The AA50 is probably my favorite map of the entire series. It is large enough to add a nice global feel with the unit/time bloat of G40. The NO's are a great idea - encouraging play objectives, and we found the extra IPC's helps to make the game go a bit faster play wise. However, as you have pointed out - they are not well balance at all. Our solution to that is to use a bid for the Allies which has made for both better game play and higher variety in game styles (different bids create difference strategies).
I agree with your initial assessment, they are skewed in favor of the axis, however aren't they supposed to be. Initially, the allies were fighting a very uphill battle against a force that many deemed to be unstoppable. They're inertia based, the axis start off on the front foot, but once the allies get going the tide begins to change. They did a good job with historical accuracy as well, for example italy's mare nostrum. On top of that, they gave value to territories that might otherwise be ignored, the Solomons or the Caroline Islands, for example. Then, it nullifies the problem with the green skies video by mitigating the effect of bombing raids, problem solved. I like the mechanic, I wish every version had it. Great video series though, I thoroughly enjoyed watching.
Realism arguments on behalf of Axis and Allies have always come off as odd to me. Just because it works out historically does not axiomatically mean its good for game play. I'll posit that two expert players playing this game against each other with National Objectives turned "on" will see the Axis player win 19 out of 20 games, if that. That is how skewed I believe and have experienced this optional rule to be. This is terrible for the game for hopefully obvious reasons (despite any historical accuracies). I feel, the best application of this optional rule is between players who have little experience. You mention green skies. Again, in my experience though that strategy certainly favors the allies, National Objectives and green skies just don't break even - the problem is not solved. The mass influx of IPC to the Axis lessons the effect of paying off the bomb damage to a shocking degree. I would surmise that between expert players the axis win 17 or 18 games of that theoretical 20 when using green skies. BUT - I always leave my mind open to being changed and I appreciate comments like this. If you ever want to put any of this to the test, I'm 100% here for a totally friendly game(s). If it turns out I was wrong about something, I would absolutely post a video. I only care about what works best in a game of Axis and Allies.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 That's a fair point and admittedly, I'm not an expert on this particular version. I'm going to play with my friend who taught me how to play on classic in a couple days, so we'll see how we feel after the game. I still love that it's an option. It would be fair to say that the concept is cool, even if the functionality isn't ideal.
@@jeramyahrussell2784ya, I actually agree with that. I never did test it, but I felt that you could keep everything the same and just turn down the IPCs collected for the axis NOs from 5 to 3ish. Love Classic - that remains my favorite. Happy gaming my dude!
@@thegoodcaptain1217 I'll give that a try, maybe make it a little less OP. Classic is the greatest, we can agree on that. Thanks for the well wishes brother.
Another great video with some really good points and analogies. Couldn't agree more about the Allies NOs. It's shame that so many of them are relevant only once the allies are already winning. The NOs feel too Axis favoured and that, as you say, takes away from the Axis military Vs Allies economy aspect of the game. The way anniversary is set up pretty much makes a KJF strat an impossibility IMO, and there doesn't seem to be much diversity in strategic options. It's a shame really because Anniversary seems to offer so much. But somehow the devs didn't get it quite right. Again, great video mate. Thanks for doing these.. I've learned a great deal from them. Looking forward to the next in the series. Cheers
Hey Corporal, my friend! Thanks for this comment. Traditional KJF is certainly not an option in this game, I agree. Glad you’re enjoying the series. More to come! 😬
NO may be scripting but they add historical flavor and give players reasons to follow historical paths. Adds just a touch of realism to a game that I think it needs. Would rather see the NO adjusted to balance them than just removing them. Same thing with tech.
I'm beginning to sympathize with comments like this. Although the intent was to evaluate the game as it is, I might make recommendations along the lines you've mentioned in my 12th video in this series. Thanks for the comment my dude.
This is an awesome series. I would love to see some of your ideas on house rules for these optional rules to make them better and more balanced. What would you change?
Hey man! Thanks for the comment. Like I did with my Classic series, my intent is to find the most balanced combination of optional rules and present that. This is a good question though, and I will ponder on it (I really haven’t thought about specifically fixing the NOs).
I hear people say that NO's are better for the Axis, but I don't agree. I think at best it's a wash. It's true that England is kind of meh starting out, but they also share the exact same objective as USA (France) which is a huge plus. Even early on, the Allied NO's still have great value even if they aren't collected, because it forces Germany to better defend France, Poland, etc.. Every infantry in France is one less infantry in Russia. Also, if you play a kill Italy first strategy (as you should), it can have a huge mid game swing in the Allies' favor. Especially if you add the extra 10 from Russia. Don't get me wrong, I think Axis have the advantage in the 1941 scenario, no doubt, but I attribute that to Japan's (a.k.a. "Godzilla") starting forces more than the NO's. By turn 3 or 4 you can have Italy collecting 5 or even ZERO NO's, and England collecting 1. If you can cut off Germany from 1 or 2 of their NO's, things suddenly swing into the Allies' favor. I also find Italy money to have less value, and Soviet money to have more value. What's Italy going to do with 5 extra IPC's? Camp extra infantry on France that will do nothing but sit there and not attack anything? Meanwhile, even just 1 extra fighter for Russia is huge for trading territories!! I also find that having NO's improves the strategy of the game for me personally. Yeah, it may encourage you to go certain ways, but it also adds a new dynamic to the game - Not only to win your own objectives, but to prevent the opponent from getting theirs; the latter being a huge dynamic in itself. I find it also makes the game more historically accurate - Weather the Axis storm, and then turn things around (Especially if you bank that juicy Soviet NO!). Ultimately, even if you are right and it does give an advantage to the Axis, it's so minor it's barely worth mentioning. I'd say my main complaint is just that it's less fun for a UK player at the beginning. But UK starts slow either way, so whatever.
I could not disagree in stronger terms. Of the many issues I see in this comment, I will just pick a few and say that I feel like you are underestimating Italy both on its impact on the game and the efficacy of KIF. An experienced axis player should be able to keep the Allies out of Europe indefinitely and Italy plays a crucial supporting role in that (as well as on the East front). My Italy video covers some of this. The oddest comment to me is "weather the axis storm and then turn things around". With NO option on, its very nearly categorical that the economic advantage enjoyed by the Allies is gone by the end of round 2. You can do this by just counting up the IPC round to round. The axis will still be on the offensive on virtually every front this early in the game and now be at economic parity so I'm not sure how your statement carries water here. To say that the effect is so minor its barely worth mentioning... if you feel that strongly about it, I offer to play a game(s) where I am the axis and you can be the allies. Maybe I missed something. But on this matter, I don't believe I have.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 By turn 4, Italy should only be collecting 1 NO. Their forces meanwhile will generally play nothing but a defensive role, which severely lessens the value of the units they buy, too. USA has 4 NOs, largely making up for UK having lame ones, and losing the Philippines just drops them to 3 which is the best everyone else gets. If USA gets 3, UK 1, Russia 1, Japan 3, Germany 2, Italy 1, that's only 5 in favor of Axis, and is easy to do turn 3 or 4. If Germany/Italy is completely defending Europe that is absolutely fantastic for the allies as it slows down the Russian invasion immensely. You don't even need to take France/Balkans/Poland for the NOs to benefit the Allies, as simply forcing Axis to defend them is enough. Simply the THREAT of taking France, Italy, Balkans, and Poland forces Germany/Italy to commit a ton of troops that have to just sit there and do nothing. But things swing into the Allies' favor if you can collect the Russian 10, and Scandinavian territories make this a real threat. Especially if USA controls the Mediterranean. Again, I'm not saying the game is balanced perfectly. I just don't think the NOs are as big of a problem as people make them out to be. Godzilla's is the REAL reason the Axis is overpowered in this version, and that happens NOs or not. Personally I prefer the added depth, as it allows another layer of strategy in which you can use to outplay a less skilled opponent.
@@joshcoar7386 Respectfully, if an allied player ever collects the Russian 10 IPC NO, you're playing an incredibly weak axis opponent. And I generally feel that way as I read this comment. I understand what you're saying and I don't think any of this will hold up against axis opponents with experience playing many games against many different opponents. I don't mean this offensively and I leave my mind open to being changed on this point but it would have to be over the board. I leave an open invitation to you as regards this NO difference of opinion.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Obviously the 10 IPC NO is generally not going to happen easily. But I have to fire back at you and ask - How many of the games you have played had NOs? You also play with Dardanelles closed, which in many ways is actually bad for the Allies (Assuming you can properly defend Caucasus.). I mean, sure, you have to move American ships deeper into the Med, but it can be a legit threat on Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc.. It's also why I prefer more than 4 American transports, as it creates more threats that Germany needs to account for.
@@joshcoar7386 it was something like 8 games. I wanted to stop the madness after five or six and the online player opponents I was playing against (and swapping sides with) all easily agreed but then I had a face to face player friend of mine insist that it was balanced and all the allies needed was a +3 bid so we played three more games with Allies +3 until he was convinced the bid "needs to be north of 10" with NO which is still about half the bid the online community thinks it should be. To your last sentence, with NO - yes the USA should have more than four transports, I agree. As an aside, the USA should lose two NOs through the course of the game - the Pacific Islands NO falls apart in from of Godzilla as you call it (completely agree with you about Japan in general).
Great video and great job with your research and work! I’ve come to the same conclusion, that the national objectives favor the Axis. I agree with all of your points except one, which is the objective that the Soviet Union has about controlling Archangel with no other Allied units on its territory. I’ve extensively studied the history of the Second World War, and I think when the creators made this objective, it was more or less historically based. From what I’ve learned, the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, in some senses, were only allies because they had a common enemy. They never really worked together, not only because of being geographically separated but also because they were culturally and ideologically distinct. However, this is also not to say that they never helped each other out, because the Western Allies sent convoys which contained war materials and armaments into the Soviet Union, mostly into ports that were in the Archangel area. So, that area was a critical part of the Lend-Lease effort and provided aid to the Russians. I do understand your argument that it discourages coordination, but again, I think it has some historical base to it. Anyways, again great video, thanks for putting it together!
I totally respect where you're coming from historically in regards to the arctic convoys and lend lease aid. Derek asked a comment below, "what would you change?" in regards to the NOs and to me this one is the easiest: make it only about maintaining control of Archangel. This game is not as detailed as global where the same NO exists. It's a different scale entirely and the NO should reflect that. Anyway, that's my two cents. I think yours is a good comment, thanks for posting my dude.
I don't think it's fair to state that since the axis do have some layups early for boost ipcs that means that will hold them indefinitely. G2 or G3 is often a retreat from Ukraine even with the Dardenelles open. And from your optional Barbarossa strategy with heavy commitment to the Baltics, I feel that's already a concession for Germany. Players of Germany must keep in mind the additional income is still constricted by their 10 build capacity. And I agree for the need of infantry for Germany. A savvy Russian player would concede Leningrad's unthreatening production capability and retreat their AA gun. This causes at least an additional turn for Germany to mount any practical offensive against Stalingrad or Russia until turn 6, and at that point the Atlantic has a shot of holding France, industrializing Norway or placing a lot of pressure on Japan (potentially taking them out of the game). Italy on the other hand is very interesting, but the objective production gain is is not as important as creating a channel for a Japanese protective fleet to join Italy. If not, you lose any hope of Africa, Italy becomes a poor France protectorate and the masses of Allied assistance to Russia will pummel the Germans in KGF or eventually After a KJF. I admit, 100% of my game experience is '41 NO, tech, OD, bid 0.
A zero bid flies in the face of the +20 allied bid that is generally accepted by the majority of online players when using NOs. As stated in one of your earlier comments, a friendly open challenge is on the table for you.
For some reason this seems realistic though and maybe it's just finally making the Axis a threat that has to be taken much more seriously. There's a serious possibility of the Allies losing the war.
I don’t think it’s so easy for Italy to get 2 Nat O on their first turn and more likely they will only get 1 for most of the game. US can pick up one Japanese island and they are killing two birds with one stone. I’m in favor of Nat Os because it makes the game more historically accurate and I think the game is balanced in favor of the allies to begin with so it balances it out and makes it more interesting.
I couldn’t disagree in stronger terms, especially as regards the overall balance. Still, perhaps we all missed something so I offer a friendly and open invitation to a game where I play as the axis with NO and oob setup. If you’re right, I’ll issue a video correction and give you the credit, if I’m wrong, no harm, no foul - you’ll leave a better player. My email is ryanvoz(at)yahoo.com
Thanks PK. BTW, I appreciate your Midway unboxing video. I have been seriously turned off by HBG pieces as of 1.5 years ago but those sculpts look immaculate. Glad to see such detail in both ships and planes. Rock onward my AnA RUclips comrade. =)
The AA50 is probably my favorite map of the entire series. It is large enough to add a nice global feel with the unit/time bloat of G40. The NO's are a great idea - encouraging play objectives, and we found the extra IPC's helps to make the game go a bit faster play wise. However, as you have pointed out - they are not well balance at all. Our solution to that is to use a bid for the Allies which has made for both better game play and higher variety in game styles (different bids create difference strategies).
100% agree!
I totally agree. I feel like national objectives forces the game in a certain direction and remove creativity from the game. Great videos!
I agree with your initial assessment, they are skewed in favor of the axis, however aren't they supposed to be. Initially, the allies were fighting a very uphill battle against a force that many deemed to be unstoppable. They're inertia based, the axis start off on the front foot, but once the allies get going the tide begins to change. They did a good job with historical accuracy as well, for example italy's mare nostrum. On top of that, they gave value to territories that might otherwise be ignored, the Solomons or the Caroline Islands, for example. Then, it nullifies the problem with the green skies video by mitigating the effect of bombing raids, problem solved. I like the mechanic, I wish every version had it. Great video series though, I thoroughly enjoyed watching.
Realism arguments on behalf of Axis and Allies have always come off as odd to me. Just because it works out historically does not axiomatically mean its good for game play. I'll posit that two expert players playing this game against each other with National Objectives turned "on" will see the Axis player win 19 out of 20 games, if that. That is how skewed I believe and have experienced this optional rule to be. This is terrible for the game for hopefully obvious reasons (despite any historical accuracies). I feel, the best application of this optional rule is between players who have little experience. You mention green skies. Again, in my experience though that strategy certainly favors the allies, National Objectives and green skies just don't break even - the problem is not solved. The mass influx of IPC to the Axis lessons the effect of paying off the bomb damage to a shocking degree. I would surmise that between expert players the axis win 17 or 18 games of that theoretical 20 when using green skies. BUT - I always leave my mind open to being changed and I appreciate comments like this. If you ever want to put any of this to the test, I'm 100% here for a totally friendly game(s). If it turns out I was wrong about something, I would absolutely post a video. I only care about what works best in a game of Axis and Allies.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 That's a fair point and admittedly, I'm not an expert on this particular version. I'm going to play with my friend who taught me how to play on classic in a couple days, so we'll see how we feel after the game. I still love that it's an option. It would be fair to say that the concept is cool, even if the functionality isn't ideal.
@@jeramyahrussell2784ya, I actually agree with that. I never did test it, but I felt that you could keep everything the same and just turn down the IPCs collected for the axis NOs from 5 to 3ish. Love Classic - that remains my favorite. Happy gaming my dude!
@@thegoodcaptain1217 I'll give that a try, maybe make it a little less OP. Classic is the greatest, we can agree on that. Thanks for the well wishes brother.
Another great video with some really good points and analogies. Couldn't agree more about the Allies NOs. It's shame that so many of them are relevant only once the allies are already winning. The NOs feel too Axis favoured and that, as you say, takes away from the Axis military Vs Allies economy aspect of the game.
The way anniversary is set up pretty much makes a KJF strat an impossibility IMO, and there doesn't seem to be much diversity in strategic options. It's a shame really because Anniversary seems to offer so much. But somehow the devs didn't get it quite right.
Again, great video mate. Thanks for doing these.. I've learned a great deal from them. Looking forward to the next in the series. Cheers
Hey Corporal, my friend! Thanks for this comment. Traditional KJF is certainly not an option in this game, I agree. Glad you’re enjoying the series. More to come! 😬
NO may be scripting but they add historical flavor and give players reasons to follow historical paths. Adds just a touch of realism to a game that I think it needs. Would rather see the NO adjusted to balance them than just removing them. Same thing with tech.
I'm beginning to sympathize with comments like this. Although the intent was to evaluate the game as it is, I might make recommendations along the lines you've mentioned in my 12th video in this series. Thanks for the comment my dude.
This is an awesome series. I would love to see some of your ideas on house rules for these optional rules to make them better and more balanced. What would you change?
Hey man! Thanks for the comment. Like I did with my Classic series, my intent is to find the most balanced combination of optional rules and present that. This is a good question though, and I will ponder on it (I really haven’t thought about specifically fixing the NOs).
I hear people say that NO's are better for the Axis, but I don't agree. I think at best it's a wash. It's true that England is kind of meh starting out, but they also share the exact same objective as USA (France) which is a huge plus. Even early on, the Allied NO's still have great value even if they aren't collected, because it forces Germany to better defend France, Poland, etc.. Every infantry in France is one less infantry in Russia. Also, if you play a kill Italy first strategy (as you should), it can have a huge mid game swing in the Allies' favor. Especially if you add the extra 10 from Russia. Don't get me wrong, I think Axis have the advantage in the 1941 scenario, no doubt, but I attribute that to Japan's (a.k.a. "Godzilla") starting forces more than the NO's. By turn 3 or 4 you can have Italy collecting 5 or even ZERO NO's, and England collecting 1. If you can cut off Germany from 1 or 2 of their NO's, things suddenly swing into the Allies' favor.
I also find Italy money to have less value, and Soviet money to have more value. What's Italy going to do with 5 extra IPC's? Camp extra infantry on France that will do nothing but sit there and not attack anything? Meanwhile, even just 1 extra fighter for Russia is huge for trading territories!!
I also find that having NO's improves the strategy of the game for me personally. Yeah, it may encourage you to go certain ways, but it also adds a new dynamic to the game - Not only to win your own objectives, but to prevent the opponent from getting theirs; the latter being a huge dynamic in itself. I find it also makes the game more historically accurate - Weather the Axis storm, and then turn things around (Especially if you bank that juicy Soviet NO!).
Ultimately, even if you are right and it does give an advantage to the Axis, it's so minor it's barely worth mentioning. I'd say my main complaint is just that it's less fun for a UK player at the beginning. But UK starts slow either way, so whatever.
I could not disagree in stronger terms. Of the many issues I see in this comment, I will just pick a few and say that I feel like you are underestimating Italy both on its impact on the game and the efficacy of KIF. An experienced axis player should be able to keep the Allies out of Europe indefinitely and Italy plays a crucial supporting role in that (as well as on the East front). My Italy video covers some of this.
The oddest comment to me is "weather the axis storm and then turn things around". With NO option on, its very nearly categorical that the economic advantage enjoyed by the Allies is gone by the end of round 2. You can do this by just counting up the IPC round to round. The axis will still be on the offensive on virtually every front this early in the game and now be at economic parity so I'm not sure how your statement carries water here. To say that the effect is so minor its barely worth mentioning... if you feel that strongly about it, I offer to play a game(s) where I am the axis and you can be the allies. Maybe I missed something. But on this matter, I don't believe I have.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 By turn 4, Italy should only be collecting 1 NO. Their forces meanwhile will generally play nothing but a defensive role, which severely lessens the value of the units they buy, too.
USA has 4 NOs, largely making up for UK having lame ones, and losing the Philippines just drops them to 3 which is the best everyone else gets. If USA gets 3, UK 1, Russia 1, Japan 3, Germany 2, Italy 1, that's only 5 in favor of Axis, and is easy to do turn 3 or 4.
If Germany/Italy is completely defending Europe that is absolutely fantastic for the allies as it slows down the Russian invasion immensely. You don't even need to take France/Balkans/Poland for the NOs to benefit the Allies, as simply forcing Axis to defend them is enough. Simply the THREAT of taking France, Italy, Balkans, and Poland forces Germany/Italy to commit a ton of troops that have to just sit there and do nothing.
But things swing into the Allies' favor if you can collect the Russian 10, and Scandinavian territories make this a real threat. Especially if USA controls the Mediterranean.
Again, I'm not saying the game is balanced perfectly. I just don't think the NOs are as big of a problem as people make them out to be. Godzilla's is the REAL reason the Axis is overpowered in this version, and that happens NOs or not.
Personally I prefer the added depth, as it allows another layer of strategy in which you can use to outplay a less skilled opponent.
@@joshcoar7386 Respectfully, if an allied player ever collects the Russian 10 IPC NO, you're playing an incredibly weak axis opponent. And I generally feel that way as I read this comment. I understand what you're saying and I don't think any of this will hold up against axis opponents with experience playing many games against many different opponents. I don't mean this offensively and I leave my mind open to being changed on this point but it would have to be over the board. I leave an open invitation to you as regards this NO difference of opinion.
@@thegoodcaptain1217 Obviously the 10 IPC NO is generally not going to happen easily. But I have to fire back at you and ask - How many of the games you have played had NOs? You also play with Dardanelles closed, which in many ways is actually bad for the Allies (Assuming you can properly defend Caucasus.). I mean, sure, you have to move American ships deeper into the Med, but it can be a legit threat on Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc.. It's also why I prefer more than 4 American transports, as it creates more threats that Germany needs to account for.
@@joshcoar7386 it was something like 8 games. I wanted to stop the madness after five or six and the online player opponents I was playing against (and swapping sides with) all easily agreed but then I had a face to face player friend of mine insist that it was balanced and all the allies needed was a +3 bid so we played three more games with Allies +3 until he was convinced the bid "needs to be north of 10" with NO which is still about half the bid the online community thinks it should be. To your last sentence, with NO - yes the USA should have more than four transports, I agree. As an aside, the USA should lose two NOs through the course of the game - the Pacific Islands NO falls apart in from of Godzilla as you call it (completely agree with you about Japan in general).
Brilliant video and analysis!🎉
Great video and great job with your research and work! I’ve come to the same conclusion, that the national objectives favor the Axis. I agree with all of your points except one, which is the objective that the Soviet Union has about controlling Archangel with no other Allied units on its territory. I’ve extensively studied the history of the Second World War, and I think when the creators made this objective, it was more or less historically based. From what I’ve learned, the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, in some senses, were only allies because they had a common enemy. They never really worked together, not only because of being geographically separated but also because they were culturally and ideologically distinct. However, this is also not to say that they never helped each other out, because the Western Allies sent convoys which contained war materials and armaments into the Soviet Union, mostly into ports that were in the Archangel area. So, that area was a critical part of the Lend-Lease effort and provided aid to the Russians. I do understand your argument that it discourages coordination, but again, I think it has some historical base to it. Anyways, again great video, thanks for putting it together!
I totally respect where you're coming from historically in regards to the arctic convoys and lend lease aid. Derek asked a comment below, "what would you change?" in regards to the NOs and to me this one is the easiest: make it only about maintaining control of Archangel. This game is not as detailed as global where the same NO exists. It's a different scale entirely and the NO should reflect that. Anyway, that's my two cents. I think yours is a good comment, thanks for posting my dude.
Wow. I never realized that disparity.
I play on a map I altered in photoshop with my own rules. I wrote my own national objectives, which I think is more balanced
I'll have to agree with the Good Captain on these National Objectives, they seem annoying to me, especially when missing out.
You finally came back
Had to stack a few extra Anniversary games specifically for this video. The rest should come within two weeks of each other now.
I don't think it's fair to state that since the axis do have some layups early for boost ipcs that means that will hold them indefinitely. G2 or G3 is often a retreat from Ukraine even with the Dardenelles open. And from your optional Barbarossa strategy with heavy commitment to the Baltics, I feel that's already a concession for Germany.
Players of Germany must keep in mind the additional income is still constricted by their 10 build capacity. And I agree for the need of infantry for Germany. A savvy Russian player would concede Leningrad's unthreatening production capability and retreat their AA gun. This causes at least an additional turn for Germany to mount any practical offensive against Stalingrad or Russia until turn 6, and at that point the Atlantic has a shot of holding France, industrializing Norway or placing a lot of pressure on Japan (potentially taking them out of the game).
Italy on the other hand is very interesting, but the objective production gain is is not as important as creating a channel for a Japanese protective fleet to join Italy. If not, you lose any hope of Africa, Italy becomes a poor France protectorate and the masses of Allied assistance to Russia will pummel the Germans in KGF or eventually After a KJF.
I admit, 100% of my game experience is '41 NO, tech, OD, bid 0.
A zero bid flies in the face of the +20 allied bid that is generally accepted by the majority of online players when using NOs. As stated in one of your earlier comments, a friendly open challenge is on the table for you.
For some reason this seems realistic though and maybe it's just finally making the Axis a threat that has to be taken much more seriously. There's a serious possibility of the Allies losing the war.
I don’t think it’s so easy for Italy to get 2 Nat O on their first turn and more likely they will only get 1 for most of the game. US can pick up one Japanese island and they are killing two birds with one stone. I’m in favor of Nat Os because it makes the game more historically accurate and I think the game is balanced in favor of the allies to begin with so it balances it out and makes it more interesting.
I couldn’t disagree in stronger terms, especially as regards the overall balance. Still, perhaps we all missed something so I offer a friendly and open invitation to a game where I play as the axis with NO and oob setup. If you’re right, I’ll issue a video correction and give you the credit, if I’m wrong, no harm, no foul - you’ll leave a better player. My email is ryanvoz(at)yahoo.com
Keep it up:)
Thanks PK. BTW, I appreciate your Midway unboxing video. I have been seriously turned off by HBG pieces as of 1.5 years ago but those sculpts look immaculate. Glad to see such detail in both ships and planes. Rock onward my AnA RUclips comrade. =)
Amen!!