Okay, there seem to be a gazillion different options people use to balance the game, and after reading a lot of websites I’ve been convinced that the Axis have it bad without any help. My question is, what game balancing options have you used that make the game
A)The most even, and
B)What options have a basis in history(such as 2 hit BBs seems to)
One other thing-why is there no economic victory for Allies? I think I saw a club that used 110 as their econ. victory value. Does that seem reasonable?
-Mike
Russia restricted and neutral territory is a must. land tank blitz is good too.
110? germany would be gone before that!
Neutral territory and land tank blitz? Aren’t those things both present in the unaltered 2nd and 3rd ed. rules? Or is there some sort of variation with the neutrals and tank blitzing that you’re referencing?
And yeah, 110 for an Allied Econ victory would force them to conquer one of the countries-I think…But doesn’t the 84(or is it 87…its been years since Ive played) Econ Victory for Axis force them to take a capital, too? Whats the point of the Econ Victory, anyway? That I have never understood.
OooOoooO, TG onced showed me a post similar to this. Maybe I can dig it up… (searches aimlessly). Tah-da!
Oppss… not sure how I posted Anonymously…
Moses, that’s a lot of different rule changes to balance the game, and it gives a lot of tech advantages to the Axis. Are all of those necessary to even it out? Does anyobe out there have a favorite mix of options that balances the game? I still havent gotten to play in a while and I’m sure my group will experiment with different options, but I was hoping I could take from everyone else’s experiences.
Actually, I have given up wins a few times from people who refused to surrender. Now I see how we lost Vietnam!
The reason being is that Axis and Allies is geared toward the Allied player(s). Of course none of those disadvantages measures up with what my darling little England has to face, but I leave that to a different story.
From what I have seen used against me, I definitely suggest unlocking Russia restricted, 2-hit battleships, rockets and jet fighters, and A&A:E strat. bombing to even out the sides a bit. But feel free to use whatever sub-sets suit you best.
Sir Yanny, we [American] never lost Vietnam, the South Vietnamese did.
The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years after the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris (notice why all treaties are signed in Paris?) on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides’ forces inside South Vietnam, and a commitment to peaceful reunification.
It’s unfortunate when players won’t acknowledge that they’ve lost. I just ended a game early with a loss to prevent a IPC grabbing-endless-number-changing match. Why delay the inevitable? Move on. There’s always a next game…
What about bidding? (For simplicity’s sake let’s make it an IPC bid that can be used on any Axis territory) Who prefers bidding to adding special rules? I’m not sure which is better, myself, but I’ve played other strategy games, such as Risk, with so many house rules that I can’t adapt to any other rule variations used by people. I’d like to try and avoid that and learn how to play effectively as Axis or Allies with any ruleset.
Not me. I’ll make sure if Great Britain goes down, then it’s to the last man standing. If Britain survived the Blitz, then her countrymen will surely fight to the last man. By doing so I have begotten victory from surefire defeat. Good example, after Germany conquered Russia, she spent all her resources on defeating Britain. All I had left was British held Norway with a few tanks and inf. However, I was able to beat the expected cross channel invasion. Then using my air transport fleet, I landed about 6 inf. to take Karelia. On the subsequent turn, I liberated Russia and brought her back into the war.
“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”
[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-04-22 22:52 ]
Holy moses the vietnam vet
They fought us until we gave up.
If the US wanted to, they could of blown North Vietnam off the face of the earth. We didn’t.
LOL, not in any ways a Vietnam Vet or born even close to that time period. Where did you manage to get that from? But the statement made by Sir Yanny about North Vietnam is more of a misnomer. In the Linebacker I and II aerial offensives, we bombed much of North Vietnam to smoking ruins. In fact, it was the success of the linebacker II operation that persuaded North Vietnam first to cave in and negotiate on the conference table with America, not the other way around.
But the use of nuclear weapons? What’s not to say that Soviet supplied North Vietnamese couldn’t have done the same to us?
“Axis and Allies stands not only as one of the most stupendous works of man, but also as one of the most beautiful of human creations. Indeed, it is at once so great and so simple that it seems to be almost a work of nature.”
[ This Message was edited by: TM Moses VII on 2002-04-23 19:24 ]
