National Objectives vs Balance

[Builder_Chris]

WOW!  :-o  :?  :roll:

Cmdr Jennifer
…with over 100 games now, and I stopped counting a while ago, I can say that currently it looks really balanced with National Objectives in 1941.

You say you have already played over 100 games (you lost count?).  :? You must play this game everyday or something; didn’t it just get released on November 18th 2008 or something like that (69 days or so ago?)

100/69=1.45 games a day
Average game length/time to play a single game = 4 to 7 hours (rough guess…since I’ve only played 4 complete games of AA50 so far)

Total estimated game time for 100+ games = 400 to 700 hours (rough guess)

69 days x 24 hrs a day = 1656 total available hours since the games release date.
1656 hr – full time job (including travel and lunch time 11 hrs a day for 9 weeks) 495 +/- hours = 1161 hours left
1161 hrs – sleep (8 hrs a day) = 552 +/- hrs = 609 hours

609 hrs left for “free time” in 9 weeks since the game release (for the average Joy/Jolene to have a “life”.)

Granted, I didn’t take into account the thanksgiving and Christmas and new years holiday time or available vacation time, but come on…100 +/- games since November?  Maybe just a wee bit exaggeration on how many games of AA50 have been played…especially if your using those condoms you mentioned earlier…and from you picture (if that’s you and not you “so much cooler online” picture),  you don’t look like the type of girl to still be living in your moms basement.  Do you not have a job (or family) or something?

Maybe you’re playing non stop marathon (no sleep) gaming weekends…  :evil:
10 weekends x 2 days each weekend = 20 days x 24 hrs a day = 480 hrs / 5.5 (average single game length) = 87 games leaving 13 games to play over the holidays.  Yea, yea,  :wink:  that must be how you have been able to play 100+/- games since November.  Which could explain some of this debate (already) over “balance”; maybe some of your (our)  determinations to date of what is skewed (unbalanced) in the game could be from a lack of sleep  :wink: (and “relations”  :-o …because I still cant figure out when you would have had time to play all those games and still have time to use those condoms…  :-P and have a job/life).

I’ve only had my game since December 18 (5 weeks), and I’ve played 4 complete 1941 games, .25 of another 1941 game and 1 other 7 hr 1942 game that ended with out a winner because we ran out of time and I had to stop playing at 7:30 a.m.  :cry: to make it home in time to have breakfast and spend the day with my wife.  :-D And that last game was the 2nd game played that night; we started at 4 pm the night before with a 1941 game that ended at midnight and than started the second game.

:| Sorry to mess with you like that Cmdr Jennifer (ok…  :oops: maybe I’m not…and I’m just saying that so I don’t look like a total jerk), but again, until this game (like AAC and AAR) have been rigorously played; discussing game balance on it is premature to say the least.

I don’t doubt that there will be patterns that will emerge that show a certain ADVANTAGE or DISADVANTAGE for a certain Power or Side in the AA50.  I’ll bet they will be very similar to the ones that have emerged in AAC and AAR.  After all, ALL the A&A games ARE BASED on the geopolitical history of WW2.  And any game that is based on history is BOUND to have “imbalance”. I just wish we could agree to call it something other than balanced or unbalanced; talking about these games like they ar “broke”.  The A&A games are not broke; they are just based on history.

I don’t know what (if any) history books (shows) everyone is reading (watching) but the “BROAD BRUSH” history of WW2 was that the Axis DID have the advantage at the start of the war (especially when Russia was more “partial” to the Axis than the Allies…1939 “joint invasion” of Poland) and the Allies GAINED their advantage(s) over time to a LOT of various factors (diligence…and some luck in battle to name just a couple).  :-D

So far, ever single game of A&A that I’ve played since classics release has been in keeping with that history. (the little of it I know).

That’s why if players are ALREADY seeing those “typical/historical” “patterns” they/we shouldn’t be surprised.  If anything we should be praising the efforts of the designer and play testers for doing such a good job with balancing the game WITH history.

Granted this is a game, and part of the fun of a game is to be able to win no matter what side you are playing on.  So, IF EVERY game of A&A played (as it was designed) were to finish with the Allies ALWAYS winning…I wouldn’t want to play it.  I play A&A because I want the chance to rewrite history not replay history.  If I wanted to replay history…I’d just watch the history channel.

So again, if your/we are already seeing similar patterns of advantage/disadvantage emerging in AA50 we shouldn’t be surprised…its WW2 history.

But if your ALREADY debating about playing a certain set up (1941 or 42) with or without NOs because of the beleif that the gaem is “unblanced” (broken), might I suggest that we/you turn towards the bid…once again.  If you want to play the Axis all the time becoause your so SURE that the Axis is the side that is going to win , than give the bid to the allies to offset that personal (perceived) advantage/disadvantage.

But please…can we stop talking about BALANCE as if the game(s) of A&A are somehow “broken”?

The games are not BROKEN…rather they are BALANCED…WITH history.

[Builder_Chris]

Funcioneta

Now the questions:

1941: what is the reasoning to say the game is balanced when you can kill an enemy power (China) in round 1, before even that power gets her first move? What is Japan losing if they kill China round 1 (being the advantages of doing it clear)? Really needs axis this to win?

And now for 1942: you cannot kill China J1, but you can still kill their lone and last offensive unit, the fighter, without losing focus in other areas, J1; it’s so easy that is a no brainer move. What is the reasoning for this? Really needs axis this badly to win? What is Japan losing if they kill the fighter J1?(because the advantages of doing it are pretty obvious)

Granted I’m not one of the play testers (or the designer…obviously) but, part of the answer(s) to your questions seem obvious to me.  :-)

Evolution…and…Game Scale.

The game has evolved over time to what it is now by making small changes to the game in an attempt to better reflect history while still trying to keep it in line with its original design and “scale”.

A&A is not/has not/ will never be (hopefully) the type of game that takes into account EVERY stinking little detail of WW2 history.  Its scale is hugely abstract which makes details of history easily lost to playability and personal observations and interpretation.

As far as the China thing, history shows that even Japan believed that they needed to get rid of china first before taking on the rest of the “world” (they attacked in 1937 and some historians would argue that that was really the beginning of WW2 not the invasion of Poland by the Germans in 1939 that everyone talks about being the start of the war.)

So to make the changes to China that have been done just goes to show (IMO) that someone is reading there history books and trying to incorporate that part of history into a playable part of the game.

[Domsterlord]

On China:

I too find that it is very sad that China gets blown to pieces in the first round without any serious commitment from Japan, very Ahistorical.

I was very excited that they had included Japan in a AA PAcific type of country, however I was very disapointed to see that the Chinese fighter was Blown to pieced on J1. That fighter surviving would have helped china to at least do some counters… ( as Inf alone are very weak in attacks…

Dont think allowing chinese to attack withh USA is a solution either (like in AAP) as it could become way too strong. In any case I am also very disaponted in how China does, at the very least in the 1941 scenario…

[a44bigdog]

I quit counting games at 30. That was a few weeks ago. I currently have 8 games of AA50 underway at the moment, 6 on the forums and 2 face to face games. I can easily see Jenn having 100+ games, as we have played quite a few against each other. However since I am mostly an online player and do not attend Origins or GenCon I know my opinion is not worthy of consideration. :roll:

I will offer it anyway. '41 with NOs is balanced. '42 with NOs is a huge Axis advantage. I know the opposite appears true looking at the board but so far in the 7 or 8 '42 games I have played the Allies have not really had a chance. China is not really much more of a speed bump either. The fighter still goes on J1, roughly the same amount of Chinese territories fall, and the few extra infantry are really irrelevant.

I also would like to hear the play testers answer to Funcioneta’s questions, because China in either version is much too easy of a kill.

[TG Moses VI]

With Obama as our President, I think we’re all entitled to some transparency. ;)

Come on, what is up with China?  Was this Hasbro’s decision?

[Builder_Chris]

a44bigdog
I currently have 8 games of AA50 underway at the moment, 6 on the forums and 2 face to face games.

How the heck do you play 8 games at a time? Do you have 8 game boards?  And even if your ar just gaming on a PC board on line; how the heck do you find the time to play all those games?  Do you not have a job? Family? Friends?..…a LIFE outside of the computer/gaming world?  :?

Man…I thought I was addicted to A&A and WW2 history  :-P …you guys must not even sleep! I hope anyone that games that much at least finds time to shower everyday.  :-o Let me guess, some of you really do live in your moms basement and you don’t have a job…just like one of my cousins boys…he plays world of war craft more hours every week than I work and sleep.  :cry:

I’m sorry, maybe it’s my age but I just find it hard to believe that anyone is able to play games that much.  With that many games being played at one time, you guys must have really high IQs because how in the heck can you keep all the details of each game clear in your heads?  And if your telling me your keeping the details on the PC and just reviewing them every time before you make your moves it sounds even harder to imagine anyone being able to play that many game since the games release because now there’s the extra time required to review the game that you wouldn’t need to do in FTF games.

Call me crazy, dumb, stupid or maybe I am just a really, really, really bad A&A gamer and I just don’t know it, but with that many games rolling around in a persons head (on line or FTF, I just don’t see how it is possible to play all those games at one time with any measure of skill and clarity.

I cant even play 3 games of Texas holdum on line at one time with any measure of skill or clarity (they all just blur together and I cant keep track of which game is which or who is playing certain hands and not player other hands) and that is a very simple game compared to all the details of an A&A game.

You guys are my new heroes!  :-D

[a44bigdog]

Let me clear up some of that for you. I am 39 and have my own house, heck I left home at 16. I only play online on weekends when I am at my girlfriends house. It may sound sophomoric at my age to have a girlfriend, but I was married for 13 years and will pass on repeating that experience. For online games I use battlemap. So when it is my turn all I have to do is open that file to see the board. For my face to face games I also use battlemap to record the status of the game board. That allows me to have more than one game going on my physical game board and keeps me from having to remember where everything is when my cat gets up there and scatters pieces. I have an IQ of 157 but I suspect it does not matter all that much as there are several of us that play multiple games at one time. They are all different and once you look at that map what is going on clicks into place. Me personally I spend probably at most 5 or 10 minutes debating on board conditions for a turn. I also suspect that is a side effect of playing so many games. I don’t have to ponder for ever on end because I have probably already seen the outcome of game moves in games past.

For those of you that have not discovered playing here through the forums I would urge you to give it a try. There are many advantages. Games can last as long as they take. No more trying to play an Axis and Allies game in one night. Games can be found at any time. No more trying to round up players and again find the time to play in one night. A player is also exposed to a wide variety of play stiles. If you game with the same people you are limited in what you see to what they do.

[Builder_Chris]

a44bigdog
For those of you that have not discovered playing here through the forums I would urge you to give it a try.

Will do; you make it sound easy and not all that time consuming…surely I can find 15mins a day to play one game.  :-)

Hope you did not take offence to my mamma basement comments…just messing with you… :mrgreen:

[Funcioneta]

@Craig:

what I am trying to say is that we didn’t get enough time to playtest some things (like NOs) to my liking.  And even if we had gotten the time I felt necessary, the WotC types would have probably changed them anyway. :-P

As for the placement of the Chinese fighter, you would have to talk to Larry about that.  :roll:

So, you are saying they didn’t let you enough time to playtest China? Or simply Larry said this?: “the Flying Tigers must die round 1 in any scenario and China must die J1 in 1941. I’ll not change this, test the other stuff”

Any case, I fear you are right and we’ll have to ask Larry about this hidden knowledge  :|

[Funcioneta]

@Craig:

We didn’t have time to playtest a lot of things thoroughly.  And when that happens, you tend to focus on the things you think are more important.  Then again, I understand that you can’t take forever to run through these things.  They (WotC) are running a business and need to get things done.

As for the China fighter, it was way down on the list, if it was there at all.

No, Larry didn’t impose his will and state such a thing.  I just don’t remember us getting to the point where we were really complaining about it.  (That was a year and a half ago!)  Maybe with more time we would have gotten to that point.

I personally didn’t like the placement, but we had bigger “fish to fry” at the time.

Ok, time issues. That’s not for fault, totally true

However, China’s status is a very important item (not only because the fighter, but also for the non-brain killer J1 move). It’s a playing power (even if it’s a minor) and usually almost the only enemy Japan will face in mainland Asia in 1941. That potentially can unbalance the whole Pacific theather

This is very valuable info. Thanks  :-)

[TG Moses VI]

I agree.  You cannot blame a man for being honest, under such extreme circumstances, no matter how egregious the mistake appears in hindsight.

The reason we’re complaining is because the rest of the setup is, for the most part, balanced.  You’re right, I’m sure the playtesters focused on much larger issues at hand, like the Eastern Front, which could’ve been easily botched.

With that being said, if the Asia Front is deemed unplayable, could we make suggestions to Larry?  Perhaps move the starting location of the Chinese Fighter.  Even a small change like this would improve China’s odds - no matter how improbable - a lot.

[DarthMaximus]

Not to jump on the China bandwagon here, but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

I can certainly see where in the grand scheme of things China drops way down on the list of things to check but it just seems like J1 was never play tested at all.

I would either move the ftr further inland with another China inf added for cover or removing some J inf to make it unattackable or such a low odds attack that if they try and fail they could be royally screwed.

I’d also remove the restrictions on their movement and give them the ability to enter any China, Japan, or UK territory.  Can’t go into Red (Russia).

Note:  This is not ment as slam on anyone or anything, I just wanted to setup “my view” for Asia.  I’ll freely admit I’m not big believer “historical accuracy” for A&A so I’d probably change a few other things.  :-)

As for NO’s I see them as a potentially reoccuring bid for the Axis.  An opening bid can be lost due to bad dice or placement, but say a 10 ipc adv in NO’s equaling 3 units per turn helps mitigate the all or nothing of some bid placements and helps you potentially recover from bad dice given all the G1-2 and a J1-2 attacks.

[allies_fly]

@DarthMaximus:

I would either move the ftr further inland with another China inf added for cover or removing some J inf to make it unattackable or such a low odds attack that if they try and fail they could be royally screwed.

I’d also remove the restrictions on their movement and give them the ability to enter any China, Japan, or UK territory.  Can’t go into Red (Russia).

You can’t do both.  The chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

[DarthMaximus]

I don’t think Japan would leave too many unguarded trns, they still start with 3 ac + ftrs, 1 ca, 1 bb.

You’d probably have to shuffle around some starting units, but it shouldn’t be a problem for Japan to still safely take all the coastal ter and a few of the boarder china ter meaning the ftr couldn’t reach the coast.  The only issue would be landing in Ind, but if it does that it can’t participate in the land battles deeper in China and still safely land.

I do think the China ftr could flee when the odds got overwhelming for Japan to take, but that shouldn’t be an issue when it comes to trns given the UK and US have plently of planes on the board that are just as likely to threaten a defenseless trn.

Also the ftr couldn’t flee to the West since Kaz and Novo are Red, it would have to go South East and if the Ftr started on say (chi - furthest ter West, it may never get the chance to fly to ind considering the J1 and J2 attacks may keep india out of range or it may just be an unsafe landing spot.

But I agree It would definitely require some testing though, since if China gets a bit too strong too early it will probably be an easy Allied victory.

[TG Moses VI]

But I agree It would definitely require some testing though, since if China gets a bit too strong too early it will probably be an easy Allied victory.

That is a big issue.  IF the game is “balanced” then any help we give to China will swing the game.

ie, if we beef up China (even if it’s move the Ftr and/or +1 inf), the Axis should some type of benefit elsewhere.

[Builder_Chris]

…but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

Granted its been a while since I’ve played the classic A&A, but the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

Sometimes I think it would have been better in a different stating location too; but only when I’m playing the Allies (of course), because if I’m the Axis, I think the placement is great!  But we could say that about a lot of starting locations of pieces.  The fact is, due to player sequencing, there are some units at the start of the game that are just pretty much toast for any Power (Axis OR Allies).  Something has to get killed round one (it is a war game…after all) so I don’t see what that issue is with the china fighter especially when compared to the past 2 games.  It dies J1 just like it does in AAR.

The Chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t really agree with this. So the fighter would be used as it works for everyone else instead of having its own rules; great.  What’s the big deal about it being able to hit lone transports, so can every one else’s fighters/bombers.  The China fighter will most likely die round one anyway (before it even gets the chance); and if for some odd reason Japan lets it survive long enough to hit lone transports, you could bet it probably wouldn’t get the chance to do it again before Japan would realize the error of their ways and hit that thing ASAP (or at the minimum Japan would secure enough of China’s territories to make it impossible to fly that sucker out to sea and back to a viable landing spot).

That is a big issue.  IF the game is “balanced” then any help we give to China will swing the game.

Yea…if they get too strong they are no longer the speed bump they are in the AAR and AAC but an actual Power.  But so far, they feel like a good mix between the old and the desire for the new to always be more (IMO).  :|

[Napoleon]

First time i played, China was dead before i could say WTF. Since then, in 1941, i did some changes, not big ones but china can now live a little longer. I just put 1 inf in the 3 vacant territory, so China have at least 1 inf in all territory. When you play U.S.A you ask for reinforcement from Russia and China can be defended for some extra turns. China will die eventually but in games that i tried this, China lived longer and did some damage to Japan and forced Japan to put more troops against China.

Thats all, you guys have tried other things?

[DarthMaximus]

@Builder_Chris:

…but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

Granted its been a while since I’ve played the classic A&A, but the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

But in the earlier versions China was not a minor power, it was just US forces.  So essentially the US loses a couple inf and a ftr before they start.  The US could always rebuy ftrs and eventually fly them to Asia, but with China as a “Minor Power” you cannot rebuy the China ftr.  If the intention was to keep China as a “speed bump”, why give them minor power status?  Why not just keep them fully US?  I think the same thing could have been accomplished by just keeping China part of the US, putting 1-3 more inf scattered around (no inf reinforcement per turn) to start with the caveat they couldn’t leave China and you get the same thing, Japan killing approximately 4-8 China inf on J3-4 in the last China territory.
This is my main issue, why introduce new rules for China only to have them never be used.  It would be like saying Russia automatically gets Heavy Bombers, but they can’t buy a bombers.

My impression (given the current '41 setup and description of China in the rules) is they wanted a little more than a “speed bump” type atmosphere, yet had trouble (or not enough time) finding the balance between China being annoying to Japan and China being too overwhelming so in an effort to fix other areas China was left on the back burner and figured “speed bump” status was good enough.

[Jennifer]

I think the solution to the Chinese Fighter problem would be to allow an American Fighter that lands in China and is not used for Combat or Non-Combat that round to be converted to a Chinese fighter if no other Chinese Fighter exists at that time.

In other words, make it replaceable.  It’s gunna be hard to get an American fighter there without moving it for a full game turn and it’ll cost America 10 IPC to build it which is appropriate since the Flying Tigers were American Pilots, American Equipment and working for China.

It also wouldn’t change any of the mechanics of the game, and it’s only one fighter so it wouldn’t be terribly unbalancing.  Especially since you are giving Japan 1 round to move into position to attack it and 1 round to kill it before it becomes Chinese. (USA lands the plane.  1 Round goes by where the plane is changed from US to China and then China can move the plane.)

[axis_roll]

@Builder_Chris:

The Chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t really agree with this. So the fighter would be used as it works for everyone else instead of having its own rules; great.  What’s the big deal about it being able to hit lone transports, so can every one else’s fighters/bombers.  The China fighter will most likely die round one anyway (before it even gets the chance); and if for some odd reason Japan lets it survive long enough to hit lone transports, you could bet it probably wouldn’t get the chance to do it again before Japan would realize the error of their ways and hit that thing ASAP (or at the minimum Japan would secure enough of China’s territories to make it impossible to fly that sucker out to sea and back to a viable landing spot

The big deal is that USUALLY they don’t have to worry about lone trannys getting picked off on C1 or even C2. 
The premise was to move the chinese ftr to keep it alive, so it won’t get killed round one

The only time to slow Japan is before she gets to big.  Early back door US fleet can cause the IJN to sail home for protection.

Adding a rogue Chinese ftr that can pick off transports only compounds this power swing you are discussing.  I have found in these games that the advantage penduleum swings much more quickly from one side to another … either messing with game set-up or actual game play outcomes.