Since Perry quoted this post, let us go back and look at it more closely.
The Axis is gimped.
Japan will not be able to help Germany on Russia’s front.
Italy is entirely too weak and is nothing but a weak link in the Axis.
Italy splits up Germany’s IPCs.
Italy’s splits up Germany’s original forces, especially naval.
Italy only has a lousy 10 IPCs.
Italy has no transport and will be unable to ship anything to Africa to fix their IPC deficient status for at least a turn.
Italy’s IPC deficient status railroads them into an immediate expansion for IPCs.We won’t know just how much Axis is hurting until we see Germany’s and Japan’s starting IPCs.
Do the designers hate the Axis or what?
Having spent a lot of time looking at what might be set up boards on Boardgamegeek, specifically this one, http://boardgamegeek.com/image/362552?size=original, Italy has one transport to go with the Battleship and two cruisers in the Med, so moving two units per turn to Africa is not a problem. As for splitting up Germany’s naval forces, the forces in the Med were Italian in origin, not German, and with Italy now as a player, revert to Italian control.
Just curious, how many of those of you who play Axis really plan on having an italian player? With no Italian player, Germany is going to control those units, and IPCs. If there is no Italian player, aside from having a work a bit harder coordinating attacks in North Africa, I am not sure how I see that this hurts the Axis that much. With no Italian player, basically all Italy will be is a slightly more powerful version of China, controlled by Germany.
We know that National Advantages are going to give IPC to each player, and it looks like there will be more IPC going to the Axis than the Allies, which to some degree takes care of your bidding IPC. That, of course, requires much more complete information on the game.
German loss of IPC to Italy: Given that we will soon have Italian units to use, I have been looking at adding Italy to A&A Europe, expanding that in a similar way to what I have done with A&A Pacific. In that addition, Germany will loose 8 IPC to Italy and its territories. I make up the loss fairly easily from elsewhere, and keep Germany at its 40 starting IPC in the Europe game. Without seeing the board clearly, it is hard to determine where to make up the losses to Italy from, but Bulgaria-Romania (Romanian oil and the Ploesti refineries) and Czechoslovakia-Hungary are two obvious areas for boosting slightly. I get Italy up to 15/16 depending on how many sea zones are controlled.
Considering my attitude toward the Axis, if I find it not hard to get German IPCs back up, I find it hard to believe that some of the forum is not going to come up with IPC boosts to get Germany back to 40. However, I have also boosted the Allies in the Europe game by the same proportion, so as to keep IPC balanced.
As for Japan not helping Germany, that simply makes the game a bit more historical. Aside from the Japanese Army having no desire to tackle Russia after having the Japanese 23rd Infantry Division mangled at Nomanhan/Khalkin-Gol in 1939, Siberia and further east did not have the resources that the Japanese needed so very badly. One resource in particular being oil, which was available in the Dutch East Indies and Borneo. The need for resources to assist in finishing up the “China Incident” was the driving force in Japan’s decision for war, not any concept of helping Germany. Taking advantage of German success, yes, actually thinking about helping Germany, no. It looks like the game is simply reflecting that. If that bothers the Axis players, I am certain that you will come up with something to deal with the issue. However, it will have to be a house rule, and not part of the Out of Box rules. Most players are going to use the OOB rules.
As for the designers at Wizards/AH that made the final rules decisions, they may have decided that making sure the Allies have a good chance at winning is good marketing. Given that the primary market is going to be in the US, I would tend to agree with that decision. I know that I have no problems with it.
Great - now this discussion is on track again :-)
I can’t understand why you feel that “the bid is too antiquated”. What bid are you talking about? The “Place units before Gamestart”-type of bid? Would it be antiquated on some perceived historical ground or what? Just curious.
Otherwise I’ll answer each of your suggestions in turn:
1) Give the axis 1 free researcher to start.
Do you think League & Tournament play will be played using Tech? Under 2ndED and AAR, all League, Club, Tourneys that I know of , have been no-tech.
For social/friendly games, sure, but other than that, I think this suggestions would be ruled out
2)adjust the bonus that one axis nation receives to 10 IPC from 5 IPC ( this would depend on a larger imbalance). This would also make the allies wonder who is getting the extra till its too late to counter effectively. The allies would have to try to counter all bonus opportunities for the axis player. I think this adds something.
This, I think was the best option around…Yes, I can see this happen…
A bit hard to see how the bid process would look like though…
Player1: “I’ll take the Axis, if all Axis Victory National Bonuses are increased from 5 to 10”
Player1: “I’ll take the Axis, if all Axis Victory National Bonuses are increased from 5 to 9”
…and so forth…
Or how do you envision the bid process around this really?
3) another option is reintroduce NA’s (under house rules) I will be doing that as everybody can figure.
Same with NA’s , as with Tech, really. Can’t see it happen in Tourneys/Club play
4) allowing Germany to control the Italian units in Libya ONLY would make sence and not really introduce radical changes, The Africa Korps controlled Italian troops under Rommel followed by Kesselring. Im speaking about 1941 scenario specifically or you can just say: Germany control X amount IPC of Italian troops at any given time.
This breaks some basic principles in the game , I think (a nation controlling another nations units). Therefore I can’t see this become generally accepted , really
5) another option is to bring in economic victory conditions and bid from the established medium. So if its 85 total Axis IPC, you bid you can do it in 87, followed by the other side saying 89 etc…
The economic victory conditons stinks IMHO :-)
It always felt like a rather half-assed way to win a grand game of Axis & Allies… The game is about claiming capitals dammit :-)
I am looking at the National Bonus Objective as a way for balancing the game.
First possibility is that they are a built in balancing feature. If Axis players feel that they need more IPCs they may focus more on the bonuses.
Furhtermore there is another idea that is spinning in my mind. Bidding National Bonus (BNB)!
Using National bonuses for balacing allowing only a certain number of them in play. I should be possible to start the bidding phase considering the game without any bonuses, and then each player bid a single bonus or a set of bonus. Supposing that the game has “linked” bonuses (otherwise palyer may link them in some way) each time a player announces he would use an Axis bonus objective the corresponding Allied bonus objective is also available. Bonuses are evaluated baing on the IPC value. Maybe a difficulty factor may be introduced.
Not sure about this but is an idea I am wondering about. What do you guy think of it?
Edit: maybe the bidding should be better done resigning the bonus objective?
I think Bidding is less important in A50 because the axis go first (for the most part) and adding more units will compound the kill zone for axis players and violate the balance.
Its one thing to give a side thats playing second, AND has less to work with extra pieces to support against all those peeps running simulations on all sorts of allied attacks against helpless targets…
But its another thing to give the side with much greater positional advantage in AA50 extra pieces AND the ability to move first ( again for the most part).
Id like to see something more creative to give the weaker side a boost, but perhaps a hidden or undisclosed boost.
Heres another Idea:
The axis player starts off with X IPC.
Each turn the axis team gets one IPC to add to this fund
If at any point in the game the axis player draws on the fund, he must withdraw all of it and he no longer gets any more funds.
The funds can be split up in any way players choose and the pieces placed immediately on the map at any time. Your turn or other player.
Now thats out of the box idea.
Example:
Axis bid 2 IPC…they keep the fund going till turn 7…so they have 9 IPC “in the bank”
they decide to place one German, Italian, and Japanese Infantry in various locations prior to start of movement.
So the decision is to have a small “rainy day fund” that comes as a little surprise or to support a mistake you made in the game like leaving a bomber alone to be attacked.
Hows that idea?
I think the national objectives will be easier for the axis to get in the first couple rounds and not so easy to get for the allies. Getting this extra income earlier than the allies will essentially be the axis bid. The game at the end of round 2 will be up for grabs.
Even though I haven’t seen all the objectives the ones that give 10 ipc bonuses seem too much(time will tell). If there’s one area of the game that could be changed with house rules it’s the reward. We could reduce the bonuses by half so the game is not completely tilted if you get your objectives but more like a big nudge in the right direction. Or maybe they are fine as is :-D
Thats a really good idea IL it also could represents things that are normally abtracted in A&A
I am beginning to wonder if the Heavy Bomber rule that has some people bent so out of shape is in there to compensate for the large boost that attaining National Objectives gives the Axis. As a guess, it is going to be easier for the Axis to attain their objectives, and more productive to them than for the Allies to attain their objectives, which do not appear to give them anywhere the same boost.
