National Objectives vs Balance

What is the total amount from NO’s the axis can have, and what is the total Allies can have?  I think it should be the same at 40 (15+15+10)?  If it is the same then the potential is there for each side to be able to have what the other side could, 40 = 40.  If you do not use NO’s then 0 = 0.  Mathmatically that is equal or balanced.  I know that certain sides start with more or can easily achieve more but I guess you could consider it balanced if both sides could attain the same amount as the other.  Also it is possible while one side has a NO the other side can not, so it would be an unbalance there.  I hope I make sense, it is early!

(I’m at work so I don’t have the rulebook infront of me so my whole post is shot if one side can have more than the other LOL)

Very interesting, so I looked it up:

Axis
Germany (15) + Japan (15) + Italy (10) = 40

Allies
Russia (15) + UK (15) + US (20) = 50

So the N.O.s are NOT balanced.

Note I do not list ones that are usually gotten / lost, etc
Just looking straight at the math here for a basis for further discussions

From a pure IPC point of view, yes, the NOs are off.  However, when one looks at what they force the teams to do I feel they even out a bit better.

For example, if your not playing with NOs, trading france each turn is not a big deal esp with italy helping, however with NOs france becomes the most valuable territory in the game from an IPC point of view if you can hold it. (16 for allies, 11-16 for axis)

Also, without NOs when the allies land in Africa its not a big deal, with NOs it is a pita for italy.

With NOs you have a larger desire to hit Egypt G1 to keep UK’s income down, without NOs it is not that big of a deal.

And let us not forget FIC, which i’ve found to be easy to take for a turn as UK on turn 1 to get my NO, then just grab carolinas with one side or the other.

And the second Russian NO isn’t easy to get, but it can be done if you grab Norway and Finland with UK then just look for an opening.

All in all I feel the game is slightly in the allied favor without NOs, balanced with.

Domsterlord,

It’s an excellent point you bring up.  Either Axis and Allies is balanced without NOs or it’s balanced with NOs.  You can’t have it both ways.

I agree with your reasoning too.  The Axis NOs are easier to achieve and meld into their “master plan.”  The Allies NOs – a lot of them seem like Win-More propositions.  We played several games where UK was held without NO for many turns!

Great discussion.

The problem with many of the Allies’ NO’s is that once they get them the game is over anyways. If the Russians are walking through German-held territories, you’re in trouble. If the UK & US have a solid foothold in France, you’re in trouble. It seems to me that NO’s exist to almost exclusively aid the Axis, so without them I’d have to imagine they would lose.

I’d have to say the following are the hard NO’s to get:

France (USA/England)
Russia’s 10 IPCer
Either of Italy’s if the allies are 100% engaged in KGF (which is becoming standard again, even though America has an awesome shot at taking out Japan early in the game.)

The following are simple to get:

All of Germany’s
Two of Japans, maybe all three
The one for owning North America

The following are hard to hold:

England’s Empire (Gibraltar will lose this for you before you even get a turn.)
Philippines
Midway/Wake/Hawaii/Solomons

Over all, you’d expect the Axis to have 60 IPC in NO’s routinely and the allies 15-20 IPC in NOs routinely.  Which should help balance the cash flow.

@Cmdr:

I’d have to say the following are the hard NO’s to get:

France (USA/England)
Russia’s 10 IPCer
Either of Italy’s if the allies are 100% engaged in KGF (which is becoming standard again, even though America has an awesome shot at taking out Japan early in the game.)

The following are simple to get:

All of Germany’s
Two of Japans, maybe all three
The one for owning North America

The following are hard to hold:

England’s Empire (Gibraltar will lose this for you before you even get a turn.)
Philippines
Midway/Wake/Hawaii/Solomons

---

Over all, you’d expect the Axis to have 60 IPC in NO’s routinely and the allies 15-20 IPC in NOs routinely.  Which should help balance the cash flow.

Agreed. NO’s favour the Axis. Which is why I think 1941 is unbalanced with NO’s: Axis have too great an advantage with NO’s (killer Jap, strong Germ, Ita taking all of Britains efforts the first 4 rounds by claiming Egy and getting 10 extra by NO’s).

Agreed. NO’s favour the Axis. Which is why I think 1941 is unbalanced with NO’s: Axis have too great an advantage with NO’s (killer Jap, strong Germ, Ita taking all of Britains efforts the first 4 rounds by claiming Egy and getting 10 extra by NO’s).

Yes.

I Think some people missed my point…
I am NOT against Nos, I find they are a great rule in essence. My point is that Nos are an optional rule, but they skew the play balance. Now either they inbalance an otherwise balanced game or they balance an otherwise inbalanced one, taht remains to be determined. however for them to keep play balance about the same they would have to be modified slightly. For example, Japans second No could require to capture all 6 territories instead of 4. Its just that I dont find that its fair to think that they dont advantage a side…

I got your point at least. ;)
I think 1941 is balanced out of box without National Objectives.  With NOs the Axis clearly have the advantage, though it’s not insurmountable.

In 1942… well I haven’t played 1942 enough yet.  But I think 1942 is NOT balanced out of box (the Allies have the advantage) and NOs are need to balance the game for the Axis.

Anyone agree/disagree?

@TG:

Anyone agree/disagree?

disagree. in '41, I think without NOs, the allies have the favor, with them, axis does. Its not balanced either way. With NOs, Allies are forced to slow down Japan in some fashion. You cant have an unchecked japan earning 70 IPCs a turn!! But without them, You need not worry too much about japan, as it will take some time for them to threaten Moscow. You can focus solely in the Atlantic and med. Italy will die pretty quickly without NOs.

The funny part is the site has one thread whining that the allies are too strong in 1941 and the axis cannot win and we have this thread saying that the allies cannot win in 1941 because the axis is too strong.

My dear, I believe that is a good indicator that things are pretty well balanced and you might need to try some new tactics if you are routinely losing.

@Cmdr:

The funny part is the site has one thread whining that the allies are too strong in 1941 and the axis cannot win and we have this thread saying that the allies cannot win in 1941 because the axis is too strong.

Maybe both threads should be merged so that we can all sit back and enjoy the discussion  :roll:

Well put Cmdr Jennifer!
The NO’s show how far behind the Allies really were at that point in the war with them controlling France, Eastern Europe, Norway, and parts of NE China.  Also, Japan’s first two NO’s should be easy to get off the bat becuase they were well prepared while the Allies were caught with their pants down, and they show how well the Germans pulled off kicking Poland, France, and Britain in the backside over the first two years.

These “easy” Axis NO’s motivate the Allies to get their rears in gear instead of spending 12 turns building hordes of bombers and transports and trading a few territories here and there just to keep the game dragging on.

disagree. in '41, I think without NOs, the allies have the favor, with them, axis does. Its not balanced either way. With NOs, Allies are forced to slow down Japan in some fashion. You cant have an unchecked japan earning 70 IPCs a turn!! But without them, You need not worry too much about japan, as it will take some time for them to threaten Moscow. You can focus solely in the Atlantic and med. Italy will die pretty quickly without NOs.

Fair assessment.  The times I did play 1941 without NOs, I did find the Germans/Italians to be lacking in the men and material department.  Japan still does find, but it’s very difficult for the Italians to ramp up before the Allies make committed landings in Africa.

I find that the better player seems to win most of the time, regardless of what side they are playing.  Therefore, it’s my opinion that the game is pretty well balanced.

You might want to rig a system where the inferior player is given 3 IPC to spend on unit upgrades, starting IPC or new units to even out the players ability, but the sides themselves seem to be in pretty good balance. (Obviously with different sides having different starting units, different positions, able to move before each other, etc, it’s darn near impossible to get a perfect balance between the two sides.)

@Cmdr:

I find that the better player seems to win most of the time, regardless of what side they are playing.  Therefore, it’s my opinion that the game is pretty well balanced.

You might want to rig a system where the inferior player is given 3 IPC to spend on unit upgrades, starting IPC or new units to even out the players ability, but the sides themselves seem to be in pretty good balance. (Obviously with different sides having different starting units, different positions, able to move before each other, etc, it’s darn near impossible to get a perfect balance between the two sides.)

We have used a system where each player adds 12 IPC worth of hardware anywhere on the map to begin turn 1, to simulate intelligence failure.  The Axis and Allies did not have perfect knowledge of what and where, though Allies had a clear intelligence edge, they still ran into surprises.  This adds an element of the unknown, at the  begining of each game.  The perfect setup is not known, only close approximations and 12 IPC is enough to throw a surpise on any front…

Has there EVER been a discussion on some forum (this one or any other one) that explains, no DEFINES “balance” in A&A?

I ask because unlike a game of chess, HOW do you TRULY DETERMINE IF A&A IS balanced?  :?

Chess IS a perfectly balanced game; I don’t think anyone would argue that…would they?

Here are THE key components that MAKE chess perfectly balanced:

***2 player game

***2 equal “armies” (1 black army, 1 white army with each army consisting of one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights and eight pawns. 16peices in each army)

***Played on a square board of eight rows and eight columns of squares. The colors of the sixty-four squares alternate and are referred to as “light squares” and “dark squares”. The chessboard is placed with a light square at the right hand end of the rank nearest to each player, with each queen on its own color.

***Pieces are moved to either an unoccupied square, or one occupied by an opponent’s piece, capturing it and removing it from play.

***All pieces capture opponent’s pieces by moving to the square that the opponent’s piece occupies.

Now THAT is a balanced game!

A&A is anything but balanced…when compared to chess.  :-P

So, when ever I read discussions on game balance for A&A; I can’t help but to pull my hair out!   :| Because what…if anything…is balanced in A&A?  How is balance in A&A defined?  What are THE KEY THINGS that make A&A a balanced game?

Even if we look at simple examples of combat between two of the same units we see that even in the combat system there is very little balance.

Only when we match the following example do we find balance in the combat system.
1 tank against 1 tank; the attacker hits on a 3 and the defender hits on a 3 and each tank rolls one die and each has a 50% of scoring a hit.

1 bomber attacking 1 fighter; the bomber attacks on a 4 and the fighter defends on a 4 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 67% chance of scoring a hit.

1 artillery attacking 1 artillery; 1 attacks with a 2 and 1 defends with a 2 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 33% chance of scoring a hit.

1 fighter attacking 1 tank; the fig attacks with a 3 the tank defends with a 3 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 50% of scoring a hit.

I’m sure there are some other example like this but…my point is…WHAT else is balanced about A&A?

With little exception do any powers start with the same incomes, I don’t think any power starts with the same number of territories or the same number of tanks, fighters, bombers, battleships, etc, etc, etc…

So…HOW is balanced defined in A&A.  I’m sure everyone has IDEAS of how to balance it…but with all of the 50,000,000,000,000 potential factors that COULD/WOULD/SHOULD contribute to game balance…HOW IS BALANCED DEFINDED IN A&A?

Without a clear definition…and if everyone has their own idea of what balance is…how can balance even be discussed?  How can ANY A&A game ever be truly determined to be balanced or not???

I’ve tried to come up with the Key factors that DEFINE balance and the only reasonably close (and yet still very abstract) explanation that I can imagine that truly DEFINES game balance in A&A is this;

Balance (in A&A) is the perceived notion that all Powers (& Sides) have an equal potential to achieve victory through the diligent use and execution of the games Ends, Means and Ways within the legal bounds of the games rules.

Which, if that truly is what defines balance in A&A…than all 3 of the global games of A&A (A&A classic, A&A revised and A&A 50th) are all balanced.   :roll: