Objective: To balance the game through new NOs
I believe there may be some legitimacy to changing the NOs for the Allies (and Axis) to improve the balance of the game. The current belief held by many is that the Allies need some kind of a boost in order to level the playing field with the Axis. That is currently done with a bid of units on the board. Would it be possible to create a similar balancing effect through the changing of NOs instead (or in conjunction with a bid)?
I’m not here to answer the question, but to raise the question and to start a discussion on the subject matter.
Changing the NOs
Goal: To improve the balance between the Axis & Allies to create a more equal playing field (as measured by win percentage of Axis vs. Allies in league games).
There are numerous ways to do this, but I would like to focus on improving the Allied NOs, rather than removing/changing Axis NOs. I think more income leads to more purchasing choices, more viable strategies, more gameplay decisions, which for me is a more dynamic and engaging game.
Next, we can dissect an NO into measurable components.
- How difficult it is to obtain an NO? 1-10. On the subjective scale of 1 being easy (like the US controlling all of the continental US) to 10 (Japan controlling all of Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilbert, & Solomon)
- How difficult is it to maintain an NO once achieved? 1-10. Any NO can become difficult to maintain on any one given game, but how much recourse does the other side have to stop any particular NO? It can be quite difficult to retake Novgorod once Germany takes it, whereas I’ve seen back-and-forth battles for control of the DEIs or the Middle East, or the Mediterranean happen on a more regular basis.
- What is the financial impact? 2,3,5,10,12. The Russian object could be unlimited if they keep taking original Axis territories.
An NO should have:
• An impact to the game. Some are so very conditional that it’s hard to tell if they do anything. France getting +12 ICs of units for their liberation. Usually by that point, Germany is done anyway. Has it ever made the difference in one of your games, or just sped up the inevitable? Or Russia getting +10 for taking Berlin. By that point in the game, the Allies have already won, so what’s the point? If Russian can take Germany, they usually have all of the land territories behind it, for a +8 (Poland, Slovakia, Romania) and +9 for their respective bonuses. What good is a +10 ICs to a Russian economy already in the 50s, after plundering what little Germany has left anyway? What is this bonus for? To turn back the Japanese menace?
• Be a game-balancer, not a game-changer. We don’t want to yo-yo back and forth with overpowered NOs. Focus on the mechanics of what it is and how to get it before ratcheting up the bonus. Make sure it adds fun and viability before adjusting the impact.
• worth the risk. You want people to try and obtain any newly created NO. The aforementioned Japan controlling all of Guam, Midway, Wake, Gilbert, & Solomon will rarely be actively sought. Controlling all of those islands so far from your capital or any factory, and being that much closer to the US/ANZAC isn’t worth fighting over, particularly for 5 ICs. I have gotten it before, but usually as a “nice to have†because I’m already winning in the Pacific.
• Historically connected. Like them or not, all of the NOs have some correlation to actual events in history. Creating a NO where the UK gets a bonus for controlling Brazil doesn’t make much sense.
And that’s it for now. Discuss!
