See, that’s the part I don’t get. We’ve played about 15 to 20 games total of Alpha using its various setups and the Axis have won about 80% of them, the only time the Allies haven’t lost has been when they managed to contain Japan through ceding most of Africa by retreating to the south and holding there while the Mediterranean UK fleet went into the Pacific to link up with the US and ANZAC fleets. This was the only game we’ve played where the US was actually able to spend enough IPC’s in the Atlantic to overcome the German naval and air force deterrent in a reasonable time frame (before, say, turn 8 or so), which is generally 8-10 planes plus the Baltic fleet (usually a carrier and battleship) as well as one to two subs purchased per turn. The UK atlantic has a tough time ever putting out any sort of navy in time to be threatening as their turn 1 purchase is generally dictated by the Germans, and they’re forced to spend a portion of their IPC’s each turn to hold the Italians back from overrunning all of Africa. This only leaves them with IPC’s in the the mid-teens to commit to fleet each turn, some of which has to be transports for it to have any effectiveness, which the Germans can happily blow to kingdom come every time they approach the shoreline. If the UK slowly builds a fleet off of Canada and holds back until it has a (slim) chance at surviving the German deterrent, its generally not showing up before Germany has enough spare IPC’s to watch its coast as well as continue its push into Russia.
With regards to Russia, I agree that they need some offensive power in their purchases in order to keep the front line as far away from Moscow as they can so that they retain a degree of purchasing power longer into the game. However, its been my experience that whatever Russia does, Germany can do better. Even purchasing a sub a turn Germany still has more IPC’s to spend on attack than Russia has on defense and also has the numerical advantage out the gate in armor as well as parity (roughly) in inf/art/mech. If the German is cautious in his drive into Russia, only moving forward in the north when he’s assured to survive whatever Russian counterattack might come, and sitting comfortably in the south trading the Ukraines with Russia, I don’t see where the Russians really have any option but to begin to fall back eventually. As I’ve said before, this is generally a slow process in our games, but once you do begin to fall back Russia surrenders a lot of the IPC’s it needs to be competitive and loses its ability to divert significant German spending away from the Allied landings that are now occurring in Europe.
I just don’t see how more than 1 Axis power can really be contained effectively by the Allies. Whatever theater you choose to bring the pressure in, the other one goes to hell. If you choose to fight hard in both, you cede the advantage (slightly) to the Axis in each.
I hope someone will give a good answer to Chompers. His post makes a lot of sense to me, as a lot of our games look like what he’s describing here… But maybe we are just not playing the allies well enough…
I hope someone will give a good answer to Chompers. His post makes a lot of sense to me, as a lot of our games look like what he’s describing here… But maybe we are just not playing the allies well enough…
I can only agree with chompers, the few games I’ve played saw similar things, though Allies won one more than the Axis did. But that is also down to two cases of atrocious German dice rolling before Moscow.
I just do not understand the constant calls for more German units, why make it even easier?
See, that’s the part I don’t get. We’ve played about 15 to 20 games total of Alpha using its various setups and the Axis have won about 80% of them, the only time the Allies haven’t lost has been when they managed to contain Japan through ceding most of Africa by retreating to the south and holding there while the Mediterranean UK fleet went into the Pacific to link up with the US and ANZAC fleets. This was the only game we’ve played where the US was actually able to spend enough IPC’s in the Atlantic to overcome the German naval and air force deterrent in a reasonable time frame (before, say, turn 8 or so), which is generally 8-10 planes plus the Baltic fleet (usually a carrier and battleship) as well as one to two subs purchased per turn. The UK atlantic has a tough time ever putting out any sort of navy in time to be threatening as their turn 1 purchase is generally dictated by the Germans, and they’re forced to spend a portion of their IPC’s each turn to hold the Italians back from overrunning all of Africa. This only leaves them with IPC’s in the the mid-teens to commit to fleet each turn, some of which has to be transports for it to have any effectiveness, which the Germans can happily blow to kingdom come every time they approach the shoreline. If the UK slowly builds a fleet off of Canada and holds back until it has a (slim) chance at surviving the German deterrent, its generally not showing up before Germany has enough spare IPC’s to watch its coast as well as continue its push into Russia.
With regards to Russia, I agree that they need some offensive power in their purchases in order to keep the front line as far away from Moscow as they can so that they retain a degree of purchasing power longer into the game. However, its been my experience that whatever Russia does, Germany can do better. Even purchasing a sub a turn Germany still has more IPC’s to spend on attack than Russia has on defense and also has the numerical advantage out the gate in armor as well as parity (roughly) in inf/art/mech. If the German is cautious in his drive into Russia, only moving forward in the north when he’s assured to survive whatever Russian counterattack might come, and sitting comfortably in the south trading the Ukraines with Russia, I don’t see where the Russians really have any option but to begin to fall back eventually. As I’ve said before, this is generally a slow process in our games, but once you do begin to fall back Russia surrenders a lot of the IPC’s it needs to be competitive and loses its ability to divert significant German spending away from the Allied landings that are now occurring in Europe.
I just don’t see how more than 1 Axis power can really be contained effectively by the Allies. Whatever theater you choose to bring the pressure in, the other one goes to hell. If you choose to fight hard in both, you cede the advantage (slightly) to the Axis in each.
I hope that we are playing the same game. Lets go back to the very beginning of an Alpha+1 game. The U.S. has 52 IPC income for the first three turns. They should have a huge fleet in the Pacific to check Japan. Plus they should be starting their fleet in the Atlantic. While this is happening the germans have taken France on turn 1. Now if Germany has used air force to take out a large number of U.K. ships then they should have lost a good number of planes and ground units because they did not take France in one combat round. In round 2 they must resupply and attempt to move into position for Barbarossa. If they launch Barbarossa in round 3 then they are probably going to be really hurt by the Soviets in a counterattack unless they got really great dice rolls in round 1. The allies should have their best player playing the Russians because this is the main key to the game. The Russians MUST hold. From round 4 on the U.S should have 75 or more in income depending on the Philippines situation and the Japanese should be contained. Unless the U.S. player is incompetent They should have control of the Pacific and the Atlantic. It is only a matter of time until Norway falls and the Italians are being pushed out of Africa. Now since all players are different the game will not always go this way. The players are like generals, building the armed forces and making the strategic decisions. But in the actual combat the dice are like your captains and lieutenants obeying your orders but subject to the fog of war. All you can do as the general is give them the best chance possible. If you mess up they fail and they may fail anyway depending on the dice. The bottom line is the allies have the income advantage and should win most of the time in a perfect world. But the world is not perfect as the players are not perfect.
I don’t buy that. With regards to Europe, we rarely see Germany losing more than 1 or 2 planex on the UK fleet kills unless the UK player scrambles, at which point he’s inviting sea lion as his fighters are dead. Germany generally comes out of its France battle with its infantry screen dead but all other units pretty much intact, as they can still send in a couple spare tac bombers. It’s usually left in a pretty good position to pursue Barbarrosa in whatever fashion it deems fitting.
My main point I’ve been trying to raise was that the US can’t get away with starting much of a fleet at all in the Atlantic early because its crucial for them to spend in the Pacific early on before Japan gets out of control. All the other allies in the area are mere speed bumps, and if there’s no US navy (that’s close to par with Japan’s) already making its way past Hawaii by the time Japan takes the DEI and begins to kill of the minor Pacific allies, things are going to go downhill really fast. Japan can force the US to spend heavily on fleet to be a threat by spending heavily on fleet in its own right. In short, I have yet to see the US be able to effectively stall Germany without letting Japan off the hook. Why does Germany need even more offensive power?
I get that some of you are better players than me, really. I’m not gonna argue that. But from where our group see things, the Axis are winning the majority of the time no matter who plays what side. Doesn’t that speak to some sort of inherent disadvantage for the Allies? Or do we just magically become “incompetent” when we switch from playing Axis to Allies?
“The Russians MUST hold.”
That sums up how the allies win. The battle comes down to Germany and Russia with the newest rules. So yes the best allied player must play Russia. The next best should play the USA and then the other one the UK. Its really hard to screw up as the USA unless you play your cards close to the vest. The USA has a huge income edge and it needs to throw that weight around. As long as they do that and Russia holds then the allies will be fine. Again if the allies are not winning at least 50% of the time then the allied group isn’t attacking enough. I can see the thinking is that the axis attacks and the allies defend but the allies have to know how and when to attack. If in WW2 the allies hadn’t launched bold attacks then they would have never beaten Germany or Japan.
The US doesn’t have a huge income edge if its splitting its IPC’s between theaters. And you’re ignoring the simple fact that Germany can easily put the Russian player in a position where they have to chose to either fall back a territory or be destroyed, at which point the Germans move one space forward and await the next wave of reinforcements one space behind before moving ahead again. Yes, you can threaten the German stack more by investing in units like planes and tanks or (my personal preference) artillery, but the Germans will always have more than you do as long as they stay mostly stacked up and don’t overextend themselves. Believe me, its not that our Russian players are turning tail and running back to Moscow the moment the Germans show up, nor are they churning out 90-100% inf builds and awaiting the inevitable. Every inch of Russia is fought for, but eventually when faced with the choice of making a stand and dying, or pulling back a space toward your capital to reinforce, the choice (IMHO) is an obvious one.
Turn#1 the U.S. builds 2 CVs, 1 DD, and 1 tac and place the ships in sea zone 10. Move all ships from zone 26 to 10. Move fighters from Hawaii to new carriers in 10. Fly the fighter and tac from the west coast to 10. Place the new tac in the central. Move the sub and DD from 35 to 23. Turn#2 the U.S. builds 2 CVs, 1 DD, and 1 CA. Place 1 carrier in zone 101, fly the fighter from east coast to 101. Place the new CV, DD, and CA in 10. Fly the tac in the central to zone 10. Turn #3 the U.S. builds 1 BB, 1 CA, 1 tac, and 1 fighter. Place the new tac in zone 101. Place the new fighter in zone 10. Place the new ships in zone 10. Move the ships in 23 to 26. Move the DD from zone 89 to 101. You now have 4 fully loaded carriers, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers and 1 sub in zone 10 with 1 destroyer and 1 sub in zone 26. You also have 1 loaded carrier and 2 destroyers in zone 101. When turn 4 comes you are ready to move all ships in zone 10 to 26. Plus you have at least 70 IPCs to spend on turn 4. If you cannot check Japan with this Pacific fleet then something is wrong. You have the option to add to the Atlantic fleet or maybe buy bombers to support the Pacific fleet or maybe fighters to replace losses. You will have many options at this point.
That’s been the basic order of purchases for the US just about every game we’ve played of the newest Alpha setup, and it works beautifully at slowing down and/or containing Japan. It’s a kickass setup to really bring some pain to Japan and I’m a huge fan of it. But it’s nowhere near ready on the Atlantic side to do much of anything but die, and then the US will need to spend its next two turns or so worth of IPC’s to get its Atlantic fleet to the point where it can survive a German attack, and then another turn or two in order to have sufficient transports and men to begin dropping into Europe. Which brings me back to my earlier statements, it’s very tough for the US to exert any real pressure on Germany before its gobbled up enough of Russia that it can turn around and begin fending off Allied landings while trickling enough reinforcements to Barbarossa via Leningrad and Stalingrad to eventually take Moscow as well. Once again, why does Germany need even more help? This is just stacking the odds further and further in its favor. I would like to draw attention again to the fact that these games were played without the +3 IPC bonus per territory gained in the initial Barbarossa turn, and yet Larry is looking at adding even more to Germany. If anything, its Japan that ultimately needs the help.
Honestly the only way I’ve found for the US to make a real and lasting impact on the European side after a string of purchases like those you described was through helping the UK retake and hold Cairo while protecting London.
That’s been the basic order of purchases for the US just about every game we’ve played of the newest Alpha setup, and it works beautifully at slowing down and/or containing Japan. It’s a kickass setup to really bring some pain to Japan and I’m a huge fan of it. But it’s nowhere near ready on the Atlantic side to do much of anything but die, and then the US will need to spend its next two turns or so worth of IPC’s to get its Atlantic fleet to the point where it can survive a German attack, and then another turn or two in order to have sufficient transports and men to begin dropping into Europe. Which brings me back to my earlier statements, it’s very tough for the US to exert any real pressure on Germany before its gobbled up enough of Russia that it can turn around and begin fending off Allied landings while trickling enough reinforcements to Barbarossa via Leningrad and Stalingrad to eventually take Moscow as well. Once again, why does Germany need even more help? This is just stacking the odds further and further in its favor. I would like to draw attention again to the fact that these games were played without the +3 IPC bonus per territory gained in the initial Barbarossa turn, and yet Larry is looking at adding even more to Germany. If anything, its Japan that ultimately needs the help.
Honestly the only way I’ve found for the US to make a real and lasting impact on the European side after a string of purchases like those you described was through helping the UK retake and hold Cairo while protecting London.
Stand by Chompers, looks like we got a new Alpha+2 to deal with. Got to check out the changes.
One step ahead of you. More units for Germany, less for Russia, weaker US NO, and no more Anzac capturing the Carolines for the US, or UK/US threatening Berlin via seizing Denmark to open the straight. Let me know if I missed anything major, I’m gonna go beat my head against the wall for a bit.
edit Russian Minor IC in Ukraine…interesting, and at least he removed the German initial Barbarossa territory grab N.O. Overall though, seems to have strengthened the Axis slightly while weakening the Allies slightly. I guess he went with what made the majority of players happy, can’t say I blame him.
