13thguard, I would ask these two questions then; Why did Larry himself start a thread titled Russian front with his own opinion that Germany needed a boost at set-up and Why did Kreighund start a thread asking if Japan was the weak link in the game. It seems that you and a couple others are the only ones that feel the game is balanced as is. Maybe we just arean't as good of players, who knows. I do feel that the longer the game goes, the more it favours the Allies due to inflated IPC incomes.13thGuardsRifleDiv wrote:Except that the axis already have a chance, just not an easy one which some seem to want. And I'm not the only one who thinks that.Carico67 wrote:This thread has been so tied up worrying about a piece here and a tweak there to give the axis a chance I think a major issue from the past that was discussed could settle things and level the game quite a bit based on recent playtest games. (There was also a recent post about this from someone---- lost it login back on).
User 'chompers' on axisandallies.orgMy plea to others: stop trying to make it easy for Germany in particular and the Axis in general by inundating Larry with requests for more units which Axis really doesn't need anymore.See, that's the part I don't get. We've played about 15 to 20 games total of Alpha using its various setups and the Axis have won about 80% of them, the only time the Allies haven't lost has been when they managed to contain Japan through ceding most of Africa by retreating to the south and holding there while the Mediterranean UK fleet went into the Pacific to link up with the US and ANZAC fleets. This was the only game we've played where the US was actually able to spend enough IPC's in the Atlantic to overcome the German naval and air force deterrent in a reasonable time frame (before, say, turn 8 or so), which is generally 8-10 planes plus the Baltic fleet (usually a carrier and battleship) as well as one to two subs purchased per turn. The UK atlantic has a tough time ever putting out any sort of navy in time to be threatening as their turn 1 purchase is generally dictated by the Germans, and they're forced to spend a portion of their IPC's each turn to hold the Italians back from overrunning all of Africa. This only leaves them with IPC's in the the mid-teens to commit to fleet each turn, some of which has to be transports for it to have any effectiveness, which the Germans can happily blow to kingdom come every time they approach the shoreline. If the UK slowly builds a fleet off of Canada and holds back until it has a (slim) chance at surviving the German deterrent, its generally not showing up before Germany has enough spare IPC's to watch its coast as well as continue its push into Russia.
With regards to Russia, I agree that they need some offensive power in their purchases in order to keep the front line as far away from Moscow as they can so that they retain a degree of purchasing power longer into the game. However, its been my experience that whatever Russia does, Germany can do better. Even purchasing a sub a turn Germany still has more IPC's to spend on attack than Russia has on defense and also has the numerical advantage out the gate in armor as well as parity (roughly) in inf/art/mech. If the German is cautious in his drive into Russia, only moving forward in the north when he's assured to survive whatever Russian counterattack might come, and sitting comfortably in the south trading the Ukraines with Russia, I don't see where the Russians really have any option but to begin to fall back eventually. As I've said before, this is generally a slow process in our games, but once you do begin to fall back Russia surrenders a lot of the IPC's it needs to be competitive and loses its ability to divert significant German spending away from the Allied landings that are now occurring in Europe.
I just don't see how more than 1 Axis power can really be contained effectively by the Allies. Whatever theater you choose to bring the pressure in, the other one goes to hell. If you choose to fight hard in both, you cede the advantage (slightly) to the Axis in each.
Balance is achieved.
Take time from your busy day to play Axis & Allies and to eat a bowl of cereal.
they have lack of good Allies players. 80% of victory for Axis is little credible.. these data mean nothing if don't followed by report or good thoughts.13thGuardsRifleDiv wrote:See, that's the part I don't get. We've played about 15 to 20 games total of Alpha using its various setups and the Axis have won about 80% of them,
I can say "we made 19 to 26 games and allies win the 73,98% of the time!!".. lol.. so give more Panther in Poland! rotfl..
The unbalance isn't in Europe but in Pacific but only when we play Global. Germany with the last setup is good.. if we want aid a little we could place some italian infantry and artillery in Romania 3-4 units and stop.
The game is more balanced than you might think.
Germany can contain russia by rnd6. With Russia being as big as it is and the map ever so large, the Allies cannot help the reds like they could in other A&A games. So if you add a bunch of germans to the set-up and make a perfectly played russia lose moscow 50pct of the time to Germany's push in rnd7, the game is broken.
What remains to be seen is how the game will play out in rounds 7-12. We need to see who has the edge at that point, and by what margin.
What you've got to realize is that the fall of moscow is the end-game. Achieving this can't be so simplistic as crushing it with numbers on a straight push. If Moscow is to fall it should take a global effort with sacrifices and concessions in other theaters.
Right now as it stands I do think the allies have a slight edge. The best way to balance it is through some NO's so that Germany can't just crush the reds. This lends itself to a positional struggle with strategy playing a bigger part than brute force.
So if you are failing to get the axis to round 6-7 without feeleing hopeless, then yes, your play is probably sub-par.
Ultimately the game will be balanced by a bid. But you've got to get it close because bids place units in optimal positions and small numbers early in the game lend to big swings balance, relatively speaking. 14IPC's don't sound like much, but if it's two German transports think how big a swing that is.
Forgive me if I’ve skipped some pages. I managed to read all 60+ of the first Alpha, only to realize there’s another thread. Didn’t make it through all 152.
I won’t be able to comment on most of the rules until after we play this weekend, but my friend and I were talking about strategic bombing and what my help it become more dynamic.
1. Why should you strategic bomb?
Currently, the biggest incentive is a monetary loss for the country being bombed. This makes it a straight numbers game. I lose x in planes, he loses y in bombing. X > y = I don’t bomb. This means that only countries that can afford to take a loss now and then, namely the USA would try it. But even then, most would see little gain and just rather buy the extra transports and land units and go straight to the assault.
So if just numbers can’t balance it, what about other incentives to bomb?
One idea was to have the territory being bombed only able to repair the number value of the territory. Say you bomb England for the full 20. They can only repair 6 per turn, and won’t be able to deploy anything until the second round from the bombing, assuming no new bombs fall. So while the bomber may have taken heavy losses to get that 20 damage, it would be worth it to shut down production for a full turn.
It would encourage the purchase of defensive fighters rather than an attitude of “Meh, I can just spend 11 ICs and deploy what I want. I’m in no immediate danger.”
2. Tac bombers strategic bombing. How often would it really be used?
We love the idea of tac bombers doing this, however, with their range of 4, what could they really bomb? Except for the UK bombing Normandy and vice versa, there really aren’t too many uses for this. Unless there’s some forward-deployed factory or something.
What if you added a rule that states that a tactical bomber may accompany a strategic bomber on a bombing run and get +2 movement, but they must land where the strategic bomber lands. Without an increase in range (but only for strat bombing) then I don’t think this new rule will be used very often on the European side.
To argue with myself, on second thought, this is an awesome addition for carrier-based planes in the pacific, giving weight to carrier groups. The rule may be used after all. Still though, adding a rule about the extra range may give rise to seeing more Tac + Strat pairs landing on islands.
3. Difficult to use Interceptors.
The toughest part on defense is having enough planes. In Europe, Germany has so many factories to protect, it’s impossible to stop them all from being bombed. Not only that, but it’s hard to stop just one. Most would rather have an extra 3 on attack and 4 on defense somewhere on the Russian front. If Germany does leave planes behind, the US/UK will just bomb a factory that doesn’t have them.
IDEA: Allow the factory being bombed to use interceptors from adjacent territories. Those planes must land in the same territory they came from. Thus, fighters left in Western Germany could help defend Germany or France. If they covered more territory, I’d leave a few behind. Right now they can just be leap-frogged over, making them useless. And that's the reason I have yet to see an interceptor used that wasn't purchased on the last turn.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests