I wish there had been more time to playtest. I will say that about Africa and to a lesser extent, Stalingrad.

As for all the other versions and imbalance in general: I will say that it appears that playtesting and balance took a back seat to production deadlines. It appears that the thousands of human playtesting games that you and I would agree need to be done, were likely not done.

I hear D-Day is being re-released here soon. I have high hopes that that will be fully balanced. We’ll see.

Hi Ryan, it looks like you were an official playtester in Renegades North Africa and Stalingrad versions, maybe even more games that I’m not aware of. So I got some questions. How exactely does the playtesting works? It’s basically an economic game based on math, so it would make sense to use computers, AI, data etc to sort out the patterns. And propably thousands of human playtesting games to include the human factor too. And yet still all games are imbalanced or bugged. Many A&A versions have second editions and erratas to try to fix some of the worst imbalances and bugs, but will A&A ever be a perfect game?

Yeah, good point.

However, solo play can be good for discovering new strategies yourself, as you can quickly play a large number of games, try out something new each game, and easily make small changes to the strategies until you’ve fine-tuned them. This is harder against opponents because opponents will play differently and you’d also have to wait for them to do their turn.

or if I’m lonely. It’s almost always better to play with other people when you can

Only time I play solo is when I have no one to play with :)

I mostly only do Solo play if I’m playtesting/balancing a game, or if I’m lonely. It’s almost always better to play with other people when you can, but for solely balance purposes Solo play is the way to go in my book. Also, no offense taken!

In contrast, if it weren’t for @VictoryFirst I don’t think anyone would have found the “Finnish Fork” in Europe. Gamerman seems to have found a (perhaps) functional Pacific strategy in Classic that nobody has seen. Some of the best use and manipulation of the revolution rule in 1914 came from @DoManMacgee and on and on.

Just to take Hilltop as an example. I saw him play all those solo games of 1914 and then asked if he wanted to play a game. He obliged which was awesome. I took CP out of box and defeated him. I feel strongly I was able to do this thanks to experience (and can say more about this if needs be). Here is the file: O18.tsvg (BTW, Hilltop is a great human being on and offline)

Interested to hear other’s thoughts on that though. My mind isn’t completely made up on solo play.

I personally use Tabletop Simulator to avoid printing, but TripleA definitely streamlines the process of already existing games. I’m glad you enjoy that app!

Hi CentralC

Yep solo play is a good for some stuff. I think one of the best ways is to use the online version of triplea if possible, which most games are, to some degree of accuracy.

You can set it to “LowLuck” to hard crunch battles when testing. That and just the time factor that allows so much more testing than using a physical board.

And yea solo play is how I used to do it for years until some fellow gamers decided to join my preferred game, which I didn’t create, just modded for triplea :)

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36945/axis-allies-global-1940-house-rules-expansion

heh heh I had a half dozen or more AH games as a young teenager. Started with Tactics Two lol

But Russian campaign we played the most. I think Germany only won 2 or 3 times out of 30 games or so but you got the fun of kicking ass early on, especially with the Stukas, until those Russian Guards started showing up every turn lol

I’ve won many games of out-of-box 1914 as the CP against far less experienced opponents. That’s why in the most recent video, I removed that as a factor and assume both sides are being played by ‘grandmasters’.

@The_Good_Captain Hence is why the best way (imo) to test out a game’s balance is soloplay. It helps to eliminate experience curves as there’s no better opponent than yourself. You’ll make a similar amount of genius moves and mistakes no matter the side, which allows you to figure out the general imbalancing and how to improve.

Using A&A 1914 and a relevant YouTuber as an example, The Hilltop Pillbox has a long series of solo play games of A&A 1914 (as well as others), and yet nine out of ten times the Entente win. Main point is, no matter your skill, you are the greatest (and worst) person playing.

Despite the hiccup with the title, great & informative video! Content like yours almost makes me want to make my own A&A videos!

@The_Good_Captain

Hi Captain

My opinion is the balance is dependent on experience/skill level.

For anyone that may not know (not @barnee but anyone reading this). I am a huge proponent of this concept and have said this repeatedly on my channel: Experience is the single biggest influencing factor when it comes to balance.

I’ve won many games of out-of-box 1914 as the CP against far less experienced opponents. That’s why in the most recent video, I removed that as a factor and assume both sides are being played by ‘grandmasters’.

Great comment - I especially like that you’ve played “Russian Campaign”. That is on my bucket list. So is Ritchtofen’s War and 1776 (if were talking old avalon hill). Those three titles are apparently the most popular of the old hex/counter board games.

Hi Captain

My opinion is the balance is dependent on experience/skill level. Using the G 40 game as an example, the best most experienced players have proven Axis to have the advantage in an OOB game.

However, with novice players, the game is much less one sided. Bidding is a proven an effective way to adjust the game if it begins to favor one side more than the other.

Also think that certain levels of play could hardwire in certain changes as another alternative. Could be the addition of extra units for certain players at certain game rounds. Additional income etc …

Similar to the old Avalon Hill “Russian Campaign” where they had “What If” scenarios. Although putting the Bulge on the Russians with 2 extra Panzer divisions didn’t really make a big difference even as historically accurate as it was :)

At any rate, more options to the original games are what I’d like to see. There is a “Commanders” option/addition that has recently come out that is supposed to be used in all AA games.

This sounds a Great idea but I have basically no experience with it and haven’t seen a lot of feedback from it.

Enjoy your stuff. Keep up the Good work :)

Edit
Different Victory conditions is another way to adjust the game. The main thing is to try and leave multiple options to win, so there is not just one preferred strategy.

Easier said than done :)

Just between you and me, I know the five versions of which I speak are imbalanced (unless and until someone comes along and shows me a strategy that was missed). I also know that Pacific 1940 is imbalanced, Global 1940 is imbalanced, Guadalcanal appears to be imbalanced and Pacific (2000) is imbalanced. I just don’t have series done on them yet. I also have it on good authority that 1942 is imbalanced. If you listen to the community at large, you’ll hear that Anniversary is balanced when it just isn’t (at least the 1941 setup - but if you bring in the National Objectives, then both are imbalanced).

I only have about 20 or so games under my belt of the above list where I have at least 30-40 of the versions I have a series for. To mention all these and the caveats is to lose the attention span of most audience members and so it is left out. Those games will be rated when their series’ are complete. This has a lot to do with a thoroughness and attention to detail that I’ve learned in the military. I grant that the thumbnail was “over my skis” but that has been/ will be fixed.

In which version of axis and allies can submarines shoot down planes?

Right, 5 years in the military make me read everything literally, letter for letter, to the letter, if you will. Unfortunately I don’t have power to make you edit your Headline to “I know 5 versions of A&A that surely are imbalanced” so I just move on. I let it go. Not my business.

I am aware of your YT Channel and have watched some, not all, and you have done a good job. I’m not a competitive player so I’m not qualified to comment on most of them. But as a history buff and vet I don’t appreciate silly game mechanics or rules that produce results which don’t make sense in the context of the historical setting, like Submarines shooting down Aircrafts, Trannies sinking Battleships, which was an issue with MB Classic but that have been fixed in later versions. I do like the rules and mechanic to be streamlined for ease of play, and IMHO Infantry shold always cost 3 IPC and not 2 like in N.A, and why do we need so many different Supply rules? Battle of the Bulge had one type of Supply, then North Africa had another type of Supply rule, and now Stalingrad have another Supply rule. And what about Road movement? In Battle of the Bulge everything on wheels move unlimited, in North Africa vehicles move 5 spaces, and in Stalingrad some vehicles move 2+2 spaces on the road. But StugIII and the truck with Katusjas only move 1 even they got the same engine as other vehicles. Don’t make sense to me. And then there is the scripted games. Like in Stalingrad Russian Infantry is restricted form moving in the first 2 rounds because Stalin had OCD and said not one step back. When I play Russia I am not Stalin, and I want my Infantry to move back, but silly rules prevent me. Enouch, maybe I’ll comment on some of your other threads some time. Take care and keep up the good work.

as for the bidding, again I agree with you that it has been the solution since the year you mention. rather than recommend the several videos on my YT channel where I discuss all this, I will summarize and say:

One of the bigger focuses on my channel is to re-balance the game as though we were preparing it for sale in the market. The game is being submitted in it’s “final” condition and the last adjustments are being made. To that end, I want to make as little (if any) change as possible to keep it as close to the original concept and setup as possible. Under these conditions, what would I change?

This is stated in so many words over the course of the videos on my channel. I just post it here so I don’t have to ask you to watch all the videos and so you don’t have to watch all the videos, haha.

I appreciate your commentary. It’s good to keep things sharp.

OK we are cool. My next post will be on the balance and bugs issue. Your statement is that adding one UK Infantry here (Anniversary) and removing a Ge Tank and Sub there (Europe) will fix the balance issue. You are not wrong, but as far as I’m conserned bidding have been taking care of that since 1988.

Looking forward to your next investigation. You now have finished 5 and only 14 more versions to cover.

Whatever else is happening here is a clash of opinion and that’s it.

In reverse order: It doesn’t matter (to me) that 99% of the A&A community are casual players. A game should be balanced between experts to be a good game (where possible) is what I believe. The constraints you highlight with Monopoly and Chess are ones that are true and not applicable to axis and allies. The casual players can still play casually. There’s nothing stopping them from doing so. But when its balanced between experts, theyre at least playing a balanced game overall which is a good thing.

We fixed the “every game” to “probably every game” so lets move on?

The version and setup of anniversary is clearly and repeatedly stated in that series of videos. To delineate between 20th, 25th 50th or 40th is pedantic and unnecessary. The optional rules used and use of the manual and errata is clearly stated in the video. Perhaps putting ('41) setup could have been more clear.

Are we cool?

The Headline of the video read “Rating Imbalance” Now if you had used that Headline in the Thread too I would’nt have derailed your thread. I’ve played A&A since 1988 and totally agree with your investigation. But of course you had to use “Every versions” and “All versions” and that is not correct. You have so far investigated 5 versions, and we don’t even know what Anniversary edition. Is it the 20th, 25th, 50th Avalon Hill or 40th Anniversary version? That matters.

FYI: As of 2026 there are 19 spin-off versions. 4 are updated or expanded versions of the global Classic. 5 are Theater games. 4 are local games of specific battles. 1 is WWI and 1 is Zombie apocalypse. The Video-games, online games and A&A Minis are kept outside of this.

List of all versions
1981 Nova ed Global
1984 MB Classic Global
1999 AH Europe Theater
2001 AH Pacific Theater
2004 AH D-day Local
2004 AH Revised 20th Anniversary ed Global
2006 AH Battle of the Bulge Local
2007 AH Guadalcanal Local
2008 AH Avalon Hill 50th Anniversary Global
2009 AH 1942 25th Anniversary ed Global
2009 AH Pacific 1940 Theater
2010 AH Europe 1940 Theater + Global when combined with Pacific
2012 AH 1941 Global
2012 AH 1942 second ed Global
2012 AH Pacific 1940 second ed
2012 AH Europe 1940 second ed Theather + Global when combined
2013 AH WWI 1914 Global (for some reason)
2018 AH Zombies Global
2024 Renegade North Africa Theater
2024 Renegade 40th Anniversary ed 1941/42 Global
2025 Renegade Stalingrad Local

Now when you have analyzed and investigated all the games on the list, then you can claim “Every game” and “All games” and I will comply.

Also your investigation is adressed to the expert players that play competitive. I don’t know how many that is. I figure 99% of the A&A community are casual players with a military power fantasy that also are plastic piece junkies, that played with Airfix miniatures as kids and now is a step up the ladder. To back up this:
A&A MB Classic is the best selling physical wargame ever with one million copies sold by 1998, and 2 millions sold by 2008. (if we can belive Wiki) But A&A online only have 11 000 ranked players. And if you play competitive at Tournaments just how many expert players do you spot? Right, my point is valid.

Sorry for the derailing but be careful next time you make a Headline that is in-correct.

The new thumbnail on the YT video will read:

“(Probably) All versions are Imbalanced”

I don’t think I can edit the title of this blog post.

I think Narvik got confused by the title “Every version of Axis and Allies is Imbalanced” which might be indeed a little misleading. Narvik attacked this point which I fully understand as that is not what you can say after just examining 5 versions. The current title also has a slight negative undertone. A better title could be “Imbalance in Axis and Allies”.

@The_Good_Captain Just to make sure you understand Narvik’s post a little bit better. I fully understand you as well and the point you are trying to make which is simply out of interest and for research purposes, not to criticize anything or anyone.

I categorically disagree with you that 99% of the community doesn’t mind imbalances. If they didn’t, there would be no need for bidding.