Will the Atlantic and Pacific in AA40 Global be balanced

Yes, or else Allies would always win, which would be boring.

Give the allies some sort of economical advantage. Give the Axis the “priority advantage” (meaning they play first, which is what happened in the war at the beginning) and some sort of military advantage.

Easier said than done though. But I believe Larry does good game. No need to worry

@Omega:

Yes, or else Allies would always win, which would be boring.

Give the allies some sort of economical advantage. Give the Axis the “priority advantage” (meaning they play first, which is what happened in the war at the beginning) and some sort of military advantage.

Easier said than done though. But I believe Larry does good game. No need to worry

Very much agreed.  I think Larry has done a pretty good job here in estimating the productions and military units available in his games and matching that to the historical facts as best as possible.  The info may be helpful however, so I just put it on his website.

Specifically, in the years 1940, 1941, 1942 (start times for his games), the comparisons from his games to the historical facts seem relatively close.  Of course there are many more factors that could be debated that go beyond what you see in these numbers. :-)

Just give me a balanced Axis and Allies game.

AA42 (the most recen one) is pretty balanced. in my opinion. and this next one will probably be as well

Yeah and also we do have to remember that this is Wikipedia, so some of the info could be suspect. But Larry I’m sure has his references already in placve for determining the game setup and I believe that we will have a very balanced game.

@questioneer:

Excellent- Gorshak +1 also- I’ll post this on Larry’s site for him to see, this may help balance or at least give a more historical G40 set up. :-)

I’m afraid that in the name of balance the real figures simply have to be ignored. Or else Germany would be starting one 10 IPCs or something…!

The figures of production show how outpowered the axis were - especially once they took on the US - a nation they had no way of directly attacking, and which was continental in scale of resource and population - the ‘arsenal of democracy’. Even the russians once they had recovered slightly from the loss of the Ukraine and moved their industries east began production on a scale that Germany could not keep up with…

Probably the most false aspect of A&A is the money - the axis were quite simply doomed. The closest approximation in A&A so far is Pacific and the US’s de facto 70+ income versus the Japanese who despite owning all those Islands never came close to even half of US production (see the wiki article and others i.e. Oxford Companion to WWII).

In fact - looking at Japan in particular - it was surprising she didn’t fold much sooner when you look at the bare facts and figures. But there you go. That good old Bushido spirit was good for something aye?

Oh sorry - according to wiki the Soviets did produce less of one unit than the Germans…

Training aircraft…!  :roll:

(maybe Larry could make that a special piece - Germany could start with a tower of training aircraft)

It’s only a game. Modifications had to be made to make it balanced.

yup. It adds a personal touch. and improves on an already great game

Yeah. What good would it be to play a game if you knew one side was always going to win

Yes. Game balance is vital.

Of course - the actual facts and figures also don’t account for the fact that the axis militarily did come close to winning at some points.

In fact - looking at the situation in autumn 1941-spring 1942 - you could say they were unlucky to lose.

you forgot the whole afrika failure too. but yes I see your point. they were very impatient

Yes over time the Allies would dominate production capacity as the war went on.  If the US wasn’t involved the war would be even or maybe a slight advance for Axis.  With the US involved, the only way for the Axis to win was with early key victories- Midway, Barborossa, SeaLion were just some of the major failures the Axis had to win in order for them to secure a quicker decisive victory- actually I think it would have been an armstice at best- but the war would have gone on a lot longer anyway.

If Germany would’ve succeeded in sacking Moscow, it could have been a longer war or an armstice.  If Japan would have won Midway or Guadalcanal- the war would have lasted longer etc.  I think the game at least introduces these themes along with the tech and NOs.  Remember, espionage, technological reasearch and such played a huge role and further aided the Allies greatly in the war.

There are many more factors than just the straight “numbers” that go into measuring  % chances of each side winning- I think the game presents those possiblities.  The more I study WW2, the more I am convinced that the Axis could have won if they had made some wiser decisions.  They had the iniative in the beginning and lost it as the US got involved and some of their strategic planning went south.

AA puts you in the pilot’s seat and allows you to make those some decisions or try to find some better ones- rewrite history- debating aside that what makes the game great.  Military initiative vs. Economic dominance in the longrun. :-)

I think we all could be better generals than Hitler.

Agreed. Hitler was only a corporal trying to play army, when he should have shut up and leave the important stuff to the real generals.

I think that it would be really stupid if the United States income is sepparated into Pacific and Atlantic in the global game, because then the US player doesn’t really get to decide whether or not he wants to focus on Germany or Japan first, or how to balance a war between the two of them, because the allocation of resources towards either part of the war would already be decided for him

Such strong words for your first post. Welcome mohare6. I’ll give you your first +1

I second that, very good post.