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.
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!
wow…that’s quite a start Whack
Not really sure an NO is the answer, the game isn’t that far out of whack. I’d rather see something like a limit on the % of units of total build per turn, keep the Germans from buying endless mechs (and the US from building 1000 subs which is also dumb). Other possibility is having a distributed China-like production capability for Russia - if Moscow is taken they can build 1 unit in any province they own (subject to IPCs collected) to make loss of Moscow less catastrophic.
A new Russian NO of 5 for simply being at war in Europe is my starting point.
I would also remove 2 Air from Japan and possibly a 3rd Air unit from Manchuria.
In my opinion, the desired change is to balance the game. Â The specific strategies you’ve mentioned I don’t feel imbalance the game. Â The US’s ability to buy all subs is well within their rights, and I don’t feel it’s an unbeatable strategy, or I would see its use a lot more. Â Endless mechs is easy to counter, as Germany will arrive at Moscow with nothing but 1’s! Â :lol: Â Can’t take Moscow that way. Â All subs can be difficult for Japan, but there are ways around it.
I would think the creation of a table that limits the % of units per turn would be much more difficult to institute. Â It may add calculations for many of the build phases where you have to double check every purchase for major powers. Â Easy ways around it would be to buy mechs/tanks or destroyers/subs instead of just a single unit. Â I haven’t encountered either example you mentioned enough to feel it warrants a change.
But, I am open to discuss and don’t mean to posit my opinions as facts nor dampen the discusion. Â I would like to try and focus this thread on new NOs, however. Â Maybe transfering other ideas to a new thread.
Â
One contributing factor I believe is the reluctance of many allied players to invest in tech, if it’s even enabled as an option. Historically, tech played a decisive role in the allied superiority (radar advancements, cryptography, long range fighters, etc). To encourage allies to go for more tech, especially America since it is so wealthy, maybe more games should be played with tech tokens retained after unsuccessful research.
But teching is mathematically a very, very horrible decision. Even WITH tokens that remain if unsuccesful, teching is STILL mathematically a poor decision, on average (although a lot better).
Teching with retained tokens doesn’t improve or decrease your chances of winning, on average. But they are hugely luck-dependent. Which means they almost certainly will create frustration - for one player or the other.
I’ve said it once and I will say it again. One of the easiest fixes we could make to make a huge impact on balancing the game would be requiring Japan to have 1 more VC for a Pacific win. That would open up the strategy for KGF (Kill germany first), which isn’t a viable strategy at the moment. And it would stop the necessity of heavy and early US investment in the pacific.
Simply making NOs harder to attain, through either adding units to a new setup or how it’s worked now (via bid) is enough for me.
Their relative ease to acquire is irrelevant. It WOULD be nice to have every (or almost every) NO come into play. I’ve yet to see the Russian 10 IPC one matter, nor the Japanese controlling Solomon/Wake/Midway/Gilbert. So the question would wind up: should they be in the game at all?
The more pressing issue is the France conundrum. How should they be handled? Something SHOULD change there. I feel like the first time France is liberated NO should read: the first time France is liberated, France collects IPCs from all controlled territories during the liberator’s “collect income” phase and may immediately spend it. France does not collect IPCs during their “collect income” phase this turn.
