Not seeing it

[Funcioneta]

@MaherC:

Landing in CA/MEX/AK does nothing to the US.   Ok, so I take 1 turn off, grab 10 tanks and push your out.  Good waste of $ for Japan, while I now have Remaining Armor to load back up on TR’s.

It’s simple math. The US has WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much money to burn off in the Atlantic.

10 tanks are 60 IPCs … are you really sure that they are better spent in defending land units that cannot retake islands instead of in a Pacific fleet? What are you going to do if Japan has another load of infantery+planes to counter attack that? Like, say, 8 inf + 6 to 8 fighters. Even if you killed like 8-10 jap infs the first round, the tanks cost more than the two loads of inf. Mechs lack offensive punch and if you keep fighters for that duty, they’re not fighting against Germany or aiding to take islands as their duty should be. Of course, you can start buying inf at California as in later versions, but this time Canada is much longer … units defending the West Coast will be used just for defense and will never reach to Europe. And Japan can potentially colect like 100 IPCs if the Pacific is left by the allies. Are you sure that you can hold against such superior income? Remember that you’ll colect 70 IPCs as much if you try ignore Japan, and that if USA takes Brazil

You can’t ignore Japan unless that Japan is so silly to ignore their true enemy: USA. Annoying Siberia is fun and surely can still be done even if you attack mainland America, but the main target for Japan is America, never Moscow. If Japan doesn’t keep USA honest, Axis deserve lose

[Cixelsyd]

New to the boards, but I’ve been lurking for a while now.
I’ve played a decent amount of AA50 and of course AA classic, but unfortunately only 1 game of global so far (it’s hard to get people in on it for some reason).

I do agree with the first post, the game does seem to lean to the allies. I think how much is the question.
I did win my first global playing as Germany, but I think the allies made mistakes a seasoned player wouldn’t have.

I broke my lurker status, because I wanted to know if anyone has thought of allowing the US NO to be convoyed?
Ideally this would keep the US from doing an Atlantic dump and at the same time address the issue of the US income getting out of hand.

[WILD BILL]

@MaherC:

Landing in CA/MEX/AK does nothing to the US.   Ok, so I take 1 turn off, grab 10 tanks and push your out.  Good waste of $ for Japan, while I now have Remaining Armor to load back up on TR’s.

It’s simple math. The US has WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much money to burn off in the Atlantic.

I can only hope that the game truely wasn’t playtested, or they were told that the Allies should win 90% of the time.

Something tells me that in these groups that have the Axis winning 50/50 or more, the better players are taking the axis as it is the harder side.   you put the guys who are drinking, don’t really play, or are new on the allies, and a few mistakes are made and taken advantage of.

As far as testing I can’t see a mandate that the allies should win most games. I think they may have missed some stuff due to time restraints though.  I would think the testers were accomplish players, and played both sides.

I had to LOL when you said axis wins must be due to better players on that side, or the allies must be drinking to much. Maybe its the opposite in your group, and its the axis that are partying to much causing them to have an error in judgment  :-D

Anyway I think this game may evolve for awhile yet. Right now there is a movement to give Japan an extra 10 ipc’s when not at war w/western allies (that should help try it). If you think about how the axis really can’t disrupt the US income unless they go balls to the walls for the continental US. Those 3 tt are worth 72 ipc’s (once at war). I think that if you give it some time, you might see the US at war bonus broken down. I don’t think there will be any type of split US income, but part of their NO might be severed off and put into bonuses on the pac side in global. Larry is listening to concerns, and he is very approachable on his site.  BE PATIENT

[kungfujew]

I have to agree with Funcioneta.  I’ve unfortunately never had the opportunity to play Japan  and have the US ignore me.  If that were to happen… Well I’m already drooling.  Imagine you’re playing Pac40 and the US builds nothing?  How fast would you win?  With that much coin you could pull your whole fleet west past india and still be able to drop 300 IPC’s in navy when the US realized what a dumb mistake they made.  Forget the preset openings and be creative.  Sure the axis have a greater lurning curve.  And sure if you play long enough the allies will win, but that’s the point.  The economics aren’t supposed to line up, no matter how long you play unless you take EVERYthing.  The only advantage the axis have is initiative.  You NEED to set the pace, pick the battles and direct the war to where you need it.  Forget the cookie cutter openings.  Can your starting units push the reds back far enough that their counter attack hits your fresh lines of infantry?  Are you building your units for the next turn, the turn after or 3-5 turns ahead.  The axis powers need to have serious long term plans and build win the winning the war in mind, not just winning the next battle.

[chompers]

You can have the best of both worlds with the US.  Build up the fleet you’re going into Europe with in the Pacific, massing @ Hawaii…  You force Japan to play somewhat defensively and thus slow down its early growth a little bit, and then when the time is right you build a Naval base @ SE Mexico or Central America and then its 2 turns of movement from Hawaii to Gibraltar.  For extra laughs, wait till Germany is making headway into Russia and its stacks are far from home.

[rockrobinoff]

i’d like to add that i would be loathe to put much stock in multiplayer games, and the conclusions one might draw from them. heads up games between experts and the perfect coordination of forces that result are really the only way to go, and if your multiplayer games have that perfect coordination, then i dare say there must be de facto persons in “charge” so to speak of the allies and axis - dictating play, and the multiplayer nature of the game only an illusion. compromise has no place in a game of A&A.

that said, i am forced to agree that the allies are looking good thus far in this game.

[MaherC]

you can’t compare pac40 to global.  japan loses no’s out the wazu in g40 (dei/malaya&hongkong/phillipines) and the US starts at 17 v. 52.

Japan can drool all it wants, but if the US is dumping 82 into Europe, there’s no way to help Germ, esp if Taranto has shut italy down.

[kungfujew]

Ummm, I don’t think the game was designed to be a one on one match-up over a multiplayer scenario.  I daresay that many problems only arise when you have one whole side being controlled by one person and one faction moves soley to support the others on their team or having everyone move in rediculously perfect harmony, likely in a way that you would never have in a real multiplayer game.  If you want that kind of game and descover that it’s not balanced for scripted movesets perfected over dozens of games with all sides moving in perfect sync then either realize your playing the wrong game or just use a bid and be done with it.  The only balance that really matters is the multiplayer one, 'cause if you try to balance the game for the “perfect move match up” then anyone who doesn’t use those moves are screwed.

[Canuck12]

I’m going to step in and agree with Gargantua and kungfujew’s first post:

This is the most complex AA game ever produced. This aint your old Revised edition or even AA50. It’s at least 4 times as complicated as either of those games and I think it does a better job of accurately reflecting the real situation in the war.

How many wars have been won by tremendous expansion…?         Keep thinking and get back to me.

My point is this: The Axis task is, by nature, extraordinarily difficult. How do you maintain all of the territory and associated supply lines and defense necessary for a large empire?

This is the challenge that has plagued every expansionist leader in the history of the world and it happens to be difficult for the WW2 axis too! They committed one of the classic blunders! (See: Princess Bride)

That said, it is not impossible. Learn from history.

Lesson 1) Italy was a miserable mess in the real war: Germany needs to invest significant effort in ensuring this does not happen. This also redistributes the spoils of war in a way that prevents a giant (and thus vulnerable) German empire.

Lesson 2) Germany should have never given Britain the chance to hit them back as hard as they did. Theories as to why Germany never invaded the UK are traded all the time in historical circles: end the threat from the UK as soon as you can.

Lesson 3) Japan was bogged down in China from ‘33 to ‘45. They never committed the necessary resources to get the job done and it cost them. Take care of China early or they will be a constant nuisance.

These are just 3 basic tenants (1 for each power) that I think are necessary to win as the Axis in Global. Gargantua wins as the Axis because he takes these realities and given and commits to them.

These same realities exist for AA50 but we take them for granted. How many axis victories have you had when Germany leaves the British fleet intact? How many when Germany doesn’t commit enough resources to Egypt and loses Africa? How many when Italy foolishly squanders their Navy? How many when Japan docks its fleet after turn 3 and builds only ground units?

This game is more complex and will require us to combine these assumptions with new more nuanced observations about the necessities of war. A tougher learning curve for the axis is assumed simply because the nature of what they are required to accomplish is more difficult. Be creative, you’ll figure something out ;-)

[MaherC]

“figuring something out” means cookie cutter moves and play.  blah.

[kungfujew]

No, if you played any other wargames you’d see that figure something out means come up with a new plan (especially as the axis when you have the initiative and can direct the war, so the allies have to think on their feet and won’t know just how to stop you), and seeing it through.  You can brainstorm a set of goals and try different ways to acheive them each time, you just need to play any strategy smart and leave yourself able to capitalize on your opponants mistakes.  Cokkie cutter games kill that fun because there’s none of that.  One on One games have none of that since everyone works as a complete team.  Etc…

[rockrobinoff]

@kungfujew:

Ummm, I don’t think the game was designed to be a one on one match-up over a multiplayer scenario.  I daresay that many problems only arise when you have one whole side being controlled by one person and one faction moves soley to support the others on their team or having everyone move in rediculously perfect harmony, likely in a way that you would never have in a real multiplayer game.  If you want that kind of game and descover that it’s not balanced for scripted movesets perfected over dozens of games with all sides moving in perfect sync then either realize your playing the wrong game or just use a bid and be done with it.  The only balance that really matters is the multiplayer one, 'cause if you try to balance the game for the “perfect move match up” then anyone who doesn’t use those moves are screwed.

That’s a fine theory you have there. Unfortunately it is completely unfounded.

1. the rules are designed in such a way that despite any given power doing poorly, as long as their side wins, they win too. if A&A was a ‘real multiplayer’ game (your words) then that would not be the case.

2. there is rich variety in all A&A games, and these ‘cookie cutter’ worked out strats aren’t really all that scripted (again, your words). yes, standard openings get worked out, but that is not any more due to heads up or multiplayer games, but due to A&A players becoming better educated in their A&A game, and irrespective of the format.

[chompers]

Isn’t it logical to assume that as the Axis players learn how to play their side more effectively and are figuring out what they need to do to be competitive, the Allied players should be improving at the same time?  I think the core of Maher’s argument is that amongst players of equal ability, the Allies win a very high percentage of the time.  I haven’t really seen anything on here so far that really addresses that point.

[MaherC]

ty chompers.

[Dark_Destroyer]

You guys are trying to hard to figure out what’s wrong with balancing issue of Global A&A1940.  They screwed up with USA.  2 step fix:  USA can declare war at the very end of turn 4 (after collect income phase) and Japan attacking Anzac and India doesn’t bring USA into the war.  PROBLEM FIXED lol…   :wink:

[Funcioneta]

@rockrobinoff:

1. the rules are designed in such a way that despite any given power doing poorly, as long as their side wins, they win too. if A&A was a ‘real multiplayer’ game (your words) then that would not be the case.

That only means that A&A is not a competitive multiplayer game (like, say, Risk or many eurogames), but a cooperative multiplayer game

[gsh34]

@Dark_Destroyer:

You guys are trying to hard to figure out what’s wrong with balancing issue of Global A&A1940.  They screwed up with USA.  2 step fix:  USA can declare war at the very end of turn 4 (after collect income phase) and Japan attacking Anzac and India doesn’t bring USA into the war.  PROBLEM FIXED lol…   :wink:

This is a powerful statement.  If something must be changed for balance’s sake, and I’m not sure we can totally say that yet, the simpler the solution, the better.

I just conceded a game in which I attacked with Japan on turn one.  On turn three I captured Sydney, Philippines, and Hawaii collecting a total of 72 ipc for J3.  On successive rounds, Japan would’ve collected 65+ and I already had a major complex in Kwangtung turning out 10 units per turn for the mainland.

The problem is that in order to get Japan this big, this fast, you must attack UK and Anzac on J1.  That was a catastrophic success for me because it brought the US into the war on US1 and they were quickly able to crush Germany before they got going.  Now, some of that was do to my mistake as Germany of doing a major complex in Romania on G1, but even if I had done a successful Sealion, having the US in the war on US1 is crushing.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Well, in Risk, as in Diplomacy, you do have to have some cooperation but no specific alliances are forced.

[Karl7]

Having played the axis and having won several times, I will agree the Axis are hard pressed but in no way forlorn to win.  I think the critical move to win is J1 attack. This effectively prevents UK East from reinforcing Egypt, allowing Italy to take Egypt with the forces it has on the African continent, nullifying the effectives of Toronto.  With the southern flank secure for a time, Germany can then isolate UK West with subs (no sea lion), build up its forces and assault the USSR turn 4 (with perhaps an Italy3 can opener attack) with all its got.  The trick then is to defeat the USSR quickly before the US can draw off Axis forces to the West.  In my experience only very savvy Soviet players can effectively withstand the onslaught, and even then if Moscow holds with Leningrad and Stalingrad taken, Germany will be pulling down around 80, enough to hold off while Japan expands.   The game then enters a new phase of actual parity, unless Japan can take India.  Then the allies or on the defensive.

[gsh34]

Karl,

I’m confused.  If you attack UK and Anzac on J1 (which I just did in a game), America is immediately able to declare war.  This has horrible consequences for the European Axis powers so early in the game.  I suspect that if you are winning as the Axis even with a J1 attack on UK/Anzac, your opponent is not of comparable skill as you.

What is the US doing when it is brought into the war so soon?