Because when you have to spend on a crap shoot, just to succeed and get ANOTHER crap shoot for which tech, DDs subs ACs trannies and ftrs seem like much better investments.
No Tech FTW.
So the logic is to eliminate the option in order to avoid the temptation of using it… hhhmmm.
Research, NO’s, and no bid. I hate a bid, even if it helps me. I also do research differently.
all that is needed to make the game fair is a bid(for 2 players). you can play with or without tech, with or without national objectives(not sure why anyone would do this) or any other goofy rule and the game is perfectly balanced with with the bid as both sides have to accept and be happy with the bid amount.
by the way national objectives seem to favour the allies.
No Grasshopper, its not about the temptation, I have zero temptation, I will never spend a dollar on it as any power, as it is extremely inefficient.
I choose to play NT so I can avoid other players who would rather spin the roullette wheel, and thus once in a blue moon pull a big result out of their a$$ and spank me with it. The rest of the time, their missing dollar value makes the game an easy cleanup for me, I can just lean on em w superioir numbers.
All things being equal (which of course they rarely are) I want my games decided as much as possible by my skill vs your skill.
@allweneedislove - So would a bid be different for more players or would one team or the other just work out who gets what? Also, my group has played three F2F games now and we played without NO’s because of how they ‘messed up’ AAA50 (or AA50 or AAAE? the anniversary edition). By ‘messed up’, I mean that it made the game artificial by forcing the various powers to go after the NO’s rather than just playing to discover possible options and new strategies.
Having read much in these forums, our next global game will be with NO’s.
bidding in a team game becomes more complicated.
if you have 2 groups already in a team then bidding can work as per normal.
in aaa global you need to play with national objectives, it is not optional. the game play would not be as rich, and more importantly the usa would not have enough income, hindering the allies from winning.
No Grasshopper, its not about the temptation, I have zero temptation, I will never spend a dollar on it as any power, as it is extremely inefficient.
I choose to play NT so I can avoid other players who would rather spin the roullette wheel, and thus once in a blue moon pull a big result out of their a$$ and spank me with it. The rest of the time, their missing dollar value makes the game an easy cleanup for me, I can just lean on em w superioir numbers.
All things being equal (which of course they rarely are) I want my games decided as much as possible by my skill vs your skill.
Part of the “skill” in Axis and Allies, is knowing when to Gamble.
Part of the “skill” in Axis and Allies, is knowing when to Gamble.
How True!
Much like professional poker players who understands “pot odds”, the risk vs reward is much of what Axis and Allies is about!
Kim
No national objectives means that US would have to spend all in the pacific from the first turn, and Japan would always attack on the first turn.
No bid has been proven to be bad for the allies.
Tech is just so random that I don’t like it as it stands now… Maybe if they revamp how tech works I’d like tech in the game.
The poll missed the most significant thing that puts the US, thereby the Allies at a disadvantage. The fact that Japan only needs 6 victory cities for the Axis to win the entire game. That forces the US to foolishly spend massive resources in the Pacific when they would better be spent in Europe.
The best chance for the Allies to win is for the US to play defensive in the Pacific even if means the risk of losing Hawaii which is a pretty insignificant loss. But with the current rules, that would cost the allies the entire game, even if Italy already had fallen and Russia was still solid.
The US does not need to spend full in the pac to prevent the win, probably 60-70% of its income. Remember, anzac is there for support. Your fleet is much stronger on the defensive and the main job for the US is to sit in queens and take dutch islands or clear the way for anzac transports. More if you want to really thrash him. In Europe, if US and UK can work together to get a decent surface fleet going(UK airbase gib does wonders), then the US will only need to spend to make a few loaded transports a turn to keep the pressure going.
The US does not need to spend full in the pac to prevent the win, probably 60-70% of its income. Remember, anzac is there for support. Your fleet is much stronger on the defensive and the main job for the US is to sit in queens and take dutch islands or clear the way for anzac transports.  More if you want to really thrash him. In Europe, if US and UK can work together to get a decent surface fleet going(UK airbase gib does wonders), then the US will only need to spend to make a few loaded transports a turn to keep the pressure going.
I was saying US needs to put 100% of her income in the pacific if there were no NO’s.
No political rules, no NOs. Try it sometime. It’s fun.
The US does not need to spend full in the pac to prevent the win, probably 60-70% of its income.� Remember, anzac is there for support.� Your fleet is much stronger on the defensive and the main job for the US is to sit in queens and take dutch islands or clear the way for anzac transports.� � More if you want to really thrash him.� In Europe, if US and UK can work together to get a decent surface fleet going(UK airbase gib does wonders), then the US will only need to spend to make a few loaded transports a turn to keep the pressure going.
I was saying US needs to put 100% of her income in the pacific if there were no NO’s.
Was not referring to your post Roc.
No political rules, no NOs. Try it sometime. It’s fun.
With no political rules, that is mostly referring to the US and USSR being neutral for the first 3 and 4 rounds, right? In other words, either one could attack the Axis on round 1 if they wanted to, right?
Obviously, with no NOs, Japan would really have no incentive NOT to attack round 1.
I imagine the neutrals are all treated the same (pro-Axis, pro-Allied, strict). What about the Mongolia situation? Is that also considered one of the “political situations”? So if Japan decides to attack Russia, Mongolia just stays strict neutral? That’s the way I’m going to assume it is.
This sounds very interesting. I think I will try it in our next game.
No NOs will hurt the US economy the most. Even with Japan taking the Philippines, that’s an extra $20 they won’t get. More incentive to take Axis territories I guess.
Also, Italy will be hit hard and it will take them much longer to grow much. ANZAC too I think. China will be hurt some but not as bad as Italy, especially if UK India is able to help them out.
Germany will lose a little, mainly the Sweedish NO, but all their others usually don’t come until later when they are pretty much winning anyway.
I don’t think Russia will be hurt much. UK London and UK India and Japan I don’t think will be bothered much at all. Both UKs only have one each. UK London loses theirs after round 1 and UK India usually never gets to collect theirs because Kwangtung is one of the first things Japan captures when it DOWs. As for Japan, except for the DEI NO, the rest come when Japan is going pretty successful anyway and that 5 island NO is next to impossible unless there is simply no Allied naval presence in the Pacific.
I wonder if this will swing the game one way or the other.
No political rules, no NOs. Try it sometime. It’s fun.
With no political rules, that is mostly referring to the US and USSR being neutral for the first 3 and 4 rounds, right? In other words, either one could attack the Axis on round 1 if they wanted to, right?
Obviously, with no NOs, Japan would really have no incentive NOT to attack round 1.
I imagine the neutrals are all treated the same (pro-Axis, pro-Allied, strict). What about the Mongolia situation? Is that also considered one of the “political situations”? So if Japan decides to attack Russia, Mongolia just stays strict neutral? That’s the way I’m going to assume it is.
This sounds very interesting. I think I will try it in our next game.
No NOs will hurt the US economy the most. Even with Japan taking the Philippines, that’s an extra $20 they won’t get. More incentive to take Axis territories I guess.
Also, Italy will be hit hard and it will take them much longer to grow much. ANZAC too I think. China will be hurt some but not as bad as Italy, especially if UK India is able to help them out.
Germany will lose a little, mainly the Sweedish NO, but all their others usually don’t come until later when they are pretty much winning anyway.
I don’t think Russia will be hurt much. UK London and UK India and Japan I don’t think will be bothered much at all. Both UKs only have one each. UK London loses theirs after round 1 and UK India usually never gets to collect theirs because Kwangtung is one of the first things Japan captures when it DOWs. As for Japan, except for the DEI NO, the rest come when Japan is going pretty successful anyway and that 5 island NO is next to impossible unless there is simply no Allied naval presence in the Pacific.
I wonder if this will swing the game one way or the other.
Mongolia really would not change, the rule is not affected by political situations.
ghr2,
I would agree on your number of 60-70%. Unfortunately that is what the US should at the minimum be spending against Europe to maximize the Allies chances to win. The 6 victory condition for the Pacific forces that 60-70% to be ineffectively spent in the Pacific. That is why I don’t like it.
So far I can’t tell how unbalanced the game is. I read most people complain the axis now have the advantage. But in the games I have played, playing with the 6 victory city rules most definitely puts the Allies at a greater disadvantage. So much so, no of my buddies like to play with it.
We are near agreement on some house rules that keeps it realistic in terms of the history and did some research on how many resources were spent on Japan vs. Germany and on Navies vs. Air Forces and Ground units.
So far it seems that it needs to be easier for the US to get to Australia to better assist, we are introducing a “Merrills Mauraders” rule, and we are dramatically making Naval units cheaper.
This is to encourage realistic Naval action in the Pacific without the silly 6 victory city rule.
Bottom line, Japan can capture 6 cities and win the game while obviously losing the world war.
I am suprised that in your games, the US cannot aid Australia unless he goes 100% Pac.
In my last post I agreed with your numbers, 60-70% to avoid the 6 victory city. You could probably do it with less, but my ultimate point is that for the greatest chance of an allied victory, it ought to be 70-80% in Europe and 20-30% in the Pacific. The Germans are too much for Russia without that kind of assisitance.
Now Germany is hard to play, but with equal efficient players, Russia cant stand without significant help. Offensive in Europe and defensive in the Pacific. That basic has not changed from the game unless you play with the 6 victory condition for Japan.
In my last post I agreed with your numbers, 60-70% to avoid the 6 victory city. You could probably do it with less, but my ultimate point is that for the greatest chance of an allied victory, it ought to be 70-80% in Europe and 20-30% in the Pacific.
There may be a flaw in this logic. If the game is tweaked so that the US can merely break even with Japan at 30% spending, then why wouldn’t they continue to spend the 60% and just utterly trounce the Japanese?
