@SS:
LHoffman we posted same time.
But really not arguing about it. Just making a statement. Also how do you know if some options you use makes the game unbalanced more or less.
Ha, no worries.
Yes, I believe that Balance is (or at least has become regarded as) THE most important aspect of A&A. Most complaints seem to revolve around it because it is not as simple a fix as editing unit values, for example. The only way to ensure that a game is balanced is to have a group (or preferably multiple groups) playtest the game many times and studiously log data of the game. Even before that, I guess you have to define what balance even means. Is it 50/50 chance of winning based mostly on die rolls? Is it 70/30 in favor of the Allies, meaning that the Axis must both have good strategy and good rolls to beat the more powerful Allies? Or is balance a variable metric that changes as the game goes on?
The very premise of A&A makes it different from many boardgames, where total fairness or even playing field, is expected. There are historical considerations (inequalities) to model as well as a truly complex and interwoven elements of gameplay including politics, multiple unit types and geographic movement. There is little transparent equality in the game (besides perhaps unit values and costs).
If Global War 1936 institutes essentially a 3-team structure (Western Allies, Communists, Axis)… or even if they split Axis victory conditions… the notions of balance as we have understood them in A&A will change dramatically. Maybe they will become more manageable? Maybe they will be harder to reconcile? I am not sure.
I only hope that HBG has playtested the game enough to be confident in the way it is built.