Does anyone play OOB?



  • Just wondering because most of the PBF games are alpha does anyone except Func still play OOB online or face to face



  • Yes, most of the time.  Our group has some that would rather wait till ‘alpha’ is finalized, which they also think will be never.  To openly admit so many ‘oversights’ and invite community help is thought to invite continual derision and most likely only be remedied by a new release over a ‘2nd edition’… which is what is believed more likely.

    but on the happy side of the coin… i have enjoyed alpha.2’s NOs the changes, though I have enjoyed oob as well.

    Probably should be a separate Alpha child board.



  • I don’t see the point in playing OOB. It appeared to be broken on first play. Further games showed an Axis win against a decent opponent was on par with winning the lottery.



  • Me and my group only play OOB, we are waiting for alpha to stop changing before we learn it.  :roll:



  • Regarding Alpha .+2:
    I know alpha proponents claim it is balanced. Does anyone else seem to have trouble with the allies. 3 games of Alpha +2, I have played axis once and allies twice against 2 other people, not one game was even close and the axis easily won. In our games Japan goes for a quick 6 cities, America tries to stop them, once they do turn 6-7, they then try to stop Europe and in so doing, Japan recovers and wins it.

    2 games Germany waited until turn 4, grabbed London easily by staging in Scotland, using 9 transports, they then split navy/land builds and drove USSR back while preventing an allies move to sz 91 Gibraltar. 3rd game, Germany just went Russia first, ignored UK and linked up with the italian navy in 91 to prevent an allied move there. (Italian navy 14 ships (2 carriers), German 7 ships (1 carrier), plus 3 scrambled). Germany built 15 units a turn to Russia’s 6-7  units by rounds 5-7 as Japan came north through the back door with a few units, Russia moved the 18 infantry from the east to Moscow for over 100 pieces in Moscow on turn 7, this required moving back as Germany outnumbered the Russians each round until they reached the soviet far east divisions.

    If you are winning with the allies, can you describe in broad strokes, what you do and by what turn number…for instance: do you go Europe first for a few rounds and then Pacific, do you split builds all game, etc.? Our typical Japanese player is close to city number 6 by turn 6 or 7 if not fully contested. Usually Japan has 7-9 transports staged in Caroline with 7 transports there by turn 4.

    My impression is that it seems clear the axis can play conservatively as time is on there side, a round 10-15 win seems assured. Last night’s game, Moscow was due to fall on turn 9-10 for city number 8 on the Europe board. Japan was poised to grab back their possessions and secure city 6 on turns 11-12 as they were the target of the U.S. until turn 7…over that bloodbath, Japan had built 7 carriers, of which the U.S. was able to sink 4 before they could link with the starting Jap. fleet. Turn 5 the U.S. had a statistically bad chance to capture Japan with 12 units landed vs, 14 units on Japan. (US: Fit, Tac, 6 inf, 1 arm, 2 art, 1 mech vs Japan 2 bomber, 7 armor, 5 inf, 1 aagun) Japan built a carrier in sz6 and landed 2 planes to prevent 2 naval bombardments that turn and to further bleed the U.S. fleet for the expected starting navy counterattack. Even if I had captured Japan by some fluke, Germany was still on track to get city 8,  6 turns later since the U.S. was not going to breach the sz 91 navy and grab a city by then.

    In short, you can surrender a board as the axis and still win by turns 12-15. America is asked to use 72-77 IPCs to stop both axis players who typically have 40-50 IPCs in the Pacific or a combined 80-90 IPCs in the Atlantic mid game, India and London are non factors(London is usually occupied on turn 4 for the estimated 26 IPC plunder and the +13 IPC a turn value), USSR does not have the money to stop Germany, and Anzac is lucky to garrison Australia by a turn 4-5 capture. After Australia falls, the next turn or 2 turns later sz 6 transports grab Hawaii for city number 6. (with Hawaii and Australia, you don’t care if India is in China as the game ends). Heck, India first crush works as well, but takes maybe a turn or two more for city number 6 (Hawaii).

    Please reply with what I am missing. I know everyone can’t be wrong about the apparent balance. Does U.S. as i suspect go Europe first early and then switch?


  • 2007 AAR League

    @JamesAleman:

    Regarding Alpha .+2:
    I know alpha proponents claim it is balanced. Does anyone else seem to have trouble with the allies. 3 games of Alpha +2, I have played axis once and allies twice against 2 other people, not one game was even close and the axis easily won. In our games Japan goes for a quick 6 cities, America tries to stop them, once they do turn 6-7, they then try to stop Europe and in so doing, Japan recovers and wins it.

    2 games Germany waited until turn 4, grabbed London easily by staging in Scotland, using 9 transports, they then split navy/land builds and drove USSR back while preventing an allies move to sz 91 Gibraltar. 3rd game, Germany just went Russia first, ignored UK and linked up with the italian navy in 91 to prevent an allied move there. (Italian navy 14 ships (2 carriers), German 7 ships (1 carrier), plus 3 scrambled). Germany built 15 units a turn to Russia’s 6-7  units by rounds 5-7 as Japan came north through the back door with a few units, Russia moved the 18 infantry from the east to Moscow for over 100 pieces in Moscow on turn 7, this required moving back as Germany outnumbered the Russians each round until they reached the soviet far east divisions.

    If you are winning with the allies, can you describe in broad strokes, what you do and by what turn number…for instance: do you go Europe first for a few rounds and then Pacific, do you split builds all game, etc.? Our typical Japanese player is close to city number 6 by turn 6 or 7 if not fully contested. Usually Japan has 7-9 transports staged in Caroline with 7 transports there by turn 4.

    My impression is that it seems clear the axis can play conservatively as time is on there side, a round 10-15 win seems assured. Last night’s game, Moscow was due to fall on turn 9-10 for city number 8 on the Europe board. Japan was poised to grab back their possessions and secure city 6 on turns 11-12 as they were the target of the U.S. until turn 7…over that bloodbath, Japan had built 7 carriers, of which the U.S. was able to sink 4 before they could link with the starting Jap. fleet. Turn 5 the U.S. had a statistically bad chance to capture Japan with 12 units landed vs, 14 units on Japan. (US: Fit, Tac, 6 inf, 1 arm, 2 art, 1 mech vs Japan 2 bomber, 7 armor, 5 inf, 1 aagun) Japan built a carrier in sz6 and landed 2 planes to prevent 2 naval bombardments that turn and to further bleed the U.S. fleet for the expected starting navy counterattack. Even if I had captured Japan by some fluke, Germany was still on track to get city 8,  6 turns later since the U.S. was not going to breach the sz 91 navy and grab a city by then.

    In short, you can surrender a board as the axis and still win by turns 12-15. America is asked to use 72-77 IPCs to stop both axis players who typically have 40-50 IPCs in the Pacific or a combined 80-90 IPCs in the Atlantic mid game, India and London are non factors(London is usually occupied on turn 4 for the estimated 26 IPC plunder and the +13 IPC a turn value), USSR does not have the money to stop Germany, and Anzac is lucky to garrison Australia by a turn 4-5 capture. After Australia falls, the next turn or 2 turns later sz 6 transports grab Hawaii for city number 6. (with Hawaii and Australia, you don’t care if India is in China as the game ends). Heck, India first crush works as well, but takes maybe a turn or two more for city number 6 (Hawaii).

    Please reply with what I am missing. I know everyone can’t be wrong about the apparent balance. Does U.S. as i suspect go Europe first early and then switch?

    Well it’s still too early to come to a complete conclusion, but I have had success with the allies.  For me the Key was laying ground work early on.

    Countering Japan:
    US builds an mIC in Mexico on US1, that allows the US to drop 6 ships in SZ10 on US2 and US3, that’s a major thorn for Japan.

    UK Calcutta takes Cel and Sumatra early (you should have them by UK2) build up ground forces.

    ANZAC 1 takes Java, builds mIC in Que Anzac2 where the Naval and Airbase are, builds CV Anzac3.  US moves some forces from Hawaii and PI Fleet to SZ54 on US3.

    Countering Germany:
    A nice Russian CV and DD on R1 is a real deterent to Operation Sea Lion.
    UK builds 2DD in Canada and Infantry in UK on UK1.

    Countering Italy:
    UK Calcutta sends fleet east, hooks up with SAF\French ships on the Horn of Africa.
    UK London builds an airbase and mIC in Egypt on UK2.

    The game ended in surrender Italy 5, here’s the map.

    Game01_AA40_05Hitaly.AAM



  • @JamesAleman:

    Regarding Alpha .+2:
    Please reply with what I am missing. I know everyone can’t be wrong about the apparent balance. Does U.S. as i suspect go Europe first early and then switch?

    Well, you’ve taken the thread a completely different direction. Make a new thread and put down exactly what both sides are doing. ABattlemap maps would help. I’m guessing you’ve got some real head scratchers with the Allies.


  • '10

    @Emperor:

    Countering Germany:
    A nice Russian CV and DD on R1 is a real deterent to Operation Sea Lion.
    UK builds 2DD in Canada and Infantry in UK on UK1.

    I apologize for taking part in the Hi-jacking of this thread, but since it seems to be dead now, i am just too curious to let it pass without asking :

    How can these R1 and UK1 buy be a “real deterent” to operation Sea Lion ?

    Could you explain to me what you are doing with those boat to counter Sea Lion please ?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '15 Customizer

    Yes: my playgroup and I only play OOB.

    Because:
    a) I am the only one of us on this forum
    b) I haven’t even looked at any Alpha setups yet and
    c) we haven’t discovered a major issue with OOB

    I also play occasionally with some friends who had until December only known of the original and AA Revised… so to them, the balance issues were probably not even noticed. Even in my typical group, there aren’t huge issues playing OOB because we only get to play about once every two months on average… so who cares about alternate setups. Granted if you play with a bunch hardcore experts who have each turn down to a planned science, the experience changes. Such people, as many of you seem to be, are more seroius about the game. Not that we are not serious, because we are by no means amateurs, but ‘how to make AA more balanced’ is not our crusade.

    My other issue with the whole balance thing is this: whoever said the fight was, or was supposed to be, fair? And what kind of balance are we aiming for here? Starting balance… overall game experience balance… ideal balance after so many turns? To make the game in such a way that both sides have equal chance of victory seems ahistorical. I am not saying the Axis had no chance of victory from the start, because of course they had a chance, but not in a prolonged conflict; which is what the War became and what this game, Axis & Allies, models. The Axis ran wild up to 1941-42… then they started sucking it up once the 2 industrial behemoths entered the war. The Axis’ only real hope of victory lay not in a conquered Allies, but in Allies who would at some point be fed up with war and ask for peace. Historically, Germany and Japan could never have attempted invasion of the United States, hoped to go over the Urals to fight Russia, attack deep into China and do the many host of things in between to even get to considering these things… it just was not possible. The Allies on the other hand had the resources, manpower and logistical capacity to move across the world and defeat their foes.

    My point being here, we should probably look at changing victory conditions, rather than focus on battle winning and unit balance. I suppose people could disprove or discredit me on my statements here because I have neither looked at or played the revised setups… so I can’t speak from experience. But what I have read over the past… well since August… seems to be all about the Axis not having an equal shot at victory. What kind of victory that is, I am not sure. My group generally plays for Total Victory because the game lasts longer that way, and it is much more challenging.

    OOB Axis chances for Total Victory are as good as nothing. Major Victory is still quite a long shot. Minor victory is somewhat achievable if all goes well.

    In a Total or Major Victory sense, the Axis should not have it any easier than a 10-15% chance… if even that much. As for a very ernest look at all this I’d have to do more reading and comparing, but this is what I have to say about it now.

    OOB is good enough for a player such as myself.


  • Customizer

    I am okay with the OOB setup.  Japan may have been a little plane heavy, but when Larry Harris changed the setups, he removed as many Allied planes as he did Japanese planes so it seems to me like the result was the same.

    I do like Japan having more land units in China in the Alpha+2 setup.  I also really like the new NOs and the rules for SBRs and Scrambling.  I always thought it was silly that ONLY airbases on Islands could scramble but not airbases on coastal territories.  In fact, I don’t see why Airbases couldn’t scramble to protect adjacent land territories as well.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '15 Customizer

    Some of the rules could be tweaked in my opinion. I haven’t checked out the revised NOs or airbase rules, which I should do.

    For example, China: historically, China was the main theater of war for Japan, and also their back breaker. Therefore China should be difficult to master in the game too. One of the only non-OOB rules we play with in Global 40 is that China is able to purchase and then place it’s units before attacking, just like in Anniversary Ed. This really seems to give China the edge they need against Japan. With stategic Allied help China can really mess with Japan in continental Asia. And it accounts for some of the difficulty that China posed.

    OOB China is pretty weak, so more Japanese units in Asia seems overly gratuitous.



  • actually, until alpha doesn´t become beta becoming official, i won´t change anything yet. it is interesting enough to play OOB and to discover the map´s “secrets”.



  • yeah i feel the same way about alpha.  I have tried pacific and like it but am waiting till europe is finalized because my group prefers to play global



  • What does OOB mean?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    It’s a TRAP to identify people on the forums who are nOOBs,

    Because they all ask… 😛

    OOB = Out of Box.



  • My friend and I find that…

    1. OOB is Allied heavy because:

    • The US gets way too many IPCs after it enters the war.
    • The US builds a major IC in Norway and outputs a ludicrous amount of units because of point 1 above.

    2. Alpha +.2 is Axis heavy because:

    • Italy runs rampant all over Africa and the Middle East, at one point it outproduced the US!
    • Germany runs rampant over the USSR with its extra units (inf, planes) and the major IC in Germany.

    Someone on the forum mentioned that alpha +.1 is balanced, has anyone else noticed this?


  • 2017 '16 Customizer

    Well, I have only played OOB since I bought the game. 6 games later and I don’t think the game is broke. I’ve won playing both sides. I’ve been playing A&A for year against one freind of mine. We’re quite good at. Once all the dust settle and the Alpha rules quite changing, we’ll give it a try. One twist we like to put in all versions of A&A is no new IC’s.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 1
  • 1
  • 7
  • 7
  • 3
  • 14
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

94
Online

13.9k
Users

34.2k
Topics

1.3m
Posts