Well, it may be 50-50, but is only that way with very obscure strategies. With common strats, it will of course always depend on the experience of the player, the dice, and the inexperience of another player to your strat
when speaking of game balance we are always assuming perfect play and perfectly average dice. and it would be an absolute miracle to make a incongruous game (the map of the world in this case) and wide variety of differing numbers of units and types, and have it turn out perfectly balanced. even with years of toil. chess is balanced because of geometric and force equality, and even that it is not perfect, for the slight pull white gets because of the right to move first.
The problem is that there is no one on earth who will play the game even close to perfectly. That is probably the source of most concerns
There is really only one guiding princable at the core of these new games, and that is the objectives. In order to win, the axis must capture 14 victory cities, and keep hold of one of their 3 cpaitals, while the allies have to capture the 3 axis capitals. Whatever strat you come up with, it has to answer this one question, “How will this bring me closer to captuering a victory city/capital?” If you cant answer this question, or see a way to benifit towards this end, then you probably shouldnt do it. Move only when it benifits you, as Sun Tzu once said
Fallacious.
I need to point out that people need to stop assuming that Larry Harris is unable to make a game. If you think that the game is imbalanced it is probably because you need to sit down and think up some strategies for whatever side you feel is underpowered. Nerfing the opposition is not a viable fix, it is a band aid to people’s inability to be creative.
Even if something did turn out to be imbalanced then it would be impossible to find out this soon after release.
I say people show some respect and keep their temper tantrums to themselves. If they can’t phrase things with some logic and nicely then perhaps they should abide by the age old saying and say nothing at all. The game is not broken, you are broken. Stop complaining about the US income and use your brain to discover axis strategies that work.
This is directed at no one in particular but rather at the community as a whole, myself included. Lets stop jumping to conclusions and instead be thankful for the great job and effort that went into this fantastic game. If we really thought we could do so much better than perhaps we should have done so and created our own game. Since we haven’t lets give credit where credit is due.
Thanks for a great game Larry.
Okay. Now please support your assertion
There is really only one guiding princable at the core of these new games, and that is the objectives. In order to win, the axis must capture 14 victory cities, and keep hold of one of their 3 cpaitals, while the allies have to capture the 3 axis capitals. Whatever strat you come up with, it has to answer this one question, “How will this bring me closer to captuering a victory city/capital?” If you cant answer this question, or see a way to benifit towards this end, then you probably shouldnt do it. Move only when it benifits you, as Sun Tzu once said
true dat.
How long was Revised out before people started using a bid to balance it out? I think it is way too early to determine that AAG40 is broken.
The problem is that there is no one on earth who will play the game even close to perfectly. That is probably the source of most concerns
you seem to be misunderstanding me, so perhaps i am being unclear. so, simply put, the ability of the players involved is irrelevant to the discussion of how well a game has been balanced. how can you take issue with that?
I think the issue most people are taking is that the inference is that G40 is unbalanced. Granted, in a perfectly balanced game, it wouldnt matter how good the players, at the begining everyone would have an equal chance, like Risk. However, this game is trying to recreate history, meaning that things can be perfectly balanced, like in risk, or the game would make to sense.
That is the point CLYDE!
Nobody need this game to be perfectly balanced!
We are palying Axis vs. Allies, not Risk, Dust or Attack!
This game has an historical background and Larry took care of it.
I like to play the axis underdog, who terrors the world with “Blitzkrieg” and finnaly surrenders unconditional to the economic powers of the Allies and Russia. :evil:
…and I like to kick those axis hordes back to where they come from, too, hoping that the russians hold the line. :lol:
This is the main stream of this games.
I think the consensus and point I was trying to make has been made. Keep attacks on the game away from these boards. The game is balanced as far as we can tell and new strategies just need to be created and found. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.
However, this game is trying to recreate history
this game is not trying to recreate history, it is using history to inform a boardgame, to provide a backdrop and a theme, not to as accurately model WW2 as possible. far from it.
this game is not trying to recreate history, it is using history to inform a boardgame, to provide a backdrop and a theme, not to as accurately model WW2 as possible. far from it.
Really? How is the initial set-up not ment to be a recreation of the historical situation of 1940? I think thats the crux of the whole game, taking the situation of 1940, and seeing what YOU can do with it, unless im mistaken.
That is the point CLYDE!
Nobody need this game to be perfectly balanced!
So we are in agreement then? cause that was the point I was making
That’s it. 8-)
Getting victory cities technically wins the game, but intermediary goals are necessary to capture the number needed. Trying to achieve some economic objectives and strike material blows to the enemies can put you in that superior position you need to meet the actual win condition.
Writing a poem and put it in his signature… :?
:-P
hey does any one know what larry is planing next?(retirement maybe :-o)
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2522
I think thats the crux of the whole game, taking the situation of 1940, and seeing what YOU can do with it
Clearly not. A&A is such an incredibly superficial representation of the world in 1940 that to suggest it to be a simulation is absurd. combine that with extreme unrealism in terms of rules, and access to information, what we have here is an excellent board game that simply bares a resemblance to WW2 and nothing more.
I need to point out that people need to stop assuming that Larry Harris is unable to make a game.
i do not believe that anyone here thinks larry harris is unable to make a game. we are all here because we love to play the great games he makes. however, most of his games have turned out to have balance issues which have been easily fixed with a pre game ipc bid.
If you think that the game is imbalanced it is probably because you need to sit down and think up some strategies for whatever side you feel is underpowered. Nerfing the opposition is not a viable fix, it is a band aid to people’s inability to be creative.
this is bad theory. if i think the game is unbalanced it is because i have played the game and found out it IS imbalanced.
Even if something did turn out to be imbalanced then it would be impossible to find out this soon after release.
it took our group about 3 games to realize that japan was an overwhelming favourite to win pac40. i am not saying that global40 is imbalanced as i have only played less than 10 games, but i am confident with enough plays we will all find out which side is favoured.
Lets stop jumping to conclusions and instead be thankful for the great job and effort that went into this fantastic game. If we really thought we could do so much better than perhaps we should have done so and created our own game. Since we haven’t lets give credit where credit is due.
Thanks for a great game Larry.
i do not think anyone that bought the game should be thankful. i payed $200 for a quality board game and i expect a quality board game.
