You guys are trying to hard to figure out what’s wrong with balancing issue of Global A&A1940. They screwed up with USA. 2 step fix: USA can declare war at the very end of turn 4 (after collect income phase) and Japan attacking Anzac and India doesn’t bring USA into the war. PROBLEM FIXED lol… :wink:
1. the rules are designed in such a way that despite any given power doing poorly, as long as their side wins, they win too. if A&A was a ‘real multiplayer’ game (your words) then that would not be the case.
That only means that A&A is not a competitive multiplayer game (like, say, Risk or many eurogames), but a cooperative multiplayer game
You guys are trying to hard to figure out what’s wrong with balancing issue of Global A&A1940. They screwed up with USA. 2 step fix: USA can declare war at the very end of turn 4 (after collect income phase) and Japan attacking Anzac and India doesn’t bring USA into the war. PROBLEM FIXED lol… :wink:
This is a powerful statement. If something must be changed for balance’s sake, and I’m not sure we can totally say that yet, the simpler the solution, the better.
I just conceded a game in which I attacked with Japan on turn one. On turn three I captured Sydney, Philippines, and Hawaii collecting a total of 72 ipc for J3. On successive rounds, Japan would’ve collected 65+ and I already had a major complex in Kwangtung turning out 10 units per turn for the mainland.
The problem is that in order to get Japan this big, this fast, you must attack UK and Anzac on J1. That was a catastrophic success for me because it brought the US into the war on US1 and they were quickly able to crush Germany before they got going. Now, some of that was do to my mistake as Germany of doing a major complex in Romania on G1, but even if I had done a successful Sealion, having the US in the war on US1 is crushing.
Well, in Risk, as in Diplomacy, you do have to have some cooperation but no specific alliances are forced.
Having played the axis and having won several times, I will agree the Axis are hard pressed but in no way forlorn to win. I think the critical move to win is J1 attack. This effectively prevents UK East from reinforcing Egypt, allowing Italy to take Egypt with the forces it has on the African continent, nullifying the effectives of Toronto. With the southern flank secure for a time, Germany can then isolate UK West with subs (no sea lion), build up its forces and assault the USSR turn 4 (with perhaps an Italy3 can opener attack) with all its got. The trick then is to defeat the USSR quickly before the US can draw off Axis forces to the West. In my experience only very savvy Soviet players can effectively withstand the onslaught, and even then if Moscow holds with Leningrad and Stalingrad taken, Germany will be pulling down around 80, enough to hold off while Japan expands. The game then enters a new phase of actual parity, unless Japan can take India. Then the allies or on the defensive.
Karl,
I’m confused. If you attack UK and Anzac on J1 (which I just did in a game), America is immediately able to declare war. This has horrible consequences for the European Axis powers so early in the game. I suspect that if you are winning as the Axis even with a J1 attack on UK/Anzac, your opponent is not of comparable skill as you.
What is the US doing when it is brought into the war so soon?
I agree a J1 is dangerous if the US goes KGF. I managed to delay US intervention in Western Europe in force by keeping about 5-6 subs on the board with Germany’s air force in Western Germany. This allowed some degree of tactical flexibility for Germany to attack the USSR and be in range to hit any fleet that came Germany’s way. Obviously this posture was only temporary as the US fleets grew in strength and would be able to handle Germany’s subs etc. It’s really a question of timing. On G4 with German sub still in play, the US usually will need another turn before they can move in force toward Western Europe beyond pot shots. This allows Germany to throw most of weight east for at least one/maybe two turns with Italian help. Subsequent turns obviously Germany will dedicate more forces west but if Germany can keep its momentum for a few turns the USSR will fall or Germany will be able to achieve some level of economic parity.
I won’t say its easy and bad dice will kill you. But it’s a strategy that will at least give Germany a fighting chance.
I have the feeling that it will take some time until we all use the rules correctly ;-)
Even after several matches I always find out things we did wrong so far …
So far I agree to the opinions that it is harder for the Axis to win but not at all impossible and that the character of a match depends a lot on the types of players.
How does Germany have the forces to fight Russia and hold off the USA in the west? I am confused about that Karl?
As the USA player I would just take Rome if Germany focused in France or I would Japan crush. Either way Axis loses.
I have said this before and people can bitch about it but its true…for the Axis to win they must plan out their moves and pull them off. If the axis plays as 3 players with no plans as a group they are screwed.
How can Germany not? US cannot even attack W-Europe or Italy by US3 with anything approaching a viable force. It will take US 4 or 5 for this happen and maybe even longer if there are sufficient u-boats around.
Is it perhaps the larger map in Global40 that’s screwing everything up? The Axis have a lot further to go for Moscow and are a lot further apart for cooperation than they did even in AA50. And perhaps the crazy ridiculous NB/AB rules that let people zoom halfway across the map in a single turn, especially for the Allies, those might be OP?
The fact that America can reach Gibraltar in a single round is BS (and THEN be able to go to both Germany AND Italy from there) when Germany and Italy simply HAVE to use that SZ to combine naval forces; and would STILL lose in a straight up IPC fight against the US, never mind the UK.
I think AA40 was designed with a dedicated Sealion in mind; its just too easy to beat up the UK at the beginning of the game without US help for the first 3 rounds to not seriously threaten it.
Also, J1 attack… It might actually be balanced, game wise, in that if Japan waits till round 3 to attack, the UK and ANZAC are making about 10-15 extra IPCs between themselves vs. Japan NOT making those 10-15 extra IPCs for those first 3 rounds… Adds up to about 30 IPCs, the US war NO. Only difference is that the US is MUCH better positioned to use those extra 30 IPCs than if they are split into two 15 IPC bonuses for UK and ANZAC, there’s much less those two powers can really do with a 25 IPC/turn than the US’s 82/turn.
How can Germany not? US cannot even attack W-Europe or Italy by US3 with anything approaching a viable force. It will take US 4 or 5 for this happen and maybe even longer if there are sufficient u-boats around.
If they pour everything into Europe they can build throw away invasion forces each turn…it totally unbalances the game. I can only figure that your not playing with skilled allied players OR they aren’t working as a team.
I am not sure if we are disagreeing. My point is that there is a window in turns Ger3-6 for Germany to try to kill/irrecoverably reduce the USSR before the US becomes an major presence.
I think a far simpler solution for making the game more balanced might be removing the UK CV off GIB. Then again, it might make IT so overpowered that we see Axis rolling along too much before the US can get in.
everyone: the alpha setup changes is progressing quite fast and will progress even faster if more people play test and make their comments on setup/NO/political changes rather than complaining. heres a quick summary: generally everyone agrees that japan should have +10 NO for not at war, and most people agree about a two way island bonus and splitting the US NO into different parts however it is still being refined. personally i think that questioneers beta changes look the most promising so far, and he is already play testing it. perhaps if more people play tested a single setup (that setup) then we can obtain a reliable result for the one setup and then changes could be made if still needed. (i would if it was practical for me but its not)
link the last page
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568&start=208
and Qbeta setup
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568&start=192
Is this Alpha setup applied to global too? Or is it just for PAC40?
Sadly, I’m not surprised with all this debate. As I predicted a time ago, no wonder how ridiculously bad can be trying ignore Japan, always will be somebody doing so, and now wonder how ridiculously bad can be counter that ignore with a ignore USA, always will be somebody trying that, because people seem think that USA is unstoppable, but USA is not that
There is not any need of additional incentive to fight the Pacific. For both sides, the incentives are massive and obvious. Here is that the Allies can lose if ignores the Pacific, and also what Japan can take easily:
I’m being very generous if I say that the average cash swing lost each turn for Allies will be like 50 IPCs each round. Also, Japan should start to ignore attacking before round 3: this will prevent a early suicide USA’s trannie dash attack on Europe and halt it at very least until round 4 … if Germany buys its fleet a bit, for when USA’s 1st load of trannies are ready to do significative damage to Europe, Pacific will be in Japan’s hands and further loads of yankees will be too busy in America to fight in Europe
The attack on America is not so difficult: all you need is 6 submarines to do the convoy raids (Japan starts with 2), some trannies (Japan starts with 3 -and I don’t care about alpha setup, it’s still unoficial), a minor IC at Alaska and buying a NB for Alaska to get the chain ready. True, Japan will need a bit more of cash than in Revised or AA50 to do this, but also, Japan has much more money and starting units in this game, and Canada is much longer this time, so the old trick of buying in California to start the shuck from there will not work
I should repeat the obvious one more time: in game terms, Tokyo is nearer to America (1 move) than to Moscow (8-9 moves). So, the main mayor target for Japan is America, not Moscow
Now, if the game finally shows as unbalanced, we can talk how fix that, but you cannot fix anything if you assume false things, like per example that USA should go Ignore-Japan all the games and that Japan should go Ignore-USA all the games as reply to that
Funcioneta, you’ll never be able to convince anyone about the importance of the pacific if they don’t want to see it. If people want to believe that the US is unstoppable and should only fight in Europe, then there’s also nothing you can say to change that perspective. The only thing you can do is wait until you get the chance to show them what an unopposed Japan can do. Throwing everything at europe will always be easiest and therefore seem the best and most powerful option, because an island hopping game full of controlling the skies and fleet movements is more complicated and difficult to master (and more fun). So unless you really want to learn those mad skills and learn them likely by failing numerous times, people will choose the path of least resistance. Just be happy when they try it on you.
Funcioneta,
I don’t think Japan can possibly do everything that you stated they can do. How can they take Sydney (killing Anzac), take Calcutta (killing UK Pacific), and permanently engage the US (there by giving the Europe Axis a chance) all within a reasonable time frame (say 5-7 rounds)? Having played just a few games, they simply don’t have the resources to go in three distinct directions concurrently.
Here is the reasoning I use when looking at this from the US players perspective. As the US I ask myself, if I spend all my money in the Atlantic, how much and how easily do I affect the game?
Answer: A lot and it is relatively easy. Compared to Japan, Germany and Italy start with a much more limited Navy and much, much smaller air force. The US can spend much less on planes and capital ships and correspondingly more on transports and ground units. Also, if Germany does Sealion, which seems to be a common occurrence, I don’t know how they don’t respond forcefully to that?
If Japan goes 100% against the US, they only have one major complex, the one in Japan. Even if they set up a shuck-shuck convoy from Japan to Alaska and it has a minor complex and a naval base, the US has three major complexes that it can build out of in order to boot Japan out of North America.
Question: If the US spends all of its money in the Pacific, how much and how easily do I affect the game?
My answer: I don’t know and not very easily. Japan has a huge fleet and 20 planes (at least in the Alpha setup). America starts out with a relatively meager fleet and air force. To gain parity, they would need to spend a lot. Now granted, if the US comes into the Pacific, it will open something else up for either the UK or Anzac but at what expense in the European theater?
In my mind, I keep falling back to the idea that Japan can’t possibly do everything you laid out for them in a reasonable amount of time. Maybe they could, but I guess I would have to see it.
Kungfujew,
I agree with what you say. Europe is the easier theater for the US to affect change in and I think that is why most players do it.
This is not a criticism of you two personally. It is just that I don’t see this in my mind.
