G40 vs AA50 discussion (from League players)

I trust your judgement and experience. You choose settings. I’ll follow.

Just no LL. I despise LL.

G40 OOB is a bit too unbalanced in favour of Axis. It’s very hard to say what is a decent bet as it kind of ranges between 30-60 for the Allies. For me that is a weakness of the game.

BM4 is much better with a richer dynamic of play regarding NOs and balance. Bids range perhaps between 16-24 for the Allies.

P2V might still need some more love, but is pretty darn interesting. I’d say a reasonable bid there is 6-10 for Axis.

@gamerman01 G40 has a lot of “dead” time it feels like. I’m somewhat surprised that league only has the 2 G40 variants and PtV and not 50th anniversary edition. There are a lot of turns in PBEM g40 where almost nothing happens (France/anzac, Italy, Russia after the fall of moscow) g40 is also just too long face to face since you have to roll a ton of dice turn G1/J1 and moving into the G1/J1 position F2F takes a while (you can agree to start off with G1/J1 already done but that is pretty hard to get people to agree to).

A&A 50 is much shorter in terms of time, but not in terms of rounds. The thing is it removes a lot of the dead turns that have little action, and the smaller map with higher IPC value territories makes it easier to finish the game. the main thing about A&A 50 is that I wish it had mech infantry, which is the unit that G40 added that has the best impact on gameplay. Though 5 cost tanks are basically better versions of Mech infantry+Tank anyway. The other change that G40 made that I wish were in was 12 cost MICs that make 3 units/turn. Instead of the 15 cost ICs that make territory value units/turn.

Though playing with NOs is more fun it definitely makes the game heavily axis favored.

@karl7 said in G40 vs AA50 discussion (from League players):

My G40 BM games are now at least 18-22 rounds if they are competitive. Once in awhile you get a rout that causes someone to throw in the towel first 5-10 rounds. But not usual. Even if Germany captures Russia, it isn’t over if Allies are in good position. Almost the start of the game really.

For a shorter game, try knocking out some NOs. An unfortunate side effect from BM.

@gamerman01 said in G40 vs AA50 discussion (from League players):

Obviously, G40 is THE standout A&A game in many departments, but that time sink and the amount of RAM you need in your head is sometimes staggering.

I know what you mean here. The mental drain of playing a whole game in one sitting is very noticeable, even if it is <10 rounds.

@gamerman01

Hmm, never played Anniversary 50. Anyways, I’m surprised how common people seem to make bids are. I love Global 1940 because of how complicated and accurate it is, but it’s curious that Anniversary was almost a prototype for Global 1940, and is as close to an official Global 1941 or 1942 game with similar complexity.

Length isn’t a problem for me as I only play with members of my household, so we can play over weeks.

Too bad Anniversary 50 is very expensive.

@gamerman01 said in G40 vs AA50 discussion (from League players):

I’ve only played games in competition, so probably a very different experience playing casually and maybe without <gasp> calculators?!

You don’t really need the calculator, but it speeds things up a bit. Power/6 = number of expected hits.

@superbattleshipyamato said in G40 vs AA50 discussion (from League players):

I’m surprised how common people seem to make bids are.

If you mean to say that G40 OOB is balanced as it is, I can say for sure that an OOB game without a bid for Allies is more or less an auto-victory for Axis. You have to play awfully bad in order to lose the dynamic advantage they carry.

@trulpen

I guess I think this game is too accurate to history. So I think the game is balanced, possibly even in favour of the Allies (as they won in history). So I always see it as an uphill battle for the Axis to win in coming up a strategy. On my view, the Allies have it easy. They just have to do what they did historically.

Due to the length of the game though, I haven’t played enough games to prove that (the Axis always win). I play against myself too, so it’s slightly different.

I understand. If you started to play with others, preferably the league, I believe that would force a change of perspective. :)

The main thing is that Axis has a lot easier winning conditions. 8 VC in EU or 6 VC in Pac. So it’s not about units, but mainly momentum.

In OOB it is more or less impossible to hold on to Moscow past G6, if the german player is dedicated to Barbarossa.

Japan has a fairly easy task of crushing India as well, which leaves the two sides with 7 respective 5 VC.

Without a hefty bid it’s simply sayonara.

@gamerman01 said in G40 vs AA50 discussion (from League players):

How about those technologies in AA50, though!?
If you were to play with them in G40 you would need to house rule it to tokens, no? G40 has so many decisions to make, almost no one wants to complicate it with technology possibilities thrown in the mix (again, maybe great for casual).

So back to the topic at hand, comparing AA50 to G40, is AA50 not the king when it comes to tech?

Oh, I would love to get tech into G40, but don’t feel a token system is enough accomplished/dynamic/balanced.

@gamerman01

I never played Anniversary. I will say I play the technology rules as is, no tokens.