I think the N.O.s should not all be 5 IPC’s I do not see them as being equal.
Soviet player is the only exception
Maybe a small bonus for having all.
Will the National Objectives benefit the Axis or the Allies
-
What are your thoughts on this one…?
-
I voted axis because I have tried a pre-version of AA50, without NO’s, assuming the setup is correct, which it probably is not…
But anyway, it seems that allies are favored, so maybe NO’s will balance it out, or maybe we must use bids like AAR.
I hope someone will get their AA50 boardgames on the 23th, so we will know the exact setup. Then it will be much easier to tell.
It’s fun to speculate anyway :-D
AA50 is the most important historical event in 2008! -
Well, allies will crush the axis without national objectives. National Objectives may even the score a bit. Too soon to say likely, but think about this: The allied advantage is money, the axis advantage is military. By giving the Axis more money (and as a result, less of an economic advantage for the allies), but not giving the allies more military (maintaining the axis advantage), it should make the playing field even. If the Axis and Allies each got +50 IPC, for example, it would help benefit the Axis, because it gives the Axis a higher percentage of income, which is what they need. I think that the 1942 setup puts them at nearly equal amounts of IPC, using NOs… obviously, a major Axis advantage.
-
Considering the fact that NO for the axis can be achieved and kept along turns a bit easier than the allies one, it’s an axis advantage for sure!
But like Rakeman said, they need this advantage, otherwise you can throw away Italy with her 10 ipc and Germany will have a very hard time defending against a KGF + SBR campaign. :wink:
-
I didn’t vote because there is no option which says the NOs are balanced.
Some of the Axis’ NOs are easier to get than the Allies’, but the Allies have more NOs to try for than the Axis do, so after 3 games, I have to say that they seem to be fairly balanced.
-
The best thing of NO is that they prevent KGF and probably also the gamey HB strat bomb campaign. A 70 IPCs Japan invading America is not a funny thing for allies.
-
What about 70 ipc Japan going after Russia + 30 ipc Russia going after Germany + 40 ipc UK going after Germany + 40 ipc US going after Germany :lol:
It’s too soon to say if NO’s will balance it out, but I surely hope so. The NO’s shouldn’t be necessary to balance the game either, since NO’s are optional rules.
And Japan will most likely gain ipc’s until 65 (including NO’s), not 70 ipc.
About game strats, most important is if KGF will still prevail, this is much too soon to tell, even if it looks like KGF will be the most efficient strat (without NO’s) if the setup is right.
-
I don’t know how UK can get to 50’s if they go KGF (or even KJF). With Italy and Japan quickly stealing territories, they will struggle even staying at 30. About USA, Japan will also steal a couple of bonuses, and if they go for America, they will reach 70, for sure
All of this, of course, if allies try KGF. With KJF and the true setup (not the BGG one), of course that USA could and should be able of fight Japan. But no chance of UK keeping more than 30-35 early.
Of course, we need know the true setup, but only with IPC and NOs values, I’d say that a ignore Japan strat is no more (by luck)
All this playing with NOs
Why playing without NOs? Man, tech and NOs optional :-P Both of the best new items forbidden for competitive play?
-
@Craig:
The best thing of NO is that they prevent KGF and probably also the gamey HB strat bomb campaign. A 70 IPCs Japan invading America is not a funny thing for allies.
Remember this post and get back to me after a bit of playing.
I think that you will eventually “feel” the power of a UK with 50+ IPCs getting after the Germans by themselves and the US with 50+ IPCS using all of it against the Japanese.
Craig
UK going to 50 IPC’s? May I ask how you guys did that during playtesting? UK’s bonusses in Asia will be gone. Holding on the Egypt is very hard as well, that leaves merely France plus with the loss of the money islands to Japan, that won’t be enough to get to 50?
What do I miss?
-
Ah, now I understand. I think you are talking the 1942 scenario which is still all fuzzy for us normal grunts. :lol:
Japan can reach 65-70 by taking the whole pacific, and Asian mainland (up to yakut/Chingai/Persia) line. This means she has 15 IPC from the NO’s, so a basic income of 50 is enough. Also Japan usually ends up with Madagascar and South Africa. :wink:
-
Although I can’t tell yet how things would work out in AA50, but in AAR Japan could be on 50 income and the axis still lost big time, cuz the KGF was in full effect.
When the allies go KGF in AAR or A&A original Japan will grow Godzilla as a consequence. It becomes the well known race of Berlin vs Moscow. And more than occasionally Berlin falls at the same turn as Moscow does.
However as I said, not sure if in AA50 the same is possible, but from our games so far it’s not something that’s totally impossible.
-
@Craig:
Although I can’t tell yet how things would work out in AA50, but in AAR Japan could be on 50 income and the axis still lost big time, cuz the KGF was in full effect.
When the allies go KGF in AAR or A&A original Japan will grow Godzilla as a consequence. It becomes the well known race of Berlin vs Moscow. And more than occasionally Berlin falls at the same turn as Moscow does.
However as I said, not sure if in AA50 the same is possible, but from our games so far it’s not something that’s totally impossible.
That doesn’t really ally our fears the KGF will still be the allies M.O. versus the JTDTM.
And I am not saying that you are wrong or that it can’t happen, but we haven’t seen the need for as much of a US presence in the ETO as before.
As such, they are more active in the PTO.
Craig
-
@Craig:
@Craig:
Although I can’t tell yet how things would work out in AA50, but in AAR Japan could be on 50 income and the axis still lost big time, cuz the KGF was in full effect.
When the allies go KGF in AAR or A&A original Japan will grow Godzilla as a consequence. It becomes the well known race of Berlin vs Moscow. And more than occasionally Berlin falls at the same turn as Moscow does.
However as I said, not sure if in AA50 the same is possible, but from our games so far it’s not something that’s totally impossible.
That doesn’t really ally our fears the KGF will still be the allies M.O. versus the JTDTM.
And I am not saying that you are wrong or that it can’t happen, but we haven’t seen the need for as much of a US presence in the ETO as before.
As such, they are more active in the PTO.
Craig
What are you trying to say here AR? Is the comment highlighted in green you comment to my comment?
Please repost your thoughts.
Craig
Sorry my reply wasn’t clearer.
You mentioned that USA can afford to go pacific since they are not needed as much in the atlantic.
My reply was that doesn’t mean the KGF will not be used by the allies (again) as the most commonly run Allied strategy. In other words, just because USA CAN go after Japan, that doesn’t mean that they should or will go after japan. -
@Craig:
@Craig:
Although I can’t tell yet how things would work out in AA50, but in AAR Japan could be on 50 income and the axis still lost big time, cuz the KGF was in full effect.
When the allies go KGF in AAR or A&A original Japan will grow Godzilla as a consequence. It becomes the well known race of Berlin vs Moscow. And more than occasionally Berlin falls at the same turn as Moscow does.
However as I said, not sure if in AA50 the same is possible, but from our games so far it’s not something that’s totally impossible.
That doesn’t really ally our fears the KGF will still be the allies M.O. versus the JTDTM.
And I am not saying that you are wrong or that it can’t happen, but we haven’t seen the need for as much of a US presence in the ETO as before.
As such, they are more active in the PTO.
Craig
What are you trying to say here AR? Is the comment highlighted in green you comment to my comment?
Please repost your thoughts.
Craig
Sorry my reply wasn’t clearer.
You mentioned that USA can afford to go pacific since they are not needed as much in the atlantic.
My reply was that doesn’t mean the KGF will not be used by the allies (again) as the most commonly run Allied strategy. In other words, just because USA CAN go after Japan, that doesn’t mean that they should or will go after japan.I believe the entire point of KGF was to kill Germany as fast as possible because, once Germany falls to the Allies, the Axis really have no hope.
So obviously, USA rushing Berlin with the rest of the Allies is not going to change because the Allies have an inferior alternative strategy.
-
Rakeman has it right.
Even in Revised, US going after Japan is VIABLE, but not opimal.
I know, some may argue that point…but MOST players would agree that KGF is the best, optimal Allied game plan in Revised.
The only way too tell is more game play. Hell we don’t even have the initial set-up correct and we’re speculating heavily at this point.
I guess a more viable Pacific US war is better than a full-on ignore Japan strategy.
-
Even in Revised, US going after Japan is VIABLE, but not opimal.
I know, some may argue that point…but MOST players would agree that KGF is the best, optimal Allied game plan in Revised.
*** Yoda mode on ***
KGF easier and quicker to master is, not stronger
*** Yoda mode off ***
In fact, is easier for axis reach economic parity in a KGF than in a KJF, with so much free candy IPCs for Japan. KGF maybe is a easier strat to play, but not stronger (or weaker)
-
@Craig:
But why fight the Japanese in Africa, the Middle East, and somewhere on the Russian Steppe when you can directly affect them in the Pacific.
Totally agreed. Add Alaska and Canada to the list if allies try ignore a Japan with NOs
-
I cant wait to try the AA50, playing different strats, KJF/KGF, both with and without NOs.
I’m going cold turkey to know the real setup :lol:
If the gencon setup is almost correct, then Jap can kill most of the US navy in the Pacific J1, this will slow the US if they try to take on Jap in the pacific. This can give Jap enough time to tackle an US pacific strat.
Now, even before we know for sure, almost everyone agrees that NOs will favor axis, it seems likely, but if thats true it also means that the game is unbalanced, maybe even more than AAR. -
Even in Revised, US going after Japan is VIABLE, but not opimal.
I know, some may argue that point…but MOST players would agree that KGF is the best, optimal Allied game plan in Revised.
*** Yoda mode on ***
KGF easier and quicker to master is, not stronger
*** Yoda mode off ***
In fact, is easier for axis reach economic parity in a KGF than in a KJF, with so much free candy IPCs for Japan. KGF maybe is a easier strat to play, but not stronger (or weaker)
Would you agree that all things being equal between two methods to accomplish something (whatever it is, taking a path to the liquor store, making dinner, whatever)
That the easier, simplier method is better….If yes, then WHY???
BECAUSE it is easier and simplier!!!
so therefor, KGF is optimal in that sense. -
Even in Revised, US going after Japan is VIABLE, but not opimal.
I know, some may argue that point…but MOST players would agree that KGF is the best, optimal Allied game plan in Revised.
*** Yoda mode on ***
KGF easier and quicker to master is, not stronger
*** Yoda mode off ***
In fact, is easier for axis reach economic parity in a KGF than in a KJF, with so much free candy IPCs for Japan. KGF maybe is a easier strat to play, but not stronger (or weaker)
Don’t get me wrong, I like to KJF, it’s more fun, since it IS harder to execute. I like a challenge. Probably why I like to play the Axis… they’re the underdog.
So KJF is an underdog type of allied strategy. :wink:
Suggested Topics
