with Russia invested in China (IC in Szechwan and raised territory value to 3) and getting the IPCs, pluss the turn order allowing to consolidate, made a KJF more viable. My friend tried it one game but made a couple mistakes with positioning
First Game
-
As in the title, I’m probably going to play my first game of the Anniversary edition soon here (I’ve played the original second edition lots). I’ve heard the 41’ scenario is more balanced hence why I’m posting here. A couple quick questions:
1. If we’re not using a bid should NO be used?
2. Should we use research and the optional rules?I just want to know for balance purposes, as I’d rather not to use a bid. Also, I’ll probably be playing the allies so if you have any basic strategy tips I’d love to win my first game.
-
National Objectives give both sides more money, but generally help the axis more.
I would rethink not incorporating a bid to even things out or the axis will always win (barring horrible dice for the axis round 1).
there’s Tech haters and tech lovers, and that’s a discussion that’s been going on for years (ever since A&A first edition). Techs are cool if the were basically even in strength and not a randomly developed.
-
I played my first game and it went fairly well. We played with techs but no NO and just used the out of the box rules (no bid). It was really an interesting game and coming from the original second edition a big improvement. I was playing the allies and the game was starting to spiral out of control (Japan was getting huge) when he left Germany open to a British naval attack and part of the Japanese fleet open to an American long-range aircraft attack.
I really like the new research rules they’re a big improvement over the base game. Anyways, although I ended up winning with the allies, this was pretty much only because he left the German Capitol open (and even then we considered not stopping as Britain had 90 dollars to build 8 pieces in England so they couldn’t even get much and like I said Japan was massive) and it would be fun to play with NO’s as it seems they add to the game and enable Italy to act more like a real power. However, we don’t want to imbalance the game and we don’t want to decide who plays what with a bid (we’d rather just assign roles). Is there any place where I could get the average bids for top tournaments and the bid placement rules so we can just house rule a ‘set bid’? From reading online I’m getting it’s somewhere between 8-13IPC’s but I can’t find anything about placement rules or a definitive number.
-
I would really appreciate it if an experienced player could tell around what the average bid rules/bid amount was. Looking online there are absolutely no clear answers as everyone uses different rules leading to different bid amounts and I can’t find any clear connection where I can say, with these bid rules the allies should get X amount of IPC’s.
-
Yeah, a math error like leaving a Capital open is obviously fatal, balance be damned, unless Japan in in position to take a capital of it’s own the same round or next. Which is not impossible. :)
RE: Bids, You’ve got lots of options! I believe that the going tournament bid for the allies is 13, but I have seen a range here from 11-20+. The rules for placing bid units usually specify that:
1. At max one unit can be placed per territory/SZ, and
2. Bid units may only be placed where there were already other units belonging to that power.Destroyers in the Atlantic and Russian Infantry/Fighter are popular choices.
Personally, I think my option (posted in this thread) is fun: instead of a bid, give the allies a free ‘colonial’ Industrial Complex + AA Gun to be placed together anywhere they like before the game starts, then permanently boost the value of that Territory by +1 IPC (but not above 3). So a 1 IPC territory is now worth 2; a 2 IPC territory would now be worth 3; and anything 3 and up keeps it’s OOB value. I think it makes the whole mega-Japan much less inevitable… or at least gives mega-Japan something else to kill besides/before Moscow.
India, Australia, and Sudan make really interesting choices for this sort of ‘fixed’ bid.
Beyond that, consider two other popular options that fix issues that should probably not survived playtesting (in my opinion):
1. Move the DOA China fighter towards Russia a TT or two (or just let its placement within China be determined by the US player), and
2. Close the Turkish Straits to the Italian Caucasus Kamikaze. At least, close UKR and CAUC to sea invasions. -
Thanks a lot for the reply, that’s exactly what I was looking for. If we decide to use option 1 and/or 2 would a bid still be required? I didn’t even realise one could go through the Turkish straight, historically that’s just ridiculous (but I guess Japan starts with 8 million carriers and planes so historical accuracy is not paramount in the game design).
I’ll talk to my opponent when we play next (probably will be around Christmas) and see what he wants to do.
-
Beyond that, consider two other popular options that fix issues that should probably not survived playtesting (in my opinion):
1. Move the DOA China fighter towards Russia a TT or two (or just let its placement within China be determined by the US player), and
2. Close the Turkish Straits to the Italian Caucasus Kamikaze. At least, close UKR and CAUC to sea invasions.This is standard-practice in our Anniversary games… we always allow the US/China player to place the starting Flying Tigers wherever they wish in Chinese territory, and the Dardanelles are always closed in our games… makes as much sense to leave them open as saying the Northwest Passage is navigable (of course neither is navigable in WWII).
-
The Axis do have an advantage. Japan 1941 is a beast.
I do reccomend using National objectives.We let China be controlled by The Soviet 1941 and use money (starts with 7 ipc and same movement/build options). If hoj watt give China objektivet "No foreign ally in China except starten fighter inom +1.
It helps China a lot.I suggest adding a Soviet AA in The far East too.
Suggested Topics
