you mean 7 fodder units = 2 more hits only… wow you are nuts.
I still would have liked to seen russia with a bomber added in. sigh.
you just want to play a game where the axis take both uk and calcutta same round and just win or africa gets handed to you on a silver platter. Why not just sit down and say axis win and walk away. Can the allies win after that? sure but it is highly unlikely, axis won 70% of the games in the older version of A3, now it is more 50-55% axis win and you complain?
OOB and A2 sucked for a multitude of reasons already discussed on previous forums.
you are not making any sense. please play the game before offering criticism.
~
I don’t play on this forum, because I got to type every move and check unit consistency… also bid rules are different (no 1 unit per territory limit which I dislike, yamamoto dislikes that in regards to aa50). However I recognize good players like yam and zhukov. Garg is entertaining and usually has sound strategies when he does go crazy. The main thing is, I only play live games, the fact that I am about to do napoleonic wars on this forum is so out of the norm for me (and I picked france, because they are usually ganged up on so that should be fun).
I do feel live games at home with friends had an equal impact as this forum. Global is more toward the avid Axis and allies fan than it is to a casual board game audience. Revised / v4 is more toward the casual gamer, it is a smaller map and faster game. AA50 is a middle. global is just too much for a casual group.
Point is lots of criticisms came from all directions. People wanted a more objective oriented game to draw action and people also wanted game balance. Capital battles should not be a walk in the park the opposite faction should be able to respond properly and find success.
If USA has to go full pacific to stop a Japan win there is no liberating london, nothing stops italy from africa, and russia can’t hold out forever against germany… you may as well play something different. so the 7 fodder units actually made more realistic losses for germany and you can still take london on G4 no matter what the allies do (though russia is even crazier at this point if he bought aggressively).
Axis players have 2 gripes, one is italy / medit / africa and the other is not gaining an income advantage over the allies (if you do it is because you have the VCs to win the game and it is over anyway).
Allies players have a list of gripes, mostly europe related still… some calcutta gripes and some japan smacking the soviet far east territories up and going anti russia.
The italy issue, germany can just use air to clear things out for italy, also if you really love african play reserve southern france for germany or buy naval g1 and g2 and sail it in. It is not hard.
allies can just respond in a manner they do not prefer. like if japan goes anti russia, you could just go KJF and as long as uk pac is making 20+ it can wall off egypt after russia goes or do split income and fly into russia two rounds earlier than you normally would.
anyway axis does much better in low luck games axis do more attacks and does not have to compensate for luck. dropping men into europe is difficult because it either A) gets strafed B) has the exact number of united to defend the drop C) if you drop a mid size stack of say 10 guys and 16 air units with 4 inf and an art kills it all in one shot and 1 art is left.
japan also hits things at far less risk and germany clears the medit naval out at less risk. send 2 fighters you kill a cruiser and the cruiser only rolls 1 time where as in a dice game 2 fighters can miss and if the cruiser misses well it gets a second chance at hitting again. little things like that adds up.
the game slightly favors axis, but it is more apparent in a low luck game.
the drawback for allies in a dice game involves the rounds where russia does more than 1 or 2 attacks on germany units (which is why people avoid doing multiple attacks as russia).