Balancing OOB Global

i thought OOB favored the axis ?

most of the changes seem to help the allies through alpha

i may be wrong here, but sealion and crush calcutta both were fairly easy in OOB and even some of the alphas were still a little too easy

My main issue with OOB is the inability to hinder the US income in most any plausible scenario which becomes a factor when USA enters the war.
Giving any significant bid to the Axis would tip the scales too quickly in the early game, and allow them to rush Russia (for example) too fast.

I play mostly OOB as well, simply because the Alpha rules IMO changed fast and kept being in some inconsistent state, so things kept changing. Then it was easier to deal with the hardship and try to beat the odds in OOB IMO. :D

I think the rules in Alpha 3.9 are the only way to balance the game as in OOB the US will become too much of a monster with the easy NO’s and the Major IC’s.

I like A2 with the addition of War with Russia/US if london falls, that has been the most even iteration of the game so far.

Why play OOB if you are on these forums…

Isn’t A3.9 supposed to be the final balanced product?

Slap

Isn’t A3.9 supposed to be the final balanced product?

Well from my ponit of veiw in the games that I have played is that in alpha 3 the axis have the advantege.
3.9 gives them more advantage sure with some incredible planning (like a 15 page breakdown) the allies can almost pull it off.
in my opinion 3.9 just made a bad situation worse.

@Gragor:

3.9 gives them more advantage

How is Alpha 3.9 easier for Axis than the original Alpha 3?

The Allies gained 20 IPC worth of units in key areas and plus a better naval setup.

3.9 was all allied buffs lmao

and seriously if you can understand how to play Axis and Allies Global 1940 (a very complicated monster)…then how hard is it to adjust your playing to the latest official rules

alpha was only in a ‘flux state’ from mid sept. through mid nov. of last year. (TWO WHOLE MONTHS LOL)

and since there has been ONE change in mid feb.

people are incredible

OOB was clearly a rushed product and Larry Harris recognized this and fixed it with consumer input to the best of his ability

most companies rush their product and dont give a damn about fixing it

The balance is not that the Axis are favored, it is that the Allies play too aggressive and play into the Axis hands due to their early advantage in units.  Once the Allies lose their stacks, they are crippled for multiple turns - which swings the economic factor due to time in favor of the Axis.  The key, in my opinion, is to play for the long game as the Allies:

Defend London
Take and Deny the Axis Egypt
Never expose your stacks to the Axis until you have no other choice in Russia, China and the Pacific.
Encourage the Axis to over-extend, then pounce.

The economic advantage is in your favor as the Allies, but you have to be patient with it and overlap your agenda with your Allied nations.  The US can advance the UK in the Atlantic by just stacking in places where the UK wants to move.  Same can be said about Anzac in the Pacific.  Let the US handle the actual agenda, let Anzac (and India if they are capable) push the bill and take the territories.

DNG with a NB becomes increasingly valuable for the Allies to project all sorts of chaos for Japan.  It is worth putting no units down for a turn in order to be able to project all over the Axis Pacific map from there.

Much can be learned from looking at the Patton and Monty issue in WW2.  Monty got much of the glory because the US did the heavy lifting to enable him to do so.  Ply a similar strategy in both theaters and you will see results.

The game is not for the Axis to win, but for the Allies to lose.

I dont see your point Spendo02, OOB is unbalanced period

alpha 3.9 is as balanced as it can get

pretty simple

Thats my point - people say all the balance went to the Allies (they needed it).  It isn’t unbalanced at all - and theres no reason to play OOB if you are on this forum and are aware of the Alpha 3.9.

@Spendo02:

Thats my point - people say all the balance went to the Allies (they needed it).  It isn’t unbalanced at all - and theres no reason to play OOB if you are on this forum and are aware of the Alpha 3.9.

couldnt agree more

OOB wasn’t actually all that bad. Axis had to be aggressive and take London or Russia sooner rather than later, that’s all.

USA had insane income, but USA is really far away.

Here is what typically happened. Mexican standoff in pacific. Stalemate in Europe as italy was sunk super easy, uk probably liberated by then, USA showed up and is shipping men into europe.  Germany either took russia (in which case axis will win the game eventually) or Germany has a strong foothold.

So it either ends up in a stalemate, allies income too high for axis so allies win, or axis rushed and won.

@Xandax:

My main issue with OOB is the inability to hinder the US income in most any plausible scenario which becomes a factor when USA enters the war.
Giving any significant bid to the Axis would tip the scales too quickly in the early game, and allow them to rush Russia (for example) too fast.

I play mostly OOB as well, simply because the Alpha rules IMO changed fast and kept being in some inconsistent state, so things kept changing. Then it was easier to deal with the hardship and try to beat the odds in OOB IMO. :D

I play OOB but with no NOs except 30 to USA. USA should be a monster because that is the way it was. Anyways, it plays well IMO.

17 bid.

ask a question get a simple answer. 14-20. very similar to the bidding pattern of classic.

@Flying:

I play OOB but with no NOs except 30 to USA. USA should be a monster because that is the way it was. Anyways, it plays well IMO.

Um, I am quite sure that multiple of the NOs help the axis at the start. And with no NO’s italy is doomed to basically pass 20

Yeah, NO’s, while encouraging some repetition in strats, are needed.

I think that the only mayor problem with OOB is that there is no way for allies to prevent Germany taking London unless odd luck, thus giving Germany and Italy too much free space to grow. Allowing countries which capital is lost colecting IPCs and building units is the way to balance this. This is the only must change

In Asia, Japan could abuse their excess of aircraft sending most of them to land before USA can go war, so Japan could smash China, India and Siberia and then, by round 4, bring most of planes to east and fight the yankee navy. AA guns and a non-agression rule will solve this. So in resume I’d suggest these changes:

• Powers act normally (collect money, build stuff, research, etc) after losing their capital but you can still stole the money when you take a capital (this change is vital)
• 1 aa gun for China (Szecwhan probably), 1 aa gun for Siberia (Amur), 1 aa gun for ANZAC (NSW) (optionals)
• Non-agression pact USSR-Japan (choose the one you like more, being mongolians, free IPCs or the attacker pays 15-20 IPCs) (this change is optional but probably needed)
• Maybe you should give Axis the victory if they take 8 cities in Europe map or 6 cities in Pacific map. Allies win taking 14 VCs. (I think this is not really needed unless the rivals are too stubborn with ignore Japan strats, and even then, San Francisco is nearer to Tokyo than Moscow is…) (optional)
• And of course, delete restrictions of movement for China (China should not enter USSR unless that Japan and USSR are at war or unless that western Axis attack China) (this one is optional as well, but will save you from odd glitches in the long run) (Gamerman says that this one is my pet peeve  :lol: )