After Three Games of Global

Rock,

Play a few more games before throwing out the “its broken” card. Your axis may find that they can overcome. I have seen it. Also many games have been called too short (after 5 turns or so it seems) before a good counter can be made. Over time granted the allies will win but a smart axis will not “go for broke” on a plan that does not offer alternatives if dice become too much of a factor.

Your right Rockin,

I made a mistake about saying you actually said it, but your post has an underlying meaning as it is, no offense intended.  Also a sample of 5 games is pretty low when statistically speaking about outcomes.

An analysis based on principles (of an old game and its mechanic and even anecdotal evidence of others opinions on a board) is still just opinion. Statistical analysis aside, play the game, looking for balance is a lost cause unless its real life and you have a lawyer and this is a game. The IPM (infantry push mechanic which has been around since the first edition) seems alive and well in this game for the axis, try not waste IPC’s on a lost cause such as a German Atlantic fleet or a one hit wonder like sea lion and see how hard it is for America to break the wall of infantry you can amass in Europe. Even if unbalanced it is still a game that I would play just for the fun of it and a chance of winning. My group has been playing A&A since the eighties,  AA50 since it came out and with no bids, we have now moved on to Global. The Axis could win most of the AA50 games based on IPM, not bidding for an extra troop here or a transport there. Once again an opinion, yours to take as an attack or information on the subject.

I said “first principles” which means a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. Not from what I know of other games.

But you said:

Yep, 5 is very low. That said, it is not an analysis based on statistics,but an analysis based on first principles, plus anecdotal evidence from the boards

Which means you have an awareness of the situation and others propositions and assumptions, and your forming an opinion based on it.

And then I said:

Once again an opinion, yours to take as an attack or information on the subject.

And my counter:

Everyone was saying that Anniversary was broke too when it came out, that the Axis had an easy victory. Nowadays, very sophisticated Allied strats have come out, and I willing to say that game is balanced to within a few IPCs. Will such balancing strats materialize for Global? Perhaps, but the onus is on those who claim Axis is in the game with an (nearly) even chance, not on those who say “ok, but how?”

You brought “other games” and their mechanic into the discussion. Obviously this will lead nowhere. So I sign off from this discussion Rockin, good luck in A&A

I will break my vow of leaving this discussion.

i write for a living, and english is my first language, so i don’t think it’s me, despite my disinterest in caps

A disagreement does not mean an attack on ones intelligence, but for you it seems so, and qualification of your background seems important for you. So I will indulge you. Writing for a living does not mean your good at it, example: some doctor had to be the last of his class in grades but he is still a doctor. I understand what “first principle” means. English is my first language also. I have served in the military in a command situation and understand warfare and its logistics (does this mean I’m good at A&A no, does it mean I have a different view yes) And what is with the Caps comment? What are you referring to?

And here is another you will never find in my posts a emoticon:  :?

Rockin,

I think we have had a disagreement that is not easily defused by the medium of posting boards.

To your last post:

i dont think it is time to say the game is broken

axis seem to be having a hard time of it.

We are in agreement on one of these two statements. I am not taking issue with either since my support of them are my opinion. And I offer my hand (of course symbolically since this is a board) as a sign of an agreement to disagree.

Well met my friend shakes hand.

But you said! But you said! But you said!

You guys sound like a pair of old ladies at a quilting B.

The issues come from the 1939 start date and the political rules.  It’s inherently impossible to perfectly balance, because you don’t know what people want to do, what they are going to build when not at war, and that determines the best turn for Axis attacks also enough.

The 39 start also means the axis have a STEEP climb to reach relative economic parity, and if they F*ck up early along the way, or gets dice it Exponentially slows them down.

Time will tell with this game, we can’t call it “broken” until there is a strategy (Japan or America) that is so tight and perfect that solid dice can’t even prevent it. (Like A Brazil Factory in Revised, or German Super-Stack in original Europe)

A Brazil factory never beat anyone in our revised games. A super stack can be countered with a defensive super stack, neither made an assured game win.

@rockrobinoff:

Simply put, we are running out of ideas for Germany/Italy. Zooooma has worked out Sea Lion in detail, and has concluded that Sea Lion is only worth it if UK skimps enough on defense.

Whoa!

We are just scratching the surface of ideas (I really don’t have much time foe A&A).  I’m still exploring Sea Lion in conjunction with A Japanese invasion of America.  My Mediteranean game plan has been neglected  - I’ve only just clued in to a decent Axis start there.  And I’ve devoted next to zero thought about solid Barbarossa play.

Our last second game involved a half baked unconventional strategy on my part that I was really just feeling out.  I abandoned this last game because I simply didn’t have time to adjust for your preemptive response to said strategy.  So I played Barabrossa which I hadn’t thought about much at all.