Do you want europe NAs like in AAR??

[idk_iam_swiss]

meaning a lot less fun. Techs are game ending but can typically be achieved by any side. (especially the way i play with techs larrys way gaurountees they will be universally ignored. as they were.

NAs are those things that give specific countries specific bonuses. for example Russian winter or Japanese bonsai soldiers Typically made the games NO FUN. I cant tell you how un-fun it was to stay up past midnight playing with friends and have that dumb russian winter. Plus america had better “NAs” while japans “NAs” were terrible. They were subjective. and dont even get me started on how awful the axis advantages were when compared to the allied.

[finnman]

@idk_iam_swiss:

meaning a lot less fun. Techs are game ending but can typically be achieved by any side. (especially the way i play with techs larrys way gaurountees they will be universally ignored. as they were.

NAs are those things that give specific countries specific bonuses. for example Russian winter or Japanese bonsai soldiers Typically made the games NO FUN. I cant tell you how un-fun it was to stay up past midnight playing with friends and have that dumb russian winter. Plus america had better “NAs” while japans “NAs” were terrible. They were subjective. and dont even get me started on how awful the axis advantages were when compared to the allied.

I know the allies advantages were so much better

[Guest]

Just do away with these rules and keep everyone on an even playing field.

[i rock]

i think the axis NAs are better cause allied NAs seem to be one time only, like colonial garrison, french resistents, russian winter, joint stirke.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Yeah cuz we all know the war was such_an even playing field_

[The Fire Knight]

Although a lot of the na’s were good, from what I remember (haven’t touched revised since I’ve played aa50 and aap40) lend-lease was the killer one for the axis. It in effect put the Germany at 40 ipcs against russia 24 ipcs, like 15 of britain’s ipcs (which I used to invade norway and just send units and fighters every turn into russia which became russian) and anything that America could give (which was quite a lot seeing as it could dominate Japan w/o too much trouble with help from India (made possible by another allied bonus the colonial garrison). In the games I played as the allies, I was able to dominate as Russia. They were always on the offensive.

[Guest]

@idk_iam_swiss:

Yeah cuz we all know the war was _such_an even playing field

It is more difficult to balance a game with variables such as NA’s__

[idk_iam_swiss]

True. I like them both. Personally I dont like that technology is obtainable by any country. Meaning russia can develop radar. Which is unlikely. It would be cool if each country could have 3 technologies they COULD invest in. The way I do techs is you can gamble for 5 ipc and maybe get it. OR you can pay 15 no gambling and get it. Because thats how war techs really work. You throw money at it. Stuff will get invented.

[i rock]

so your saying paying 15 bucks as germany you get jets?

[SgtBlitz]

@i:

so your saying paying 15 bucks as germany you get jets?

Hell, yeah, man, I would like this idea a lot more.  Germany already had the tech going into the war, they just never developed it early enough…  If you were taking over as a new Supreme Leader at game start you could take other options available.  I like this idea better than simply rolling for it as tech and hoping you get a historical result.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Thank you and yes. Technological advancements are really based on money. and a substantial investment ALWAYS got results. At least in this time period. And in this specific war.

[Omega]

Balancing the game with na will be hard. In revised, allied NA were so much better than axis NA. Joint strike, Ic for UK… Lend lease…

[Guest]

Their is enough randomness in this game due to the dice, we don’t need to throw in NA’s as well.

[lozmoid]

I am not a fan of them and much prefer National Objectives.

[Guest]

@Lozmoid:

I am not a fan of them and much prefer National Objectives.

I am not a big fan of the NO’s either.

[zooooma]

@Brain:

It is more difficult to balance a game with variables such as NA’s

Optional rules (such as NAs) actually facilitate game balancing.  If one side has the edge, simply use an optional rule which helps the other side.

The problem with Revised NAs was that they were meant to be doled out in even quantities.  By the book, you couldn’t give the Axis powers NAs without also giving the Allies NAs.  If we’d been given free reign over the inclusion of NAs, surely there’d be a subset we could include that would be balance (or better balanced then none at all).

My favourite way to “bid” in revised is to let one player chose which NAs are in play for all countries, and let the other player pick their side.  This adds a skill in recognising the power shifts each NA will produce, and much variety too.  I think it’s more interesting than an IPC bid.

I liked playing the MB edition with no R1 attack, and German Jets and Japanese Super Subs.  I like the closed Dardanelles rule in A&A 50 (I haven’t played with the escorts, as I’m afraid they would help Germany too much).  These help provide balance.

NAs (and other options) are also good for a handicap if the game is balanced but the skill levels are not.

Me, I’d like to see NAs in the global game but without the even distribution restrictions seen in revised.

@Brain:

Just do away with these rules and keep everyone on an even playing field.

Nobody’s on an even playing field.  A&A is not even remotely symmetric.

@Brain:

Their is enough randomness in this game due to the dice, we don’t need to throw in NA’s as well.

NAs neither add nor detract from randomness.

[zooooma]

@i:

i think the axis NAs are better cause allied NAs seem to be one time only, like colonial garrison, french resistents, russian winter, joint stirke.

The one time NAs were crushing, though.  Even with only one use, the Axis would need to defend against the threat of their use the whole game.

The Russians could convert planes and use them on the same turn.  Even if they never do this, Germany has to account for the possibility when deciding what’s needed to hold their Eastern front.

The Joint Strike was deadly too.  Germany would need to defend France against the possibility of a joint strike every turn.

The Allies could launch a joint strike, land the air units in Russia, and Russia could use them again to attack the East.  Nothing the Axis had could compare to this.

Colonial Garrison wasn’t one time only, as the IC could be used throughout the game.

[i rock]

i ment its used once and its over like u-boat interdiction as long as you have a sub the brits us lose 1 ipc colonial garrison you play it once and no more na.

[Guest]

Zooma, I hear your point, but I think the game should be balanced during playtesting by adjusting starting forces.

[zooooma]

Ideally the game would be balanced OOB.  But it’s never happened.

Playtesters are dealing with more then one variable at a time, and have time and human resources in which to figure it all out.  It’s commendable the games come as closely balanced as they do.

Anyway, every A&A game ever has required a bid (adjusting the starting forces) to level the field.  This will always be the case.  NAs and other optional rules provide an alternative to the standard bid, and some people love the extra flavour.  Best of all, being optional means nobody has to use them.  In this way they can only enhance the game but cannot spoil it.  Those who don’t like them can simply ignore them; playing with a bid or straight OOB.