Domsterlord,
It’s an excellent point you bring up. Either Axis and Allies is balanced without NOs or it’s balanced with NOs. You can’t have it both ways.
I agree with your reasoning too. The Axis NOs are easier to achieve and meld into their “master plan.” The Allies NOs – a lot of them seem like Win-More propositions. We played several games where UK was held without NO for many turns!
Great discussion.
Agreed. NO’s favour the Axis. Which is why I think 1941 is unbalanced with NO’s: Axis have too great an advantage with NO’s (killer Jap, strong Germ, Ita taking all of Britains efforts the first 4 rounds by claiming Egy and getting 10 extra by NO’s).
Yes.
I Think some people missed my point…
I am NOT against Nos, I find they are a great rule in essence. My point is that Nos are an optional rule, but they skew the play balance. Now either they inbalance an otherwise balanced game or they balance an otherwise inbalanced one, taht remains to be determined. however for them to keep play balance about the same they would have to be modified slightly. For example, Japans second No could require to capture all 6 territories instead of 4. Its just that I dont find that its fair to think that they dont advantage a side…
I got your point at least. ;)
I think 1941 is balanced out of box without National Objectives. With NOs the Axis clearly have the advantage, though it’s not insurmountable.
In 1942… well I haven’t played 1942 enough yet. But I think 1942 is NOT balanced out of box (the Allies have the advantage) and NOs are need to balance the game for the Axis.
Anyone agree/disagree?
In most cases the game is won or lost in Europe, not the pacific. So fighting Japan is not reasonable. You can do it for fun, but fight germany to win the game.
I don’t agree with this because I’ve seen a number of Kill Japan First or Historical America strategies work. I understand Kill Germany First was the conventional strategy in earlier versions of A&A, and I also feel that A&A 50 is sufficiently different (tweaked) that you don’t have to focus all your resources on Germany to win the game. That’s what makes A&A50 such a great game. Just my two cents.
How does that work? For example, can the UK AND USA both attack france on the same turn? Does UK attack first, then USA units? I can’t imagine a combined attack of both sides, that would be far too deadly in the allies hands.
I’m glad you asked. Even though turns occur simultaneously, combat (and movement) is still resolved according to turn order. For Allies: Russia, UK, USA. For Axis: Germany, Japan, Italy. In your example, UK would attack the German units in France first. If UK wins the battle, then the USA units land into France as non-combat movement. If UK loses, USA tackles the remaining German units. In either case, planes from UK/USA could not land in France and would have to return to an Allied territory.
The idea of the UK starting with an Industrial Complex in India is one my gaming group has discussed recently. It would definitely make the South Pacific Theatre more active and interesting.
People say this change gives too much of an advantage to the Allies, but I feel as a whole the Axis are stronger in 1941 and the game could use some balancing. These are both points you brought up, so I’m glad to find someone similarly minded.
Also, as has been mentioned on these forums, what if UK got to choose the starting location of their free Industrial Complex? It would make every game feel different. Egypt, South America, India, Australia, and the East Indies are all examples of where that starting Complex could go.
Finally, my group has also implemented simultaneous turns to allow the games to feel more fluid. Instead of Germany, USSR, etc. taking their turns separately, all the Axis Powers go together and the Allied Powers go togeher. This greatly speeds up the pace of the game and allows for more joint strategy.
Thanks. This definitely qualifies under the AAR guidelines.
I don’t know what was the worse mistake. Italy not cooperating or Japan not conquering all of China and allowing that 1 infantry to survive.
Looks like you had a complete breakdown in communications. Didn’t the Axis team try talking some sense into the Italian player?
I’m glad you had a fun time with your House Rules variant and having National Advantage cards seems like a good idea. However, AARs are for unmodified games, since they’re used to infer trends through statistical analysis. :)
Sure. Having After Action Reports after the Spring 1941 Tournament would be a great idea.
I’ve toyed around with the idea of a IC being placed in India at the start of the game with no build restrictions.
I haven’t tested it out, but I conjecture it makes the South Pacific a more hotly contested place.
I’d also like to see what the average range of the “correct” Allied Bid is.
Here’s the skinny:
Italy (as a nation) is easy to contain, but impossible to capitulate.
If the Allies made a concerted effort to contain Italy, it isn’t difficult at all to do so. USA and UK can pipeline troops through Morocco, while USSR makes an armored thrust from the Caucuses. Of course this leaves Germany open to run wild. But in truth, this job is doable by only one power (USA), while UK supports USSR, builds up an invasion force, and/or SBR Germany.
Logistically, the placement of Italy makes it the harder Axis capital to capture. Why should USA and UK coordinate a capture of Italy when they can do something more constructive and reinforceable, such as take France? And if France falls, why not push into Berlin which will end the game? Sure, Rome is nice, but as Whackamatt mentioned it’s easier for Germany to take back Italy than vise-versa.
Excellent analysis. Quoted for truth.
I agree with your assessment for the most part.
A few comments / observations:
1. There are times a UK India factory is acceptable. It boils down to what Japan does T1. If Japan lunges toward SSR, China, or the Hawaiian Islands, then an India factory is not indefensible. How often this actually happens is debatable.
2. Agreed. China is too weak in 1941 to put much resistance.
3. Agreed.
4. Sure. Again it depends on the rest of the Allies hitting the German rear. Germany can soften Russia up with Italy holding its flanks, though at the loss of operational flexibility.
5. I’m not so sure on this one. Most ‘successful’ build I’ve seen has USA committing entirely to Europe. … Or the opposite.
We might give AA50 a try in the future, but we’re having too much fun with AA50 already. :D
Seems pretty true to life. Except for the part about the Allies pushing their navy across the Suez Canal.
How successful was Japan pushing inward to Egypt and Russia?