city conditions, the US must balance resources into both theaters.  This is the modification that I think needs to be tested for Global balance if one must be made.

    I just want to thank ANWIL for his brilliance in thinking this simplistic change up.  Bravo!!



  • Splits the Global game into 2 half games.  It does force the US to play both boards, but we’re backing into the real solution of splitting the US’s IPCs like the UK.



  • @MaherC:

    Splits the Global game into 2 half games.   It does force the US to play both boards, but we’re backing into the real solution of splitting the US’s IPCs like the UK.

    MaherC,

    I don’t understand your post completely.  Is it bad if for the game if the US has to split its resources?  This would allow the Allied players to best decide how to split the US resources.  And with the victory changes, split them they must.  ANWILs suggestion is the simplest solution to the problem of balance.  No fighting over NO or setup changes.



  • I think it is driving at the right idea, but at a backwards way.

    An axis win on half the board isn’t a “global” game.

    Splitting the US’s IPCs between the West and East coasts would be a better solution to me.



  • @MaherC:

    I think it is driving at the right idea, but at a backwards way.

    An axis win on half the board isn’t a “global” game.

    Splitting the US’s IPCs between the West and East coasts would be a better solution to me.

    Ok, I see what you are saying now.  I agree that it is kind of a backwards way to think about it.  Germany and Italy are toast but the Axis win because Japan goes wild.

    To me, the non-historical aspect of winning this way takes a back seat to sound game play for Global.  It forces the US to play in both theaters yet the choice of how to do that is completely up to player.  It does not force the US to have a rigid split of income as does the UK.  They reason for the UK split is because the respective capitals are so far apart.  The east and west coast of America are not so far apart that supplies couldn’t easily be transferred between the two.



  • Right, I don’t care about the historical aspect of it either, but the fact is the game was setup for American players to fight a two theater war, and if they don’t and focus everything on the Nazis, it’s over.



  • I think I may deserve credit for this idea. I posted it originally a week and a half ago on this thread:

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20964.0

    I think based on allweneedislove’s post on this thread that he probably got the idea from me. I apologize if I’m coming off as snooty, but if the idea goes anywhere I would appreciate some recognition.



  • Sorry about the improper citation.  I saw this idea over at Larry’s site from allweneedislove and put it up over here because I thought it was an excellent idea that needs to be play tested.  I have added you into the subject line larrymarx. His is a very slight variation on what you had originally posted so I kept his name also.  Is this satisfactory enough?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    What a snooty fker.



  • it’s like taking credit for inventing light mayo.


  • TripleA

    @gsh34:

    Ok, I see what you are saying now.  I agree that it is kind of a backwards way to think about it.  Germany and Italy are toast but the Axis win because Japan goes wild.

    i like to think of it more as the allies have lost rather than the axis have won. it was the allies that needed to save the world from imperialistic powers. you could say the allies did not save the world if they liberated europe but all of asia and the pacific were ruled by the japanese. sure the allies could redeploy and try to fight the japanese but try to explain that to the chinese, indian, and aussie kids learning japanese in school. and the exhausted uk/usa infantryman that after slogging through europe they need to now fly to the other side of the world for more years of fighting.

    @gsh34:

    To me, the non-historical aspect of winning this way takes a back seat to sound game play for Global.  It forces the US to play in both theaters yet the choice of how to do that is completely up to player.  It does not force the US to have a rigid split of income as does the UK.  They reason for the UK split is because the respective capitals are so far apart.  The east and west coast of America are not so far apart that supplies couldn’t easily be transferred between the two.

    i agree that historical aspects take a back seat to game play. this might not be the ideal solution but it is the best i can come up with now.

    i also agree that usa income split does not work. usa east and west coast are too close.


  • TripleA

    @larrymarx:

    I think I may deserve credit for this idea. I posted it originally a week and a half ago on this thread:

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20964.0

    I think based on allweneedislove’s post on this thread that he probably got the idea from me. I apologize if I’m coming off as snooty, but if the idea goes anywhere I would appreciate some recognition.

    it is possible that you and i came up with similar ideas on our own. and i am sure that others have also come up with this idea maybe before either of us.

    i doubt this idea will go anywhere, but if it does i think larry harris will be taking credit, and not thanking you, me or anyone else that has thought of it.



  • MY GOD PEOPLE, YOU ARE ALL SO OBSESSED WITH BALANCE, MAYBE THE GAME BALANCE ISN’T THE ISSUE,……MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP PLAYING IT SO MUCH AND GET OUT AND GET OUTSIDE MORE OFTEN.


  • TripleA

    @MaherC:

    it’s like taking credit for inventing light mayo.

    damn you. i also happen to be the inventor of light mayo. whats next, are you going to start making fun of my haircut?



  • another idea is questioneers Qbeta setup

    Japan

    +10 for Japan when not at war with the US
    +10 when Japan owns 5 of the 6 island groups: Midway, Iwo Jima, Wake, Marinara Islands, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands.

    US

    +20 when the US has control of CUS, EUS, EMex, CAmer, WInd after DOW
    +10 when the US has control of WUS, Alaska, Hawaii, Mexico
    +10 when US owns 5 of the 6 island groups: Midway, Iwo Jima, Wake, Marinara Islands, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands.

    Setup change

    add 3 more infantry to England.

    Political rule change

    USSR when at war with Japan alone may not invade/engage with neutrals on the Europe side of the board, nor may it land in Allied territories on the Europe side of the board.

    i personally like this one better, though currently he is testing both of them maybe if more people can play test either one or both then we can obtain reliable results for both and come to a conclusion as to which is better



  • @qwertyuiop:

    MY GOD PEOPLE, YOU ARE ALL SO OBSESSED WITH BALANCE, MAYBE THE GAME BALANCE ISN’T THE ISSUE,……MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP PLAYING IT SO MUCH AND GET OUT AND GET OUTSIDE MORE OFTEN.

    Whoa!  Who let this person in?  😄 😄 😄

    qwertyuiop is right about getting outside though.  Maybe tomorrow instead of sitting in my faculty lounge to check out AA.org I will sit outside and drink tea whilst using my laptop and wi-fi connection to peruse this fine forum.  😄



  • @qwertyuiop:

    MY GOD PEOPLE, YOU ARE ALL SO OBSESSED WITH BALANCE, MAYBE THE GAME BALANCE ISN’T THE ISSUE,……MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP PLAYING IT SO MUCH AND GET OUT AND GET OUTSIDE MORE OFTEN.

    troll.

    It’s November 11th here, that means it’s cold.  Outside?  Eat me.



  • @qwertyuiop:

    MY GOD PEOPLE, YOU ARE ALL SO OBSESSED WITH BALANCE, MAYBE THE GAME BALANCE ISN’T THE ISSUE,……MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP PLAYING IT SO MUCH AND GET OUT AND GET OUTSIDE MORE OFTEN.

    Your posting on a board game board for AA geeks and you tell us to go outside lol.

    Welcome to the family.


  • Official Answers

    @allweneedislove:

    @larrymarx:

    I think I may deserve credit for this idea. I posted it originally a week and a half ago on this thread:

    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20964.0

    I think based on allweneedislove’s post on this thread that he probably got the idea from me. I apologize if I’m coming off as snooty, but if the idea goes anywhere I would appreciate some recognition.

    it is possible that you and i came up with similar ideas on our own. and i am sure that others have also come up with this idea maybe before either of us.

    This exact idea actually came up during playtesting, but there simply wasn’t time to pursue it.  There were concerns that implementing it might cause the global game to feel like two games pasted together rather than a single integrated game.  I’m glad we’re getting a chance to see if that’s the case.

    @allweneedislove:

    i doubt this idea will go anywhere, but if it does i think larry harris will be taking credit, and not thanking you, me or anyone else that has thought of it.

    In my experience, Larry tends to give credit where it’s due.



  • troll.

    It’s November 11th here, that means it’s cold.  Outside?  Eat me.

    November 11th is vets day maybe he has a point?

    Whoa!  Who let this person in?  grin grin grin

    qwertyuiop is right about getting outside though.  Maybe tomorrow instead of sitting in my faculty lounge to check out AA.org I will sit outside and drink tea whilst using my laptop and wi-fi connection to peruse this fine forum.

    We should all get out and maybe get a fresh perspective on the situation. Balancing will take months, if not years, to really be sure of an outcome. Lets let the record be created by the record (of axis vs allies wins) and debate fully when its been out for more than 3 months.



  • We are playtesting this idea now.  I was against it at first until I listens more closely.  This may work very well and if it does then it will be the best way to go- NOT my QBETA.

    I am trying this out with 6VC on the Pac side- to get the US offensively involved in the Pacific, but this may prove too easy for Axis.  If it does, then the 7VC on Pac I believe will work.  US would then just defend Hawaii with its life and go KGF- though not as strong as they must secure Hawaii- Japan would be the aggressor in the Pacific in this case.  8VC for the Euro side is pretty fair- I don’t see issues with that.

    Follow the playtest:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21062.0

    Also here is the QBETA playtest:
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20980.0



  • Questions:

    1.  Is this solution on top of the Alpha set up changes for pacific?

    2. Are Global victory conditions unchanged?  You still need 14, unless either of the theater specific thresholds are reached?

    Thanks



  • how do you get to 14 w/o having 8 or 6 and thus winning?  You’d win at 13…



  • MaherC,

    Thanks.  Yes, I wasn’t thinking it through. (and thanks for not adding… “duh!”).

    How about question 1.  I am assuming the victory condition change is on top of the alpha set up change.  Is that correct?



  • yes


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 34
  • 118
  • 3
  • 26
  • 13
  • 14
  • 20
I Will Never Grow Up Games

23
Online

13.2k
Users

33.4k
Topics

1.3m
Posts