There is something very inconsistent with AA50 regarding play balance and Nos.

In both 1941 and 1942 axis has very easy access to at least 30 Ipcs of Nos and not that hard to get 40…

Allies have easy access to 10 Ipcs and sometimes get 5 or 10 more.

Thats a 20-30 Ipc swing for axis at the very least.

Now This is not a problem in itself, the inconsistency is that Nos are OPTIONAL. How can 2 versions of the game be balanced if in one of them axis has a huge bonus of Nos and in the other they have nothing?

This leads to two conclusions:

Either the game is balanced with OR without Nos but it cant be both at the same time.

If Nos are inbalanced, is there a way to fix them?

Its not the total of The nos that make it unbalanced, its their difficulty to achieve:

Japan: 1st No is given
2nd No is very easy (given in 1942)
3rd No is easy, especially in 1941

Germany:

1st No is Given
2nd No is Very easy (given in 1942)
3rd No is easy (kiarelia or Cau, Hard for Russia to defend both)

Italy:

1st No is easy ( at least at the start)
2n is not that hard to get

so axis: 25-40 easy to medium Nos
Allies:
Russia:
1st No is easy but prevents allies to be on Russian soil.
2nd No is pretty hard to get, at least very early in the game.

Uk: 1st No is hard to kepp as you have to keep Egypt
2nd No is very hard to get unless Us goes for iwo jima?
3 No is average to get, hard early on

USA:
1st no Is given
2nd No is almost impossible to get
3rd No: same as 3rd of Uk
4th No: not that bad but takes a couple of turns in 1942
allies: 10 easy
10 medium
and 30 hard to get.

If the allies get those hard to get Nos, the game is probably over anyway…

I do agree that they force some sides to do historical things. Taking france or Africa is a very good example.

The only problem is I feel that they are way too hard to get for the allies. Commonwealth No for England requires to control ALL territories, Egypt is gone turn 2 at best in most games, there is almost nothing that can be done to prevent this.

The phillipines one is even more ridiculous…

I dont know, I think they have to be tweaked a bit.

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 think one inf per territory is a bit too strong for China. However I think the number of inf they get should be rounded UP instead of down. That alone would help a bit…

Plus the Fighter needs to move back…

@TG:

A better idea is to say, “If No Chinese Fighter exists turning the Purchase Units phase, USA may pay 10 IPCs to build a Flying Tiger which can be placed in any Chinese occupied territory during the Mobilized Units phase”

I really like this Idea, It Forces Japan to really deal with China and keeps China as a playable power without being overly powerfull. It DOES advantage the allies a bit though which might affect play balance.

On China:

I too find that it is very sad that China gets blown to pieces in the first round without any serious commitment from Japan, very Ahistorical.

I was very excited that they had included Japan in a AA PAcific type of country, however I was very disapointed to see that the Chinese fighter was Blown to pieced on J1. That fighter surviving would have helped china to at least do some counters… ( as Inf alone are very weak in attacks…

Dont think allowing chinese to attack withh USA is a solution either (like in AAP) as it could become way too strong. In any case I am also very disaponted in how China does, at the very least in the 1941 scenario…

@Cmdr:

You are correct.  The NO’s favor the Axis, the board favors the Allies the game is balanced.

As soon as the board favors the Axis or the NOs favor the Allies the game is nearing it’s end.

So what you are saying is that the game is not balanced if playing without Nos?

But since Nos are optional, we would play an unbalanced game if we dont include them.
That was my point all along…
Dom

Jennifer,

I am not saying the game is imbalanced. It might or might not be. What I am saying is that Nos CLEARLY favor the axis.

Now they might encourage different allied play which is great but that is beyond the point.

My point is that if you ask me to play allies and you ask me Nos or not? I am always going to say no, unless I feel I want to give you and advantage. And That Should not be…

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 do agree that they force some sides to do historical things. Taking france or Africa is a very good example.

The only problem is I feel that they are way too hard to get for the allies. Commonwealth No for England requires to control ALL territories, Egypt is gone turn 2 at best in most games, there is almost nothing that can be done to prevent this.

The phillipines one is even more ridiculous…

I dont know, I think they have to be tweaked a bit.

Its not the total of The nos that make it unbalanced, its their difficulty to achieve:

Japan: 1st No is given
2nd No is very easy (given in 1942)
3rd No is easy, especially in 1941

Germany:

1st No is Given
2nd No is Very easy (given in 1942)
3rd No is easy (kiarelia or Cau, Hard for Russia to defend both)

Italy:

1st No is easy ( at least at the start)
2n is not that hard to get

so axis: 25-40 easy to medium Nos
Allies:
Russia:
1st No is easy but prevents allies to be on Russian soil.
2nd No is pretty hard to get, at least very early in the game.

Uk: 1st No is hard to kepp as you have to keep Egypt
2nd No is very hard to get unless Us goes for iwo jima?
3 No is average to get, hard early on

USA:
1st no Is given
2nd No is almost impossible to get
3rd No: same as 3rd of Uk
4th No: not that bad but takes a couple of turns in 1942
allies: 10 easy
10 medium
and 30 hard to get.

If the allies get those hard to get Nos, the game is probably over anyway…

There is something very inconsistent with AA50 regarding play balance and Nos.

In both 1941 and 1942 axis has very easy access to at least 30 Ipcs of Nos and not that hard to get 40…

Allies have easy access to 10 Ipcs and sometimes get 5 or 10 more.

Thats a 20-30 Ipc swing for axis at the very least.

Now This is not a problem in itself, the inconsistency is that Nos are OPTIONAL. How can 2 versions of the game be balanced if in one of them axis has a huge bonus of Nos and in the other they have nothing?

This leads to two conclusions:

Either the game is balanced with OR without Nos but it cant be both at the same time.

If Nos are inbalanced, is there a way to fix them?