GAME BALANCE POLL FOR G40 FINAL ALPHA



  • After many many games of G40, it seems that the concensus is that the Axis have a slight advantage in this game.  Maybe to some, even a great advantage.

    If the decision to balance the game was in your hands, what unit(s) would you give the Allies (or take away from the Axis) in order to accomplish this goal???

    I tried to put some of the most popular solutions from here on the forums.  Please share any thoughts or specifics if needed.  Thanks. 😄



  • I vote for adding the Russian bomber-  I think this is the simpliest and most effective way, but again it is only my opinion.  What’s yours???


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    I am happy with the set up, but would reduce US starting income by 10. (could be Central US’s 12.) When at war they get it back. Instead of the 20, they get 30 plus Phillipines and France 5&5. Not collecting Central’s 12 would make for a better Europe only too, in my opinion.



  • I think it s really balanced as it is, unless a critical dicing happens in opening rounds.
    So I voted for extra sub in med, just to avoid dicing in sz97.

    Adding a russian bomber would be really nice, since it would allow ussr to have more gameplay options, but than game needs a rebalancing - just adding a bmbr too current setup would disturb the balance imho.



  • @soulfein:

    I think it s really balanced as it is, unless a critical dicing happens in opening rounds.
    So I voted for extra sub in med, just to avoid dicing in sz97.

    Adding a russian bomber would be really nice, since it would allow ussr to have more gameplay options, but than game needs a rebalancing - just adding a bmbr too current setup would disturb the balance imho.

    Yeah, that’s exactly what I was thinking with the bomber idea.  During the Alpha Project, several others, including myself thought the same way- very cool to have that bomber and we felt Russia deserved a bomber, but on the flip side we felt that there were too many creative things that could be done with that bomber that would tip the scales in the Allies favor.

    In hind sight, if I had that bomber the first buy as Russia- I would buy another!!!  Now all of a sudden Russian air becomes a real menace and dare I say a threat.  Possibly too strong for the Allies.  This is why the bomber was talked about but eventually not added.

    I like the SS in the Med also, but it then the Med becomes predictable with Taranto every game.  However, this might balance the game the best.  Maybe best to leave the game as a bid game.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I don’t buy that it’s poorly balanced.

    I think it just requires more brain power on the part of the allies, to use more cohesive strategy.

    Several prominent players on this site have told me the same thing, they find the axis easy, because it’s clear what needs to be done, but that the allies are difficult, because it’s hard to know where to start, and without thinking 4 turns ahead, the allies struggle.

    For example, alot of Russian players, spend their time at the beginning of the game, building expensive units, like fighters, bombers, etc.  If they spent that time bulking out infantry instead, then the effects of SBR get mitigated during the late game. They suddenly are much more difficult to deal with, and they’ve got staying power late in the game.

    Also, Too many people also don’t attack SZ97, which is hugely in allied favour, whilst still maintaining sea-lion prevent.  Why they don’t attack is beyond me.

    Neutralizing Japan is also a reasonably simple task too, I’m shocked how poorly most players coordinate thier allied units in the theatre.

    I think the distance from the U.S. in the game, and the inability of average skill players, to maximize thier effectiveness of American units early, is where the discrepancy appears.

    I don’t see imbalance.  And if the imbalance the rest of you is discussing, can somehow be relegated by a single unit, on a board of something like 1000 units, then it’s suffice to say that the game is within 00.1% of perfection.

    Each player here should be spending their time reviewing thier OWN strategy, and GAME, as opposed to blaming the setup for being out a “single” unit.



  • You may be right Garg, for sure this is an EARLY poll- maybe too early.  Just interested in what people think.  I’ll change the poll to add “the game is balanced enough” option.  Thanks


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    Apart from possibly building a Destroyer to protect their Cruiser, I do not know why Russia would not spend all their money on Infantry. I hate Russia for the endless number of Infantry I have to  smash up to get anywhere. It is almost depressing! No one unhappy or irked by US massive peacetime economy?


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Reset the poll! I want to change my vote from OTHER to balanced! 🙂


  • TripleA

    wow this is a tough one… sub or dd to med or bomber for russia… I hate losing the sz 97 fight with a passion, but at the same time the russian bomber is wayyy cooler.

    I put bomber for russia, I am just tired of russia not having counter attack options. germany can still stack up g2 and be ready for novgorod… he just has to understand  sub 2x fig tactical and bomber COULD sink cruiser carrier 2x fighter… still a battle russia might avoid… or he MIGHT buy hyper aggressive say 6 artillery and a bomber YEAH! then have odds to take down a baltic states stack.

    maybe give germany an infantry on poland so G1 dow on russia is smoother as well. I think setting things up so there is more action would be for the better as far as a more enjoyable game goes.

    I have a hard time finding a group to play global with, because europe is somewhat of a snooze.
    ~
    soo I feel +1 inf poland. +1 bomber russia. russia’s defense is not bolstered this way.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    I put other, because I thought it was balanced.


  • TripleA

    Well, a single unit can change the outcome of an entire battle. I am against russia getting more defensive units, that is just silly… people turtle hard as it is, we should try and promote action for god sake… the reason most people refuse to play global is A) takes too long B) russia has little action.  So for a group game, whoever gets russia ends up falling asleep, then I go poke him and he mumbles “all infantry, do I have any attacks? aw. ok done.”

    Like what is that?!?!?

    a german infantry to poland and a bomber for russia makes perfect sense to me. Though the baltic states stack still stands fine. you just got to move the aa guns up. drop 4 inf 2 aa gun so total 5 aa gun, get the 3 tonks in with the 2 inf move up to poland then to baltic.

    so you hold baltic states still even with the russian bomber soulfein… russia would have to buy 2 bomber 3 arty to have 80% on your stuff… which would make for a really cool game actually,  because you would counter that and then there would be no more big stacks and a series of exchanges would occur. (with the added poland inf russia gets like 67% odds).
    ~

    I’ll take russian bomber for the fun factor. If you think germany would suck after that… we can test it, I’ll take axis, so what if russia gets a bomber, all it does is allow russia to trade units, can’t just scatter a bunch of 1 infs around him and laugh as he can’t counter it all.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Screw wasting more time on “balance”

    Issue mutiple setup cards, for multiple games from the same box!


  • TripleA

    haha like aa50.

    Anyway I suggested russian bomber because people have a sort of stigma against bidding and russia is just sad to look at most of the time. It won’t interfere with anything round 1 wise. If you want to keep it from burma, just put it in novgorod. simple as that.



  • @Cow:

    so you hold baltic states still even with the russian bomber soulfein… russia would have to buy 2 bomber 3 arty to have 80% on your stuff… which would make for a really cool game actually,  because you would counter that and then there would be no more big stacks and a series of exchanges would occur. (with the added poland inf russia gets like 67% odds).

    tbh I was not thinking about baltic stack, when I said adding ussr bmbr would need rebalancing.
    got too many options for that bmbr, gotta look them each and do a little tweak if needed so game s not disturbd balance-wise

    eg after a standard open ussr suddenly might sink baltic navy in r2 if ger sends troops to baltic states (4 air plus sub vs cru ac 2 ftrs). not arguing about the pros or cons of this possible attack - just trying to say adding a bmbr opens up many possibilities and gotta play it throughout to be sure it does not effect game balance.


  • TripleA

    sub, 2 fig, tact, bomber vs carrier cruiser 2x fighter. pretty close. russia has to buy either another bomber at least to have the sure shot for low luck.

    I see your point, I did think about buying 2x bomber with russia and 3 art for nov against you soulfein. blast that naval so you can’t ship men over. hehe =]


  • TripleA

    I think this poll may be a little early. I have only played a couple of full global games with the final rule set(alpha+3) so I have not created an informed opinion yet.

    It takes many games and many hours studying both sides before you can find out if one side is favored.

    This reminds me when revised was released and every one was posting how axis have an advantage. Allied play takes more co-operation and long term strategy which usually takes longer to learn.

    However, when pacific 40 was released it only took me a couple games to see how horribly axis favored it was, and I had to hear uninformed people tell me that I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet

    And you never did!  🙂



  • @Gargantua:

    Screw wasting more time on “balance”

    Issue mutiple setup cards, for multiple games from the same box!

    Yes, a 3 side game with Soviet Union out for its own bloodthirsty aims.


  • TripleA

    @Gargantua:

    I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet

    And you never did!  🙂

    @allweneedislove:

    …and I had to hear uninformed people tell me that I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet.


  • '10

    @allweneedislove:

    …and I had to hear uninformed people tell me that I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet.

    Well that’s not the case here : informed people are telling you that you just haven’t yet found a good enough allied strategy !


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    It’s funny you say that…

    lol LOVE, I recall being the ‘Uninformed’ person,  and I almost, in my last post said “FUNinformed” person.


  • TripleA

    funinformed!

    nice one garg.


  • TripleA

    @Axisplaya:

    @allweneedislove:

    …and I had to hear uninformed people tell me that I just had not found a good enough allied strategy yet.

    Well that’s not the case here : informed people are telling you that you just haven’t yet found a good enough allied strategy !

    no such thing. you can not be informed and still think that allies have a fair shake.



  • I say, if you make russia able to counter attack harder, it could screw up germ’s time tables in taking moscow.  Any buff one way might require a nerf somewhere else. The allies got a huge buff for the last update witht he advant of a stronger sealion defense.  Uk can actually afford to screw over 97 and be able to defend sealion.  I say an extra sub in the med means germ should start with a dd or another sub to help against silencing the royal navy for the same reason as why the Uk needs a sub for 97, bad dice are REALLY bad dice.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 2
  • 5
  • 20
  • 9
  • 11
  • 3
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

101
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts