2nd Edition Balance

Hey all, I have played several AA Europe games, and popped my head in on a dozen more, and it seems extremely hard for the Axis to win. The 9 IPC NO for Russia is HUGE, even if Germany waits till G4. The US getting more money also has had a huge effect. Britain need not fear Sealion, since USA has 60 IPC once at war and has no Japan to worry about, and if Germany is insane enough to go Sealion russia becomes even more powerful. Thus, Britain has no reason not to do Taranto AND build an Egypt IC.

I realize that OOB Europe was a cake walk for the Axis, but it seems they vastly overcompensated in 2nd edition. I think at least Italy needs a carrier (the idea of a guy I played with that seems pretty good) or an airbase in N. Italy.

The complete and utter lack of fear of a sealion in Europe (as opposed to the near complete and utter lack of fear in Global) really changes the face of the game, not to mention the 19 extra IPC in  easy NO’s to the Allies.

@Zhukov44:

Axis ends up having alot of incentive to sit tight and wait till G4 to attack Russia.

Which makes for a pretty boring game IMO. The first time I played I didn’t read the NO’s first (since I was under the impression it was basically Alpha 3) and did a G1.

Big mistake with that much dough for Russia.

@Karl7:

I realize that OOB Europe was a cake walk for the Axis

Really?   :-o

OBB was a sure thing for the Allies.  No way the Axis could win, ever.

I was talking about Europe only, not Global. I witnessed on TripleA over and over G1 attacks going swimmingly.

@Karl7:

RocMonster has it completely right.Â

Even if germany took the USSR, US was too powerful.  No way Germany would get cairo before Germany was crushed.  The ability to place a 10 factory on any 3 territory was just too powerful for the US.Â

It looks like ROC was talking about 2e, in which case, at least since Alpha 2, US Major IC’s can only be built on originally US territories.

It sounds like, ROC, you find a lot of infantry stack games. I realize this doesn’t work for everybody, but we add a ton of house rules as NA’s at my house. Rommel is a special tank that can have 1 tank and 1 mech built on his space per turn, Russia can build 2 tanks per turn for 9 IPC (but all after that are normal price) Britain can have montgomery who boosts attack and defense of british tanks in same territory (this one is almost too powerful), the improved mechanization tech which makes a pair of mech and tank cost 9 while having tanks boost mechs to 2 attack.

There are a bunch of changes that I keep seeing that don’t take care of the real innovation that needs to be made; getting away from inf stacks two spaces away trading territories until someone can make a push. It seems like with this World War I game coming out, if it is pretty similar to A&A, people are going to be complaining that it’s too similar to World War II in gameplay style, when in reality these big stacks of infantry in WWII are more like WWI.

@theROCmonster:

Well sadly that is how the game is played, and my Germany doesn’t have only infantry. I just find that when transporting men the best combo is all infantry with 1-2 arty thrown in with extra money. Just get as many units as you can on the field of play, and before you attack that is when you build the tanks. I like your houserules. They seem like a lot of fun, but you’re right on the montgomery one. I don’t see that being too powerful until late game, but when the battle for germany comes down and UK has 10 tanks all rolling at 4… Though the same could be said for germany getting rommels 1 tank 1 mech on is space. That is probably the most powerful, since Germany’s problem is his supply lines. I could see this breaking the game very easily.

Yeah we are definitely not at all confident the game is balanced with our NA’s, but the selection process of them (choose 1 for each power and roll for 1) keeps the game fresh. If it ever does bog down to inf stacks, there was a decent amount of cool things before that.

BTW, I tossed our NA’s up:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29513.0

(None of these were used in games online where I thought axis had it too hard.)

@Spendo02:

I would enjoy playing with your house rules, particularly based on the layer of immersion it provides.  I know some purists may not like some or all of the rules for a multitude of reasons, but that added layer of depth (such as the commanders) surely makes for a more intriguing game from my perspective.

I also wouldn’t mind a Banzai opportunity for Japanese units on an island facing an Amphib.  Not sure how to implement it, but something along the lines of after the first round of combat if the Japanese are outnumbered in units 2-1 on the island, the Japanese can opt to Banzai where the units are reversed in the battleboard and Japanese units get a -1 to their rolls for that single round of combat.

What do you mean by purists? (not coming after you, I’m just curious)

I’ll dig up some of my banzai stuff (what I posted is like draft/arrangement 4 or 5)

Some sort-of Banzai type NA’s I’ve had on our charts in the past:

Dug-In Defenders: Subtract 1 from the bombardment value of each enemy ship bombarding an island you own. Your infantry on islands defend at 3 in the first round of land combat.

Banzai Charge: In an attack where you have no land or air units other than infantry, your infantry attack at 2 AFTER the first round of combat (This even includes if you started a battle with units other than infantry, and those units are no longer participating).

An even older one:

Banzai infantry: Japan may purchase Banzai infantry for 4 IPC each. They are treated like infantry, except that when you are in a battle where your ONLY land or air units are Banzai infantry, they attack at 2 and defend at 3.

@Spendo02:

VLV:  Purists, in general don’t want to change the overarching strategy of the game outside of adding a unit here, changing a NO there.  They strive for simply balance so each side has a fair opportunity to win the game.  Some of your rules may imbalance that simplicity equilibrium and add even more layers to the strategy of the game - something a purist may claim “diverges too much from the original game”.

I, however, rather enjoy added layers of intricate strategy  :-D

Ah, now i get what you are saying. I have always been aware that these are more along the line of FLAVOR BLASTED chips, than a nice, well balanced vintage wine.  :-D Both are good, depending on the mood.

Hope I am not violating a “flavor-blasted” trademark there.