AA50 NOs

Agreed, I cannot imagine that Anniversary was play tested without NOs.  Perhaps originally and that could have spawned the creation of NOs, but even that seems doubtful. (I don’t credit WOTC game testers with that much ingenuity and intelligence if you want to know the truth.)

1942 is hopelessly unbalanced in my experience.  So far, in 10 games I have played with 10 different opponents (because outside Botider, I have yet to find someone to play it twice in a row, and he’s only doing it because I want to see if I am good enough to get the Axis to win) I have seen 10 Allied Wins.

1941 seems unbalanced without NOs.  You’re talking -5 IPC from Italy a round, -10 IPC from Germany a round and -15 IPC from Japan a round, every round almost. (Yes, Italy and Germany could have more income from NOs, but it’s not as sure as the ones I gave them.)  Countered by America at -5 IPC a round and Russia at -5 IPC a round from lost NO income. (England never has NOs unless America goes heavy in the Pacific, and they won’t if there are no NOs and America would have another NO if they went heavy in the Pacific, but why would they if there are no NOs?)

I don’t see how it can be balanced when the axis are at -30 IPC a round in combined income and the allies are only at -10 IPC a round in combined income, on average.  Even a bid wouldn’t make up that much of a difference I don’t think.  That’s a pretty huge difference if you think about it.  In a 10 round game, you’re talking about a -200 IPC penalty against the Axis (net), and that’s not accounting for America completely ignoring Japan and focusing on wiping Italy off the map early in the game instead.

No, all 10 1942 games were with NOs.  So even with all that extra cash for the Axis, they still lost 10 out of 10 games so far.  Working on Game 11 right now, but if the Axis win that one, it might be because of dice…I kinda went ballistic with the Germans in hopes of overwhelming the Russians before the allies could set up a defense.  Even that might not help, looks like Japan (round 2) might already be in trouble.

wow, the after action reports give the other impression, with the Axis winning most of the games listed so far, 10 to 6 with 1 draw…

@LuckyDay:

wow, the after action reports give the other impression, with the Axis winning most of the games listed so far, 10 to 6 with 1 draw…

You mean the After Action reports for 1941, right?  I’m talking about 1942.  In 1942 the allies are way more powerful, the axis seriously depleted. (Japan goes from 5 transports to 1 for instance while America and England gets significantly more navy and Russia starts with a really nice air force.)

A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins. I am sure that the axis have a good 50-50 chance to win, even without the NO.

@hakan:

A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins. I am sure that the axis have a good 50-50 chance to win, even without the NO.

I can’t say that.  You’re talking -200 IPC worth of units and technologies over the course of a 10 round game if you remove the National Objectives.  -400 IPC worth over a 20 round game.

That’s a significant amount of equipment we’re talking about.

@Cmdr:

I can’t say that.  You’re talking -200 IPC worth of units and technologies over the course of a 10 round game if you remove the National Objectives.  -400 IPC worth over a 20 round game.That’s a significant amount of equipment we’re talking about.

You might have a point.

Jennifer, do you think that you have to balance the game with some National Advantages when playing without the NO:s?

@hakan:

@Cmdr:

I can’t say that.  You’re talking -200 IPC worth of units and technologies over the course of a 10 round game if you remove the National Objectives.  -400 IPC worth over a 20 round game.That’s a significant amount of equipment we’re talking about.

You might have a point.

Jennifer, do you think that you have to balance the game with some National Advantages when playing without the NO:s?

I’ve played the game a couple of times without NOs, but what we did was build in an extra 10 IPC into German and Japanese territories (original orange ones, like Carolines was worth 2, Formosa 2, Japan 10, etc.) and 5 IPC into Italy/Balkans to make up for the lost income.

@hakan:

A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins.

I disagree on both accounts.  :-D

A&A is obviously quite different in many respects. A big one is that new pieces are constantly coming on the board in addition to pieces leaving the board. If you have more material coming on board than the opponent, it doesn’t really matter if your opening is suboptimal.

As for chess, openings are important but very overrated. A better midgame/endgame player will beat a better opener virtually every time.

yup, true, but best of all is endgame when you have pieces on the board and your opponent does not, whatever it takes, opening, middle or later, the goal is the same.

Strange Jenn. In our 3 '42 games Axis is 2-1 over Allies. Now granted the 2 Axis wins were early on, but…

Oh and so far that is the ONLY Allied win I have seen and I surely hope you would not point to that as a typical game.

@a44bigdog:

Strange Jenn. In our 3 '42 games Axis is 2-1 over Allies. Now granted the 2 Axis wins were early on, but…

Oh and so far that is the ONLY Allied win I have seen and I surely hope you would not point to that as a typical game.

Hmm, I musta forgotten a couple of Axis wins.  My bad.

So it’s like 8 to 2 for 1942 for me then.

PS:  That is my absolute favorite game though, forgot it was a 1942 game.  That game rocked, England fell so dang early in the game and then the Allies stormed back and took out the entire board.  You gotta admit, that was probably the most fun of any AA Game in history, or darn close!

@hakan:

A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins. I am sure that the axis have a good 50-50 chance to win, even without the NO.

I believe you are incorrect sir. Have you actually played much 1941 yet?

As someone who has more than 10 games played or in progress, I can safely say with some certainty that playing without NOs is both unbalanced and incredibly boring (because it is just a slow grind to the death for the Axis with little hope on the horizon).

@hakan:

Personally, I don’t like the NO, yet I understand that it is a simple way to simulate the “real war”. All games has their way to “simulate” history. In World in Flames you have a tension table towards the entry of USA. Here you have the NO.

I have changed my mind. I also think the NO’s are brilliant! Not only because they make the strategies look more like in the real war, but also (don’t bark at me Krieghund) because you can balance the game yourself, or to simulate for example the “Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”, just by adding a few lines in the NO. Much better then to add complicated Optional Rules.

Two examples so far:

Soviet National Objective
Stalin would never sacrifice Soviet troops to defend British territories, and Churchill would never allow them to enter. Hence, you may add the following line in the soviet National Objective: “Gain 5 IPC if no other Allied forces are present in a territory controlled by the Soviet Union, and if no Soviet forces are present in any other Allied territory, and if the Soviets control Archangels.”

Japanese National Objective
During the war there was a Non-Aggression Pact between Soviet and Japan. To simulate this, the rule above give a 5 ICP penalty if Soviet attack Manchuria (hence enter a Allied territory). To make it less favourable for Japan to attack Soviet, you also may add this line in the Japanese National Objective: Gain 5 IPC if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Manchuria, Kiangsu, French Indo-China/Thailand, and if no Japanese forces are present in any Soviet territory."

//Håkan

Hehe, well… You might have a point. Every solder knows that: “No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy”. So you have to be flexible… :-) But when playing a strong enemy, you are better off if you study a strong opening and try to stick to a sound strategy. Just like in chess. The problem in A&A is however the damn dices! You don’t have those bastards in chess! :-)

Regards,
Håkan

@Unknown:

@hakan:

A&A is just like chess. The one who study openings best, wins.

I disagree on both accounts.  :-D

A&A is obviously quite different in many respects. A big one is that new pieces are constantly coming on the board in addition to pieces leaving the board. If you have more material coming on board than the opponent, it doesn’t really matter if your opening is suboptimal.

As for chess, openings are important but very overrated. A better midgame/endgame player will beat a better opener virtually every time.

@hakan:

I have changed my mind. I also think the NO’s are brilliant! Not only because they make the strategies look more like in the real war, but also (don’t bark at me Krieghund) because you can balance the game yourself, or to simulate for example the “Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”, just by adding a few lines in the NO. Much better then to add complicated Optional Rules.

I have nothing against house rules, per se.  I use them myself.  I just think that some people are too quick to implement house rules to address perceived imbalances in games, before enough games have been played to determine whether there actually is a balance issue.