I can’t say I know that version very well. Reducing victory conditions really only applies to games that start with all players in, otherwise, as you say, it will change balance quite a bit!
That is by far the biggest edition of the game though, so it possible 6 hours is about right for 4 rounds. (Again, don’t play it much so not sure. ) You could try a different edition of the game for a faster play through.
Which edition of the game are your playing? Different editions have different nuances you can use to speed things up. If you’re playing a version with victory cities, the easiest thing to do is just reduce the number of victory cities required to win.
This has an interesting effect on gameplay because both sides may fight harder for some key points for reasons beyond its IPC value or the enemy units you may destroy, which can be realistic if you look at it as not being willing to let go of certain points for purposes of national morale/propaganda rather than purely military concerns.
You can also try to build mechanics that will reward players for success. This way, one side’s success can reinforce and fuel future successes which shortens the time between the game tipping in your favor and final victory.
For the revised edition you could add one national advantage to each country each time it captures a victory city with which it did not start the game.
For the anniversary edition you could award an additional bonus each time a nation achieves all of its national objectives.
For 1942 second edition you can add these cards which award bonuses abilities for capturing victory cities: http://gamesmiths.us/WorldonFire.html
If you’re playing 1941 or classic you can say the game ends as soon as the first capital falls, and whichever side captures it wins.
The good news is that 6 hours is a pretty long time to play 4 rounds, and you can probably chalk that up to being the first time for most of the players. I’d expect to move a little faster each time you play for at least the first few games.
Actually no, I despise that! I always play low luck, and as I said in the first post, I don’t play tech at all. ( I think it ruins the game. When you’re losing, you might as well try for tech. If it fails, you still lose, if it works, you might win, which is dumb. Every decisions should be a hard one, not a no-brainer!)
The advantages in world on fire only last one battle, and they’re not big enough to tip a battle you would otherwise lose in your favor. They certainly won’t win you the game! They’re just enough to tip a battle that would have otherwise have been 50-50 in your favor.
What I like about Axis and Allies is stress of the decisions and being rewarded for correctly balancing risks vs rewards, and I think this amps that up a bit.
If you don’t use a card you can trade it for 3 ipcs, which feels about right for the value of the bonuses. (They can tip a battle more than 3ipcs worth, but only if you wait until the right battle to use them, whereas you can have 3ipcs now.)
If anything, the objectives are a little less valuable in this version, which makes the game even a little more balanced. My brother and I have started playing World on Fire with no Bid, alternating sides, and so far the score is even between the axis and the allies.
Huh. Yeah I googled it too and didn’t find anything! It was definitely a small kind of company, fortunately they were smart enough to put their website on the wrapper.
Looks like $12 was a convention price. The buy it now is $15 plus shipping. If I were you I’d still go for it!
Has anyone here tried “World on Fire?” It’s so much fun! I came across a small table at a game convention and they were selling it so I figured what the heck. Best $12 I even spent! It takes like a second to learn and makes the game way more fun!
Its just a deck of cards for each nation the gives them special abilities. (Germans get heavy tanks and dive bombers, US gets marines and island air strips.) The effects lasts for one battle, so its not like a tech upgrade. (In fact, the rules say they work WITH tech, but I don’t play tech games so I couldn’t say.)
You get one card per NO at the end of your turn instead of the 5 IPCs.
Its not pretty. (Comes in a plain white box, with plain text on cards) but man is it fun! My brother and I are re-addicted to the Axis and Allies! The best part is, each nation gets two cards to start, so the opening moves aren’t same-old same old any more. If Germany has a lot of sub/air bonuses, they may go hard after UK fleet and take it easy on Russia. Lots of ground bonuses and they might do just the opposite!
Nice! I’ll have to try that one too.
My play group also plays with national objectives and low luck most times. Some things we’ve tried that helps is first and foremost that China is allowed to exit Chinese territory so that Japan can’t let them grow out of of control with no consequence, and also that China’s move is linked to Russia instead of US, so they get to go before Japan and not have to lose the flying tigers. (We’ve also tried a modified version where we just change the placement so that the Flying tigers fighter survives.)
I think two subs to 14 is definitely the way to go. Sink a carrier and not have to fight the fighter!
I also think Africa is not worth the effort for Germany, so its worth dumping a unit in Gibraltar is worth taking away a UK fighter. Even though it’ll cost you the transport, if you’re not going to go for Africa, its an acceptable loss. (I even sometimes tank the armor from Africa and put it in Gibraltar. Sure I’m stranding a tank instead of any infantry, but its a tank that won’t to any more than have a 50-50 chance of knocking out an allied infantry when it is attacked, so I might as well waste the tank instead of an infantry from Europe.)
If your strategy involves pushing Africa or the Middle East with Germany, I still think its worth going after that carrier, but better to save your transport and let that UK fighter live to fight another day.
@Charles-de-Gaulle said in 1941 Balance?:
I’ve actuallly never played Anniversary with NOs. What is the general opinion on how it affects balance? I always thought I looked too good for the Axis.
In my opinion without NOs the game favors the allies, and with NOs it favors the axis. I would recommend trying a game with them sometime. It adds an interesting new layer to the normal strategy, and it also speeds up the end game because if one side starts doing well, they the strength to gain their objectives while denying objectives to their opponents, which accelerates the end. I don’t want to imply that it gives victory to the first side to have things go their way, its a long fight for total objective dominance, but it puts the emphasis of the whole game more on the tipping point of the war than it does on actually knocking an enemy capital.
I really prefer it. You may not but you should give it a try sometime to see.
@axis_roll said in 1941 Balance?:
Agree with Maverick, as the National Objectives are easier to obtain for the Axis and harder for the Allies to maintain/achieve.
My play group modifies the bonus from 5 IPCs to 4 IPCs to minimize the difference/impact
That’s a cool idea! I’m going to try that. Do you still do any sort of bid or do you find this eliminates the need for a bid altogether?
@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:
@PizzaPete said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:
- Anyone here ever try putting a Japan IC in East Indies Round 1?
YES! That was the first reply in this thread
@axis_roll said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:
@Soviet-Steamroller said in What's the latest best Japan opening?:
1) where to put my IC? (F.I.C. or Burma directly under UK’s nose?).
East Indies. It produces 4 units per turn, you’ll have a navy nearby in SZ35 after J1 (for a J2 build of a tpt and 2 inf, perhaps AAA if the allies get cute with a USA bomber in australia
A decent UK player would probably put an IC in India in response but also could muster 1 inf from Persia and 2 Fighters (Egypt & Australia). On my J2 i would be facing 4 inf, 2 fighters and 1 AA!
Well don’t I look like an idiot, lol. My bad.
Right, which is why it has to be part of a coordinated strategy. If Germany has air in range Russia would need several units of armor and air to make it work. Even in that case though, if the German fighters go to India, you can trade Russian armor for German fighters, and if they don’t, its not like having armor and air in Caucus isn’t going to be useful to Russia in eastern Europe. And its only a factor in '41. In '42 Russia’s turn follows Japan’s.