GRRRRRRR! more .rar files. Thanks for the battle board though. Getting closer to the full game experience without even having to open my box 🙂
NO's and balance
I’m an AAR vet and have only completed FTF 2 games of AA50.
I’m currently playing one PBEM over at DAAK
Games were all 1941, one with tech and two without. All three did not have NO’s.
I’ve been reading on several different sites that both 1941 and 1942 are skewed in the Axis’ favour. This has not been my experience however.
Without NO’s the Allies can KGF/KIF pretty easily with their economic power. This seems to be more effective than in AAR because
1. Russia is richer, almost on par with Germany.
2. Germany is weakened by having Italy as a separate power
3. Most of its gains in Russia are worth less IPCs than in AAR.
4. Japan has much more distance to travel to Moscow and most of it’s gains against Russia are worth less IPCs than in AAR.
I have noticed that most of the active PBF games here include NO’s.
Is it fair to assume that the experienced players have found that NO’s are rrequired to balance the game, giving Germany and Italy an early leg up over Russia and encouraging the USA to commit some resources to the Pacific?
Your responses will be appreciated!
Your conclusions are correct. NOs were probably skewed in Axis favour in order to avoid bidding, which as you know was standard in AAR. So the big question is if the game is balanced with NOs or not. If Axis is too strong, instead of bidding I would personally argue to think of:
Use the optional rule that the Black Sea is closed to naval units (see Larry Harris FAQ on his site).
Think about boosting China, there’s a thread on that on this site.
would mean Italy couldn’t invade Russia directly and would have to march over the Ukraine and Persia to get to Caucasus, both a historical scenario and a good thing for Russia’s chances of defending itself. 2) would mean that Japan would need to commit more troops and fighters to China, weakening its India attacks and giving the UK and US more of a chance to contain Japan. The jury is still out, however, as to if these measures are needed!
Yea I’ve seen the Black sea optional rule. Makes sense as it does seem that NO’s might swing it too far the other way.
I was thinking that as it stands in 1941 without NO’s the bid would be possibly as high as 2-3 inf for Germany to give it the ability to hold Egypt on G1 or poise to take Kar on G2.
TG Moses VI last edited by
Hi Dy. I know you’re new here, but try using the “search” function. There’s already been threads that have discussed this in detail.
In fact the title IS “National Objectives vs Balance”
Thanks for the link, unfortunately that thread gets totally hijacked about half way through and turns into a “let’s buff China” fest :evil:
The general consensus seemed to be that the NO’s are required (although they might tip it a little the other way).
Has any one else tried NO’s plus “Dardenelles closed to ships” optional yet?