Just want to know something….Is it better to play…for a balance play…
-42 without tech and NOs
-42 with NOs and no tech
-42 with Tech and no NOs
I just want to play with some balance gameplay…is there someone here who can tell wich is the best to play?
For truly balanced gameplay, one should never play with techs, because the difference in getting a tech on the first turn versus getting a tech on the seventh turn (I recently played an AA50 -41 Setup game and purchased 2 Research Tokens for UK on the first turn. After 5 turns without rolling a “6” with 2 dice, I paid 5 IPC more to roll 3 dice, and still didn’t get a tech until my seventh turn.) can drastically alter the balance of the game.
As for playing with the NOs, I still think that the game is still too new to get a balanced “feel” for the game yet, but my group and I feel that playing with the NOs is more enjoyable than playing without. We have played several (6-8) games with the NOs, and the wins for the Axis/Allies are about 50/50.
So, my recommendation for you is to play both scenarios with NOs but without techs.
I’d say 1942 with NOs and tech
Avoid 1941 for balanced gameplay. Is a walk for Japan
Bardoly,
As for playing with the NOs, I still think that the game is still too new to get a balanced “feel” for the game yet, but my group and I feel that playing with the NOs is more enjoyable than playing without. We have played several (6-8) games with the NOs, and the wins for the Axis/Allies are about 50/50.
Was this under the 1941 or 1942 setup?
For truly balanced gameplay, one should never play with techs, because the difference in getting a tech on the first turn versus getting a tech on the seventh turn (I recently played an AA50 -41 Setup game and purchased 2 Research Tokens for UK on the first turn. After 5 turns without rolling a “6” with 2 dice, I paid 5 IPC more to roll 3 dice, and still didn’t get a tech until my seventh turn.) can drastically alter the balance of the game.
This is erroneus. As with most A&A decisions, it is a question of risk versus reward analysis. You bought your third tech die on round 6? Well, perhaps you should have bought it on turn 1, or no tech at all on any round, and saved the dollars for units. So you got unlucky when you rolled for tech. Sometimes your bombers get shot down by AA guns too…
The major advantage of playing with tech is that new strategies will constantly appear based on the combination of techs on the board, keeping the game fresh longer.
A little off topic, but has anyone come to a initial conclusion about balance in the 1941/1942 Scenarios?
I’d like to introduce a few friends to A&A and would like the starting game to be equal to both sides as possible.
I’m guessing:
1941 + NO: Axis way too powerful?
1941 - NO: ??
1942 + NO: Balanced?
1942 - No: Allies too powerful?
@TG:
A little off topic, but has anyone come to a initial conclusion about balance in the 1941/1942 Scenarios?
I’d like to introduce a few friends to A&A and would like the starting game to be equal to both sides as possible.
I’m guessing:
1941 + NO: Axis way too powerful?
1941 - NO: ??1942 + NO: Balanced?
1942 - No: Allies too powerful?
I’ll stir the discussion…
1941+NO: Allies way too powerful when they go full out KGF. And with full I mean FULL. Japan gets big and cashes 65+ IPC by turn 4/5 but by then there is a large Russian/UK stack in Poland keeping Germany in Berlin, cashing a 20 IPC a turn.
However if you don’t do KGF, axis are too powerful indeed.
I know it sucks, but the KGF is even more scripted than in AAR since there is not KJF in this game. If performed well Japan won’t reach Moscow ever before Berlin collapses. I dunno how it turns out if Japan doesn’t advance on the mainland but goes to the USA. However I’ve still have to see a succesfull invasion of LA in this game. It’s so easy for the USA to counter and Japan keeps on having the logistic difficulties to tranny to LA.
I hope I am wroing, but the way I see it, the Allies will eventually go full KGF in the top rated games (yet again).
1941-NO: Well, Allies unbeatable if they go KGF. But if you play something else you might end up with a balanced game, but who do that if you know you can win with going full blown KGF…
1942 I can’t judge, we are not that interested in that scenario yet since 1941 is more attractive cuz it’s new. :wink:
@TG:
Bardoly,
As for playing with the NOs, I still think that the game is still too new to get a balanced “feel” for the game yet, but my group and I feel that playing with the NOs is more enjoyable than playing without. We have played several (6-8) games with the NOs, and the wins for the Axis/Allies are about 50/50.
Was this under the 1941 or 1942 setup?
If I remember correctly, we played 4 1941 games using the incorrect setup (missing 1 Japanese transport with 2 Infantry and 1 Infantry on Iwo Jima), and the Axis won 1, and the Allies won 3. Then, when we got the correct setup, we played 2 more matches, and split the 2 games between the Axis and the Allies. We played 1 1942 game, which the Allies won, and we are currently in another 1942 game which has progressed quite strangely. The Axis should have won already, but, due to a fluke, America captured Japan on the same turn that Moscow fell, and the Axis have no convenient way to liberate Japan. UK (which I am playing) is holding on, but Italy is actually bigger than the UK. The game is still going, and we don’t have a clue who will win.
One qualification, our group includes 3 pretty experienced playes, 3 decent players, and 1 new player, and every time we start a new game, we randomly choose sides, with 1-3 players sitting out, because they can’t play at that time. Because of this, some of the matches were a little lopsided experience-wise, although, of course, the most experienced player on the less experienced team gives many gameplay suggestions. Also, we always play with techs which adds to the luck factor of the game, and in one 1941 game in particular that I remember, by turn 3, Russia had Mechanized Infantry (paid 10 IPCs total), and US had Long Range and Shipyards (paid 25 IPCs total) versus Germany’s Super Subs (paid 15 IPCs total), and Japan’s Radar (paid 15 IPCs total). Because of these tech rolls, the game was quickly decided in the Allies favor.
I know it sucks, but the KGF is even more scripted than in AAR since there is not KJF in this game. If performed well Japan won’t reach Moscow ever before Berlin collapses. I dunno how it turns out if Japan doesn’t advance on the mainland but goes to the USA. However I’ve still have to see a succesfull invasion of LA in this game. It’s so easy for the USA to counter and Japan keeps on having the logistic difficulties to tranny to LA.
I think that in Revised KGF is not so scripted as many think, but that’s another different issue. I think Japan has more than enough income to attack America via Alaska landings and Alaska IC. If Japan gets improved industry … LA could fall before Moscow. And still there is that funny Ottawa VC there. Japan, with so much income and so much cheap bombers, can afford now a SBR campaign in LA (opposite as in Revised), so USA could fall even to 30 IPCs
If Japan attacks America, with 65-70 IPCs still can afford 2 more ICs in mainland Asia and still annoy soviets and support Italy in Africa, because USA is fully busy defending their homeland. Soviets and UK must face now a 30 IPCs Germany, a 15-20 IPCs Italy and probably about 20 IPCs of japanese stuff (maybe even more, not sure). I think allies could survive more with a Pacific fleet, but without China (lost J1), that’s not a good option too.
Allies are toasted in 1941
I know it sucks, but the KGF is even more scripted than in AAR since there is not KJF in this game. If performed well Japan won’t reach Moscow ever before Berlin collapses. I dunno how it turns out if Japan doesn’t advance on the mainland but goes to the USA. However I’ve still have to see a succesfull invasion of LA in this game. It’s so easy for the USA to counter and Japan keeps on having the logistic difficulties to tranny to LA.
I think that in Revised KGF is not so scripted as many think, but that’s another different issue. I think Japan has more than enough income to attack America via Alaska landings and Alaska IC. If Japan gets improved industry … LA could fall before Moscow. And still there is that funny Ottawa VC there. Japan, with so much income and so much cheap bombers, can afford now a SBR campaign in LA (opposite as in Revised), so USA could fall even to 30 IPCs
If Japan attacks America, with 65-70 IPCs still can afford 2 more ICs in mainland Asia and still annoy soviets and support Italy in Africa, because USA is fully busy defending their homeland. Soviets and UK must face now a 30 IPCs Germany, a 15-20 IPCs Italy and probably about 20 IPCs of japanese stuff (maybe even more, not sure). I think allies could survive more with a Pacific fleet, but without China (lost J1), that’s not a good option too.
Allies are toasted in 1941
There is a little problem in your reasoning, and that’s the time factor. Japan won’t reach 65-70 income until turn 5 at the earliest.
Second problem: Invading Alaska AND holding it and resisting the USA counter takes a lot of troops which have to be trannied in. The extra trannies also cost you 1-2 turns.
Third problem: You can bomb LA, but you can’t bomb Washington and LA at the same time unless you have a lot of bombers, again you need time to build up such a force.
By the time Japan is all ready to rock to LA we are at what? Turn 10/11? Germany is toast by then. Another thing, you don’t actually need USA to take attack Berlin. USA only needs to secure Africa/take on mini-me (ehh, I mean Italy). That can be done in the first 5 turns, after which she can pay a lot of attention to the Japanese. UK at 30 IPC and Russia cashing 45 each turn will be enough to crack a Germany who gets 20 (not 30 like you said, remember you lose Poland+Scandinavia). :wink:
Japan can setup the Alaska path before round 5, remember that 1941 has many trannies, 1942 has many Pacific islands taken. If USA defendeds mainland America, they cannot send many guys to Africa, so Italy can hold it, or at least escape to Indian ocean and take saf and mad. If USA don’t defend America, game over.
You need build the defenses from WUSA or Japan can take and hold WCan, a potential disaster
Soviets cannot reach 45 IPCs. I don’t know how UK and soviets can take and hold Poland without USA’s aid and without losing ark NO, unless German player is a moron. And still Japan will eat some siberian territories. UK will struggle to reach 30 I think
For truly balanced gameplay, one should never play with techs, because the difference in getting a tech on the first turn versus getting a tech on the seventh turn (I recently played an AA50 -41 Setup game and purchased 2 Research Tokens for UK on the first turn. After 5 turns without rolling a “6” with 2 dice, I paid 5 IPC more to roll 3 dice, and still didn’t get a tech until my seventh turn.) can drastically alter the balance of the game.
This is erroneus. As with most A&A decisions, it is a question of risk versus reward analysis. You bought your third tech die on round 6? Well, perhaps you should have bought it on turn 1, or no tech at all on any round, and saved the dollars for units. So you got unlucky when you rolled for tech. Sometimes your bombers get shot down by AA guns too…
The major advantage of playing with tech is that new strategies will constantly appear based on the combination of techs on the board, keeping the game fresh longer.
In our first game the UK discovered Heavy Bombers on turn 1. Even Rommel couldn’t come up with a plan tyo compete with this, unless the UK player simply didn’t buy and/or use his bombers. Our game was pretty much over at the 10 minute point, all due to a lucky roll. The only hope Italy and Germany had was to shoot down every bomber that ran a SBR, which of course didn’t happen.
What if Germany gets radar or improved industry?
What if Germany gets radar or improved industry?
Helps, but not nearly as much as a game ender as certain techs are for certain nations. That’s the problem with techs, far too random, with certain tech results being game enders if the other side doesn’t get an equally game ending tech (USA or UK Hvy bombers, Japan with Improved Navy).
To update what you guys are preaching:
1941 + NO: Axis too powerful, unless Allies go KGF ??
1941 - NO: If Allies go KGF, Axis are toast
1942 + NO: Balanced?
1942 - No: Allies too powerful?
Bardoly,
Gameaholic! :lol:
How did you guys manage to play so many games in like, two weeks!? Do you guys intend to continue playing on a regular (though less frequent) basis? If you are, I’d like you to visit: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12942.0
@TG:
Bardoly,
Gameaholic! :lol:
How did you guys manage to play so many games in like, two weeks!? Do you guys intend to continue playing on a regular (though less frequent) basis? If you are, I’d like you to visit: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12942.0
Well, we almost always play games until someone conceeds, so sometimes the game is over by round 4-5.
Also, we have had an incredible rash of game-changing bad rolls. For example, in one game, Germany built a large fleet of 4 Super Subs, 2 Aircraft Carriers with 4 Jet Fighters on them, 2 Cruisers, 1 Destroyer, and 2 Transports, in the Baltic Sea. The UK, who was played by an average player, against my better judgement, attacked with only 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier with 2 Fighters, 1 other Fighter, 1 Bomber, 1 Cruiser, and 1 Destroyer. They battle lasted 2 rounds, and at the end of the battle which the UK won, the UK still had 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Bomber, and 2 Fighters. Needless to say, the Axis lost that game.
In another game, the US sent out a sacrificial fleet (1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, with air support of 2 Bombers (not Heavy) and 1 Fighter) to whittle down the Japanese fleet (1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers with 3 Fighters, 2 Cruisers, 1 Destroyer, and 1 Sub). The US won that battle with the Battleship, Cruiser, and 1 Bomber remaining. With incredible rolls like these and others, the game can be decided quickly.
Also, occasionally a couple of us will get together for a fast one. We all live and work together in a compound, so we are able to just leave the board set up and easily finish the game later if we need to.
I’ll try to write up some reviews. We’ll see how long everyone’s attention stays on this game though. We go through phases where we play a lot for a while, then very little for a while. This is new, so we were pretty interested in it.
I know it sucks, but the KGF is even more scripted than in AAR since there is not KJF in this game. If performed well Japan won’t reach Moscow ever before Berlin collapses. I dunno how it turns out if Japan doesn’t advance on the mainland but goes to the USA. However I’ve still have to see a succesfull invasion of LA in this game. It’s so easy for the USA to counter and Japan keeps on having the logistic difficulties to tranny to LA.
I think that in Revised KGF is not so scripted as many think, but that’s another different issue. I think Japan has more than enough income to attack America via Alaska landings and Alaska IC. If Japan gets improved industry … LA could fall before Moscow. And still there is that funny Ottawa VC there. Japan, with so much income and so much cheap bombers, can afford now a SBR campaign in LA (opposite as in Revised), so USA could fall even to 30 IPCs
If Japan attacks America, with 65-70 IPCs still can afford 2 more ICs in mainland Asia and still annoy soviets and support Italy in Africa, because USA is fully busy defending their homeland. Soviets and UK must face now a 30 IPCs Germany, a 15-20 IPCs Italy and probably about 20 IPCs of japanese stuff (maybe even more, not sure). I think allies could survive more with a Pacific fleet, but without China (lost J1), that’s not a good option too.
Allies are toasted in 1941
There is a little problem in your reasoning, and that’s the time factor. Japan won’t reach 65-70 income until turn 5 at the earliest.
Second problem: Invading Alaska AND holding it and resisting the USA counter takes a lot of troops which have to be trannied in. The extra trannies also cost you 1-2 turns.
Third problem: You can bomb LA, but you can’t bomb Washington and LA at the same time unless you have a lot of bombers, again you need time to build up such a force.By the time Japan is all ready to rock to LA we are at what? Turn 10/11? Germany is toast by then. Another thing, you don’t actually need USA to take attack Berlin. USA only needs to secure Africa/take on mini-me (ehh, I mean Italy). That can be done in the first 5 turns, after which she can pay a lot of attention to the Japanese. UK at 30 IPC and Russia cashing 45 each turn will be enough to crack a Germany who gets 20 (not 30 like you said, remember you lose Poland+Scandinavia). :wink:
I agree, actually, I recommended the same exact strategy a while back.
KGF will still be a killer, and until I see a successful invasion of the USA strategy (not just a fluke, an actual strategy that works most of the time unless America pays attention to the Pacific), I wont believe otherwise. The problem is that by the time Japan CAN threaten USA/Moscow, the game will be over. And by threaten, I don’t mean a puny force… I mean something that is actually significant. Plus, even if Japan has 65-75 IPC… once France, Italy, etc. falls, who cares? The Axis is toast!
In 1941, if allies ignore Japan, Japan can launch a big offensive to Alaska, round 3 or 4. And by big I’m saying at least 6-8 units each turn, 10 in round 5 or 6. You need 8 trannies for this (and later a Alaska IC) and Japan starts with 3. It was possible in Revised, even begining with (usually) 1 trannie. Of course, you must kill China in J1 or will have to fight merry popping guys there …
Since we can´t agree witch side is more powerfull then the other i say it´s balanced.
personally i will play this game with NO´s and Tech (since techs are no longer gamebreaking “i win” buttons)
This wil make it fun and make the game last long.
my brother and I played the '42 scenario with NOs and Tech. From now on,we will only play with NO or tech, but not both. Its too much!! By the end of the game, Japan had everything from Tech 2 ( my brother rolled six every time he went for a tech!). US and UK had Heavies. In our game,even Russia could afford one Research token with the extra IPC it gets ( however,it never got one :|). All of these techs and the extra money dragged the game into about 10 rounds,split over two days. The NO money is a little tricky to keep track of and its up to the player who collects the extra money to make sure that he is still eligible to receive it. In other words,the opposing player must remember to keep track of what requirement his enemy needs in order to collect the NO money. After all,the requirements are on the enemys Set-Up Card! Its a bit of an honor system unless you have a dedicated banker.
So we will just play with one or the other,or none. The games last too long with both.
