Game balance

Not that I’m a great gamer, but “game BALANCE” is nothing more than making the start of the game as equal as possible.  Chess is a perfectly balanced game.

The more “historical” a game is, the less balanced it should be, for one, the map of the world is not a collection of perfect black and white squares devided equally between everyone that lives on earth and the geology adds tons more issues as far as resources are concerned and every nation is deferent…human…yes…but different.

So if this is a “historical game” (I’m pretty sure it is)  :oops: it should be “unbalanced”. I don’t see how there could not be a need for a bid in some way shape or form to balance the game, but, as its been stated several times already, until the game is in our hot little hands, this is all guess work.  We will have to wait and see.

I for one cant wait to see!

A&a is very histroical and true

@Admiral:

Also, the extra comparative income could possibly make the game rather forgiving to an Axis player who makes a few purchasing or tactical mistakes- a privilege that has traditionally been held by the Allies, most notably the USA, who should in my opinion, have an income somewhere in the range of 80-100… but that is entirely beside the point.

In any case, I probably shouldn’t be griping about this game- it probably rocks hard. I can’t wait until October.

Any Axis win is one too many!

BUT 80-100 ok listen hard u.s.a should b weaker income then germany i think that the only reason why its so high for u.s.a. usa gam omg no way lol

but besides that ur to far off usa should keep the same income and in (a&ae usa starts with crap for a reason)
So i think it might need bids dependign on the player also i think for the axis side aa little forgiving is ok expecially for italy

my qoute “Evil always wins thats why the Allies won ww2” somethign Hitler would say

If Historical requirements were needed, I would say that America’s income should start low, but they get a bonus for every round that passes.  That would simulate that the Axis must either crush Russia and the pacific fast, or let America bail the allies out.  But I’m fine with how it is.

I agree that revised is MUCH more fun when the Allies attack the Pacific.  Enhanced forces Pacific fighting, which is cool.  I usually exchange bidding for Pacific involvement… instead of getting an Axis bid, the Allies must pay attention to the Pacific (implement some house rule if need be, like, if Japan’s income raises above 40 IPC, that counts as a victory, or something… just to keep it fun).  It’s usually more fun that way IMO.  Fortunately in most friendly face to face games, the Allies go island hopping just because we are playing to have fun, and ending the game with a 70+ IPC Japan squaring off against a 60 IPC America and 50 IPC Britain, with all of Europe and Russia conquered, is very long and boring.  If the Allies go for the southeast Pacific, it is worth 12 IPC (including Okinawa), that is enough to get Japan’s attention typically.

@Rakeman:

If Historical requirements were needed, I would say that America’s income should start low, but they get a bonus for every round that passes.  That would simulate that the Axis must either crush Russia and the pacific fast, or let America bail the allies out.  But I’m fine with how it is.

Yeah, that is kind of what I was getting at with an ‘80-100 IPC America,’ Rakeman. Starting them off with something low (like 20-30), then increasing by a given amount for a given number of turns. It would still give the  Axis a chance, but at the same time, grounding the game in reality somewhat. The United States massively out-produced everyone on the planet during WWII. I just wish A&A would reflect that a bit more.  :-(

@Admiral:

@Rakeman:

If Historical requirements were needed, I would say that America’s income should start low, but they get a bonus for every round that passes.  That would simulate that the Axis must either crush Russia and the pacific fast, or let America bail the allies out.  But I’m fine with how it is.

Yeah, that is kind of what I was getting at with an ‘80-100 IPC America,’ Rakeman. Starting them off with something low (like 20-30), then increasing by a given amount for a given number of turns. It would still give the  Axis a chance, but at the same time, grounding the game in reality somewhat. The United States massively out-produced everyone on the planet during WWII. I just wish A&A would reflect that a bit more.  :-(

In 1941, a 20 IPC America wouldn’t be too bad.  Make an allied objective “Gain +10 IPC for every round that has passed (Max = 60)”. This would start at 0, so first turn income would be 20, then 30, then …… then 80.   Or +15, I don’t know.  A problem with this, however, is that it would devalue the mainland territories permanently in IPC.  Perhaps the following:

America has 40 IPC income (close to revised).  The bonus is restated, “Gain +10 IPC for every round that has passed (Max = 60).  You start the game with -20 income from this bonus.”

America’s strength, after all, was the economy (times have changed I guess…  :|)

I dont like bids. They are not necessary.

I liked they way Larry designed and balanced the A&a games. …and I played my first MB boardgame Axis & Allies 18 years ago.

I’m shure he did a great job on A&A50.

I already preordered the game.

I prefer a “good game”.

I dont need to win every time.

Not with a boardgame that lasts 6 - 7 hours….

It is correct that the axis have a disadvantage. Stronger players like the axis.

If you are playing with low-luck-rules in tournaments and use everytime the same strategy - the you need bids.

@marechallannes:

I prefer a “good game”.

I dont need to win every time.

Not with a boardgame that lasts 6 - 7 hours….

It is correct that the axis have a disadvantage. Stronger players like the axis.

If you are playing with low-luck-rules in tournaments and use everytime the same strategy - the you need bids.

I will agree, my friends and I just put the better players on Axis.  Plus, we make sure to use new strategies, so that we catch the other people off guard.  It is a game after all.

I do use bids in online play and if the weaker player really wants to try Axis, or if we are holding a little grudge match  :-D

by the way…

Is there a difference between the starting income and the contries IPC values in the 41 scenario?
(like XENOS world at war)

I can’t believe that UK starts with 43 IPCs!

From the fact sheet:
_Order of play:

• Germany, Russia, Japan, UK, Italy, US in '41.

The IPC values for -41 scenario should be:
Germany 31  (+ 5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
Soviet Union 30 (+ 5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
Japan 17 (+5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
UK 43
Italy 10 (+5 IPC bonus controlled at-start)
US/China 40 (+ 5 IPC bonus controlled at-start), China produces 1 free inf for each two Chinese territories controlled at the start of US turn.

IPC balance (bonuses included, 2 inf worth of China inf):
Axis: 73, Allies: 129._

if i was germany id send forces to afrika and crush gbs ipcs jsut to cream em.

also i was doing something about saying destroy ipcs b4 taking territory

I agree completely that underdog games can be fun but I believe that at least for tourney play a balancing act is necessary.

If flat IPC bonuses are boring there are alternatives…

You can make existing national objectives easier or more rewarding for the underdog team.

You can also create new ones that give the game even more historic flavor.  One that I used for classic A&A is that Japan got 1 IPC for each unit it had within 2 territories of West United states (including forces aboard transports).

You can also give the underdogs a free tech, or free tech rolls.

You can also enact restrictions, for instance: Russia cannot attack Japan until Japan attacks them first.

House Rules!

They always add flare like what you were saying attack on russia only formidable until japan attacks them which would be really historical and maybe making territories like “midway” worth an ipc for the axis and not for the allies love house rules like that