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.
Russia needs it’s own victory conditions.
THAT would make things MUCH more interesting, offer rational balance - as they too do not want the allies to win, and you’d get a new diplomatic side of the game.
It would be a real MOVING solution to sort out game balance, Russia would apply themselves strategically to meet their own goals.
Axis / Allies / Comintern
The issue with Japan doing all that is in the allocation of forces. Thinl about it from a pac 40 point of view. Japan can easily overpower both India and anzac in the first 5 turns, it’s only the intervention of the US that turns the tide, and the threat of their air and naval forces that forces japan to pull back or keep some of it’s power in reserve. If you hold off attacking the western allies for 2-4 turns then the US can’t be in a position to attack until the start of turn 4 or 5. By the end of turn three china will be dead and you can position yourself in the carolines and/or sz 36 to launch a devistating blow to either ally with ALL your consolidated forces. Without needing to spend money on fleets to defend against the US, factories and transports and lots of ground troops can be purchased. A well placed air or naval base will let you attack at any weak point in overwhelming force, and, unlike in a Pac 40 game, the uk gets no +10 ipc bonus for the islands and land territories. With a 3-5 turn head start on the US in the pacific, even if they start to build up, you don’t need any of your starting forces to combat them. Just think about how far you’d get in a pac 40 game without the US spending in the pacific and what you’d do to make as much headway as fast as possible and you’ll see what I’m talking about. 5-7 turns is more than long enough to do irreperable damage to the allies cause in the pacific, and then turn to africa/the west coast and russia.
Russia needs it’s own victory conditions.
THAT would make things MUCH more interesting, offer rational balance - as they too do not want the allies to win, and you’d get a new diplomatic side of the game.
It would be a real MOVING solution to sort out game balance, Russia would apply themselves strategically to meet their own goals.
Axis / Allies / Comintern
I maintain that you also need Japan to be separate to balance this.
You then have 4 factions, each one looking out for itself.
Then, simplify turn movement by having each complete faction moving together, so no Italian can opener for Germany and no UK/US 1-2 punching.
Factions can make alliances, but never share land territory or fight together.
Different scenarios make for 3 faction games (after Summer turn 1941) and 2 faction games (after Winter turn 1941). Anything starting before this needs to be a four cornered fight, with alliances forming as players choose.
I also believe that NO nation not at war* should collect income or build units. The “Western Allies” player will have enough to do with UK, France and China; the USA should only be activated when it goes to war. At most, it should have a “foreign aid” budget each turn to send via convoy; it’s up to factions at war with the WA to decide if it’s worth disrupting these and bring the US into the war earlier.
*By at war I mean of course at war with another faction, not with neutrals. Or indeed China; in fact I’m considering that 3 factions might be able to place Chinese units! The KMT are controlled by the WA, “Cochin” forces by Japan, and CCP units by the Soviet player. Thus, there is a “war within a war” going on in China, with the Chinese factions free to attack each other even if their “parent” factions are allies.
I was even thinking of a German Chinese faction, but Germany seems to have pulled out of China completely by 1939, with other “Nationalist” groups pretty much absorbed by the KMT. But maybe the Axis player can start up a new Chinese army…
The issue with Japan doing all that is in the allocation of forces. Think about it from a pac 40 point of view. Japan can easily overpower both India and anzac in the first 5 turns…
Are we talking about the OOB setup or Alpha? Since we know the OOB setup will be changed, my group is using the Alpha setup. I don’t know how Japan does this with the Alpha setup. If you can take out India and Anzac by round 5 with the Alpha setup, wow, I need to think much harder about what I am doing as Japan.
If you hold off attacking the western allies for 2-4 turns then the US can’t be in a position to attack until the start of turn 4 or 5. By the end of turn three china will be dead and you can position yourself in the carolines and/or sz 36 to launch a devistating blow to either ally with ALL your consolidated forces.
Ok, I’m following you so far….
Without needing to spend money on fleets to defend against the US, factories and transports and lots of ground troops can be purchased. A well placed air or naval base will let you attack at any weak point in overwhelming force, and, unlike in a Pac 40 game, the uk gets no +10 ipc bonus for the islands and land territories. With a 3-5 turn head start on the US in the pacific, even if they start to build up, you don’t need any of your starting forces to combat them. Just think about how far you’d get in a pac 40 game without the US spending in the pacific and what you’d do to make as much headway as fast as possible and you’ll see what I’m talking about. 5-7 turns is more than long enough to do irreperable damage to the allies cause in the pacific, and then turn to africa/the west coast and russia.
I never played Pac40 alone so everything in the 1940 rule set was new to me. What you say here will take me more time to digest and think about.
One thing I will say is that building new industrial complexes is sooo slow. You build it on round x. Round x+1 you get to place units in it. It’s round x+2 before you get to use them. If the US sees this, they can easily build a wall of ground units for either defense or a counter attack in advance of your landing. This is just the thinking in my mind.
Is this beta setup using the OOB or alpha as it’s base?
Everything I was saying was in a scenario of america going all for europe, and if the allies are making 20 with anzac, 20 with india and 0 with america and you can’t steamroll the uk/anzac/china then you’re doing something wrong. The game is balanced for 3 allies and one axis power. Take an ally, not to mention the one making a full half of the income for the whole team, out of the picture and it’s nowhere close to a fair fight.
