So I have a game of A&A coming up this Saturday that I am super stoked about.
My question for everyone is, who here still uses the 1st edition rules and set-up? I know my group does and have found it to actually be very balanced with practically a 50/50 split on which side wins.
Just wanted to share that I still roll with the 1st edition and I am super pumped for this weekend coming up!
First edition is not balanced, it’s even worse than the current rules. Japan had 28 aircraft in the OOB version of the very first release. The India push was insanely easy, and Japan could/would win practically every game.
The current edition could be balanced very easily by removing about 2 Japanese aircraft, and adding about 2 Chinese infantry.
Shadow,
I understand what you are saying and I’ve read all of these experiences of how 1st edition is not balanced. However, somehow in my experience with the same group of guys, it’s been 50/50. I do not know how are why, but it has, which has made it very enjoyable due to it being unpredictable.
With newer players who do not know all the optimum ways to exploit the G40.1 (or other) setup, the game is more reliant on basic player skill and no bid or handicap is usually needed for either side (this applies to all global versions, G40, G41, G42, BM, etc).
We often talk bidding in our G40 games, but players change each week and some people are still experimenting, so the bid isn’t really necessary.
On the other hand, once everyone gets up to speed, there is a pretty strong Axis bias towards the optimal play (withering unstoppable Moscow push x3 teams, or buy bombers with 3 teams and smash Russian economy you pick or combine the two), so a bid may be necessary.
The game won’t seem unbalanced until you push the possibilities to their logical conclusion. If you screw around with fringe ideas that are less than optimal, it will be pretty balanced. If you go for the critical path, the Axis have something of an advantage.
There is a balanced mod that tends to help the Allies with some NOs, this can be overlaid onto most setup versions, it adds fun, a bit of complexity, and increases balance.
first edition? WOW! That’d be trippy to go back to that… although I don’t know how the allies could cope with Japan.
Plus no scram of UK… ouch, the allies would get crushed! Hands down…
We’ve been playing it since global came out but we only play like twice a year.
It is pretty amazing and yeah, we all think it is pretty even.
So this game, we put roundels in a hat and pick randomly, so we do not know our teammates nor the country we are playing til that day.
As the Axis, I’ve done the Calcutta crush with Japan, Sea Lion, and the Romanian IC, all with mostly success. Is there anything else that I can try? I mean, for Japan, is it worth taking Sydney first for any reason? Is it a good idea to build a navy to feign the Sea Lion and then amphibious assault Leningrad? I’ve thought about all of these and just trying to figure out some other creative attacks with the Axis.
Thanks for whipping out your old rule books and knowledge! :mrgreen:
You can attack Australia first, or America first. Both are exciting but feel doomed to failure, both generate less income than going West.
You can truly dominate one of your opponents, but you cannot dominate all 5. The farther you get from Japan/SZ6, the less defensive and flexible your naval power is,
going to Australia puts you way out of position and America can cut you off from your path back home. If you attack America, they can be paralyzed for a few turns but it isn’t rocket science to hold you off and turtle up.
Instead of going for some gambit or plan, its usually more straightforward to curtail enemy income and obtain your own. You can have a lot more confidence going into turn 6-8 if you’ve simply knocked out china and india, threatened the back door of Russia, and held off USA ANZAC. You just can’t do that and go crazy navy or crazy plan AND achieve these basic goals. Getting and holding the Spice Islands seems pretty easy but against strong Allied players, good luck with that!
there are tons of posts, recent and not, regarding what UK can do if Germany leaves them alone. their choices are much more limited if you don’t pressurize the invasion situation.
Picking teams out of a Hat? Oh man. We used to always roll the dice to see who plays what. Eventually the better players revolted and now we balance the teams based on skill level nd bids.
Thanks for the responses everyone!
Bakaman, yeah we’ve found the random hat pulling to be the best and most fun no matter the skill levels.
Yeah, if the Axis have a decent income, the game gets a lot harder for the Allies. That is the one common denominator throughout all axis and allies games.
It worked well for 10 or so years. Until We had a game where the two best players wound up being axis and we had a new player completely rage quit and never play again because of it. We decided to even out teams in advance to prevent scaring away more players. We have 1-2 new players almost every time we play, which gets complicated at times.
The only reason to include bidding is if you don’t get an even and fun game. So, if your groups skill and style gives a 50/50 spilt, then you don’t need a bid. if it is a 70/30 spilt then you might need a bid.
You should not care about optimal play when you place bids, you should care about probable play :)
This is why I always play with a bid. If both players agree that each side is equal, we will bid 0, otherwise we will bid something else. It is a good way of balancing any perceived imbalances.
good point kruzfeld I agree the bid balances perceptions, especially in the tournament
Another approach to picking teams is to draw for teams of 2/1 2/2 2/3 etc. (and/or experienced team leaders) then after teams are known, agree upon assignments within that team.
