National Advantages?

[Attila the Wolf]

How often do you play A&A with national advantages?

[series]

I put "Don't Know" because I use a different type of national advantage, in which you get both bad and good. You can find out about this in Axis and Allies Advanced.

[TrimChris]

I put "Don't Know" because I use a different type of national advantage, in which you get both bad and good. You can find out about this in Axis and Allies Advanced.

Wouldn't something bad be a National Disadvantage?

[series]

Wouldn't something bad be a National Disadvantage?lol, thats what I call em :D

Sorta like how i make the western-allied tanks defend at 2, and i make the japanese tanks attack and defend at 2.

[Lobo]

We never play with NA but I really think it would be cool to try them out. One problem is that we so rarely get to play that we want to keep a level playing field and the other is that so many of the NA stink or are just plain silly. If the LHTR NAs or something similar made it into another edition of AAR, we would definately use the NAs.

I think the NA are one of the more interesting and under utilized aspects of AAR.

[cousin_joe]

The LHTR NA's are still grossly imbalanced, both between nations and within nations. This pretty much makes them unplayable as far as players choosing their own NAs. Assigning them randomly can create an imbalanced condition right from the start. They really need to be balanced out, so that they are all of about equal value, particularly within nations (ie. all of a nation's NA's should be roughly the same strength).

[Attila the Wolf]

I totally disagree. If anything, I think the Axis NAs should be slightly better than the Allies.

As for balancing within countries NAs, they already are - you just havn't realized it. When you first look at them, you think "wow, this option is way better than that option", but that's not necessarily the case. You have to utilize a strategy that complements the NA you select. So yeah, selecting a naval NA when you're mostly going to fight on land isn't very smart, but then neither are you for selecting it in the first place.

I think NAs provide a better balance than the unofficial rules I see people creating on this board. You just have to tailor your strategy to the NA you pick.

[TrimChris]

I like NAs, but unfortunately don't use them except with Enhanced.

[cousin_joe]

I totally disagree. If anything, I think the Axis NAs should be slightly better than the Allies.

As for balancing within countries NAs, they already are - you just havn't realized it. When you first look at them, you think "wow, this option is way better than that option", but that's not necessarily the case. You have to utilize a strategy that complements the NA you select. So yeah, selecting a naval NA when you're mostly going to fight on land isn't very smart, but then neither are you for selecting it in the first place.

I think NAs provide a better balance than the unofficial rules I see people creating on this board. You just have to tailor your strategy to the NA you pick.
Sorry Attila, but I will have to disagree here. How are Lend-Lease and Salvage anywhere close to balanced with each other? One can give you a single tank/ROUND, the other can give you 10+/ROUND. Joint Strike and Mid-East Oil are nowhere close either. Or how about the invincible US Superfortresses that can SBR the Axis into oblivion, while all Japan gets stuck with are lousy Kaiten Torpedoes. Avalon Hill NA's are nowhere close to being balanced, and that's what makes them generally unplayable.

[Attila the Wolf]

Well, you can make childish posts all you want. I stopped taking you seriously a while back. I'm actually quite ashamed that you're a fellow Canadian, what with you going around insulting people all the time. If this board has moderators, they should remove you. You must be a kid...

p.s. I stand by my post.

[cousin_joe]

Sorry Attila, sometimes I get a little carried away :o , but really man, do you seriously think the original NA's that came with A&A: Revised are balanced?

I see your join date was August/04, so you probably missed a lot of the conversation earlier on, especially when the game first came out, but there were a ton of posts about the unbalanced NAs then, particularly the ones I mentioned, and it's generally accepted that they are (hence, a partial attempt to fix them with LHTR rules). I suppose you're entitled to your opinion though.

So, sorry again, I realize I did go a bit overboard, and it was very un-Canadian of me :) Hopefully there are no hard feelings :o

P.S. I have edited my original post
P.P.S. I'm not a kid :)

[GROGnads]

Well, I'm sorry to have missed your 'O'riginal missive cousin_joe, as it must have been a 'doosy'! To get 'dis-owned' by a fellow countryman, you'd have to fall into the 'ranks' of that 'Z' fellow and I don't believe that YOU would stoop that low. :D heh heh. It still doesn't detract from your statements about the "N.A."s and some of them being imbalanced in regards to others. Nor does Attila's response, except for 'asking' for YOUR removal, and I've got some inflammatory remarks myself, although usually directed at the "powers that be", but some folks just seem to draw my ire. Now, the both of you shake hands and make nice-nice.;)

[Lobo]

I agree with Attila that the NA's are underutilized as a means of balancing the game. Where is it stated that every player/nation needs to receive a NA? Since the Axis have an uphill fight you can give them 2 or 3 NA and the Allies none. What's wrong with that?

I do think that when you compare all of the allied NAs to the axis NAs, the axis are seriously shortchanged. The LHTR set NA's are a big improvement and level the playing field if you were to spread NA's equally. That said I don't think they need to be spread equally.

[Attila the Wolf]

I just think it would be better to utilize the rules that are included in A&A to balance the game (if that's needed), rather than create new rulesets.

There's a serious lack of strategy posts re: NAs, which leads me to believe people have written them off without giving them enough thought.

I could see Kaiten torpedoes being extremely effective as a one-shot offensive weapon to destroy another player's fleet. Just get super subs, buy 4-5 subs, and wham-o!, you've got a deadly first punch that is especially effective if you can catch the enemy's fleet without a destroyer. Think about it, 4-5 (or more) subs attacking at 4 (as good as a battleship!) with their casualties not being able to respond at all! Sure you lose them after the first round, but in all probability the damage has been done.

Or Germany's U-boat Interdiction (IMO, an awesome NA). Build up 5 subs or more (maybe by keeping your original 3 alive if possible), and sail them to some extreme southern point on the map. Voila! UK and USA are losing 5 IPCs each and every turn. If either tries to hunt down your subs, simply sail them further away. Not only will you be draining IPCs from the allies, but you'll probably be driving them nuts too as they may divert resources to catch your subs.

These are just two ideas I've come up with in the past day or so. Think how many other strategies people could come up with if they spent time thinking about NAs rather than creating their own personal set of house rules...

[Vollick1979]

Who came up with the NA's that came with the game? Are you actually thinking that any more thought went into the original NA's then what is going on in this forum? Sure there are some cool ideas but some of the rules are broken.

Attila, I think enough thought has gone into the NA's (especially by online clubs) to realize the NA's as given are unbalanced, hence the modifications the LHTR made to NA's (i think almost half of them have been modified in some form or another). But still they are just fixes to optional rules made up arbitrarily by the game designers. I think cousin joe with his "house rules" has put a lot of thought into the NA's.

Attila if you really like Kaitens and U-boat Inderdiction that much we should have a game (I was just in Mississauga today and i live in London ON) i'll choose, Lend Lease, Colonial Garrison and SuperFortresses, heck just to show my generosity i'll let you have a 3rd NA for either Japan or Germany! ;)

[cousin_joe]

Well, I'm sorry to have missed your 'O'riginal missive cousin_joe, as it must have been a 'doosy'! To get 'dis-owned' by a fellow countryman, you'd have to fall into the 'ranks' of that 'Z' fellow and I don't believe that YOU would stoop that low. :D heh heh. It still doesn't detract from your statements about the "N.A."s and some of them being imbalanced in regards to others. Nor does Attila's response, except for 'asking' for YOUR removal, and I've got some inflammatory remarks myself, although usually directed at the "powers that be", but some folks just seem to draw my ire. Now, the both of you shake hands and make nice-nice.;)It was a 'doosy' alright Grogs and yes, it was a bit overboard, hence the changes. :) I want to say more, but I think I'll leave it at that. :) Actually, Vollick's post above is pretty good at getting the point across as well.

[Lobo]

Attila if you really like Kaitens and U-boat Inderdiction that much we should have a game (I was just in Mississauga today and i live in London ON) i'll choose, Lend Lease, Colonial Garrison and SuperFortresses, heck just to show my generosity i'll let you have a 3rd NA for either Japan or Germany! ;)

Where did you get the idea that everone gets a NA? Since the bid for no NA is 6-9 for the axis, the axis should get Kaitens and U-Boat Interdiction and the allies nothing. Then you can eliminate the bid.

Yes, Cj and LHTR have better NA than OOTB rules.

[Drax Kramer]

Where did you get the idea that everone gets a NA?

Precisely. NA's are the official balancing tools, yet people would rather use bidding, new sets, house rules within the first six months of the game than trying to play with them.

I wonder how many Minor Victory games with Colonial Garrison as sole NA have been played and with what results.


Drax

[Desert Rat]

I havn't used NA in any of my revised games so far, but I don't want to vote in the poll because my official answer isn't 'never' as if I refuse to play with them but rather 'havn't tried them yet'.

I havn't used NA yet because my only current opponent does okay on his own and we are both still getting to know the new revised edition. However, I definately see myself using NA if Im playing a newbie which I have done a lot in the past. Giving a newbie a bunch of NAs while giving myself none might balance the game more so the newbie won't get frustrated and not want to play anymore.

[Attila the Wolf]

...yet people would rather use bidding, new sets, house rules within the first six months of the game than trying to play with them.


Precisely!!! That's exactly what I'm saying.

No where did I say more time went into creating the NAs than the time that goes into this board; and that's part of the problem. It seems too many people are trying to make houserules when they don't even know the full capabilities of the ruleset as given. When someone is creating a new ruleset within months of the game coming out, I don't care how "experienced" you think you are, I think you haven't played long enough or against enough opponents with the rules as written to be making that judgement call. IMHO.

[Molotov Cocktail]

They have to be balanced properly. I'm still working on that one a bit. Most of my games we throw in a few.

But I find the NAs are an excellent addition to AAR. Even though they don't change the games drastically, they do give some food for thought with respect to different strategies. Usually its still just the race to Moscow but nonetheless they make that road a little bumpier sometimes.

[Stephen]

Well I must say I don't have any serious complaints against the OOTB NAs. If people want to roll randomly for them, or divide them in such a way that they are all balanced, that's find and dandy but not what they were originally made for.

I've used some of them, like others here, to help balance the playing field against a newbie. I've also used them to change things up a bit (my gaming group uses the u-boat interdiction as pretty much standard). If you want NAs to be anything other than what they were in the original rules, you can always make more. And as far as I can see NAs will never be standard fare in Tournament play because they want to play a very sterilized and static game. But casual gamers like me like variety, and we'll use them.

Having said that, some of them are too strong and some too weak. They can be changed: AH can be lobbied to officially change them, Clubs can make their own rules with simpler ones, casual gamers can make up our own.

But in principle, as a way to balance game, and depending on your opponents, NAs are a great addition to the game!

[Doctor Strategy]

I havn't used NA in any of my revised games so far, but I don't want to vote in the poll because my official answer isn't 'never' as if I refuse to play with them but rather 'havn't tried them yet'.

I havn't used NA yet because my only current opponent does okay on his own and we are both still getting to know the new revised edition. However, I definately see myself using NA if Im playing a newbie which I have done a lot in the past. Giving a newbie a bunch of NAs while giving myself none might balance the game more so the newbie won't get frustrated and not want to play anymore.

Well said, Desert Rat.

I think the NAs were chosen to be partially historical and be used to balance the game or add more diversity. No one said advantages have to be balanced as the Allies definitely gave the Axis a whipping. Did not the Allies have the advantage over the Axis in areas?

If some advantages as published in Revised seem unbalanced or too powerful you can:

1) Don't let them be chosen and deem some advantages off limits.

2) Put major advantages as worth 2 Advantages vs 1 for minor ones. If both sides get to chose 2 pts of advantages then you could have two minor advantages or one major advantage instead of playing with all the best.

3) Roll randomly for advantages. Yes, you can still get stuck with a crappy advantage and your opponent a good one but it doesn't always happen that way.

4) Give a newbie the best advantages to compensate for lack of ability.

5) Don't play with NAs at all. No one said you had to play with them after all.