Of course, this is not the same in case a minor power capital
What you need to realized, is that U.K. London IS an allied minor power, or at best, medium power. They can easily become bankrupt quickly, like India or Anzac. Hence not the end of the game if london falls -depending on how it falls.
It’s totally ricudulous in case of UK: if Canada and Australia are at war with Germany still (they don’t become neutrals), why they cannot build units?
Australia CAN and DOES build it’s own units. Thus it IS seperated. So is U.K. India a Seperate power. How many seperations do you need or want? Too many interferes with the nature of the GAME remaining a GAME. If you lose your king in Chess - you lose the game, it doesn’t matter if every other piece is still on the board, otherwise it wouldn’t be a game.
And technically, U.K. India is it’s own POWER - that does fight on after the fall of London, with south african and canadian units. without the capture the capital rules, what would happen to all the french income? a minor in FIC? Vichy Rules? Ugly either way…
You don’t see Germany divided into minors like Romania, Finland, Denmark, Bulgaria. You see it as a whole, with a single seperation that is Italy. But without a global effort it’s meaningless. Germany doesn’t get the automatic Vichy bonus like other A&A Variants either. And sea-lion was a reasonably realistic option for hitler if he committed to it fully.
Why isn’t China divded into quarrelling states? Red, Nationalist and other? Because it’s no good for game balance.
Realize that this is a GAME, and for the sake of said GAME, the rules are perfect.
The balance is good. The strategies, and player experience are what vary most.
Functionetta I’ve notice you have a game balance complaint for EVERY version of Axis and Allies, often before you have even played a game of it. Maybe do your homework before you make comments, or take a step back whilst people who’ve played the game and learned from experience make community contributions.
What’s the hope you guys are looking for? Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible? Wow thanks for reducing the game options. That’s what makes global great, the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win, not engage in a scripted out roll fest.
I agree that the game should allow Sea Lion, but not one that means the end of the game. By now, G1 AC + dd purchase is good for your general strat, doesn’t forces you to go Sea Lion but can be the start. This means that UK MUST buy many infs to hold England just because of the fantasy world capital rules. As UK, I would like have the option of risk a bit, like say, buying enough to defend against a G2 attack but not enough to a G3 Sea Lion … the germans could try Sea Lion or not, but any case, UK could still build from Canada and SAF if things go bad… as it would be in real life. Also, multiplayer games MUST be taken into account, because this is a game too big to be played 1 to 1 many times
The worst decisicion that Larry taken in alpha series is get rid of the exilied capital rule that he gave to UK.
I definitely agree. Ahistorical rules will give the game ahistorical results. He refuses to take that next step though and keeps trying to come up with artificial fixes.
And Gargantua, Canada is not the same as Romania and hungary and the china’s. If we have australia, no Canada is ridiculous. The only reason we have one and not the other is that some idiot had the marketing idea to make the game into two separate games released and made at different times (which is why we have so many problems b/c they didn’t work together). the thinking was that australia had more influence in the pacific than canada had in europe. But in terms of the world, they each had the same influence. Canada as a power would solve so many problems. And while you’re right that we can’t just make random divisions, that might result in bad game balance, we also can’t make random divisions that result in good, yet artificial game balance. Ex. India. Another crap example of the two separate games theory. Why is everyone ok with this? It’s total bs. We’ve never used India that way b/c it’s not historical. It wasn’t a separate power. India really didn’t care who won the war, they wanted independence. The U.K. was at war with the axis. Not UkE and UKP. They would have not fought on any more than africa after England’s capture. They would have fought some, just like the rest of the empire, but not more. They should stop producing income and be included with the rest of the U.K. in an exiled capital/ free British rule of some sort. This is the worst possible way to represent a divided income and fighting after sealion that Larry could possibly come up with. Ok, maybe not the worst, but it’s a half-ass cheap way that causes many problems. Kind of like our government trying to manipulate things w/o understanding the consequences.
I will clarify my position …
I don’t want Sealion as the best strategy to be used by the Axis. It will script the beginning of the game. G1 and UK1 will always look the same.
I am thinking I found a way for the Axis to win 80% of the time in 1940 Global. Filmatleven. (I’ll keep ya posted after I try it another 30 times against other players.)
It does not rely in “great” or even above average dice. It would most certainly be destroyed by ungodly bad dice, but what strat wouldnt?
I am thinking I found a way for the Axis to win 80% of the time in 1940 Global.
Is this for Alpha 2 or OOB? The odds can be greater in OOB, but I haven’t found a way of getting better than 78% in alpha 2. Odds drop heavily from there if UK starts pulling from the Med.
For Alpha 2, I like this strategy, because I haven’t committed to Sealion, and Italy gets out of turn 1 unscathed if UK pulls out. If UK doesn’t pull out, then I buy the TTs.
For OOB, I haven’t been able to find a way for UK to bring the odds down low enough that it becomes a risk for Germany.
Alpha 2, of course. It’s the Alpha 2 thread, yes? lol.
The strategy takes some out of the box thinking. It’s pretty weird so far and I am almost certain, if it was attempted with the OOB rules, it would probably fail abysmally.
The problem is always the same: the rule that prevents powers without capital from building new units. Without it, it would be still very bad losing the capital but at least the loser would have a chance. It’s totally ricudulous in case of UK: if Canada and Australia are at war with Germany still (they don’t become neutrals), why they cannot build units?
absolutelly agree!
(I’m not totally sure, but the USSR may should have an eastern factory (tankograd) to keep fighting)
@Cmdr:
Alpha 2, of course. It’s the Alpha 2 thread, yes? lol.
The strategy takes some out of the box thinking. It’s pretty weird so far and I am almost certain, if it was attempted with the OOB rules, it would probably fail abysmally.
Is it turn 3? I’m curious to what you came up with compared to what I have.
It’s by turn 5, victory city victory. (You have to hold it from Round 4 until Round 5.)
I partially agree with the government in exile. I agree England should have it. (Canada builds but collects 33% of what Europe England makes. Since Pacific England is not affected by the fall of London, and Australia is not effective, it matters not what they can or cannot build.)
so what, 28 IPC for territories, minus Jordan, Egypt, Scotland and England so 17 IPC. Figure 18, in case they have Jordan, easier to compute, so Canada would have 6 IPC to build with, Government in exile.
UK Pacific should at least be allowed use of remaining euro board factories
Her strategy is a Japanese victory, with a likely ALL Axis ground units in Europe to India push.
You could even come around the horn from Nenestia with a German division, and drive south through Russia. Japan just has to take Hawaii and the obvious hong kong / Manilla. One might think it’s just a middle eastern strategy for economic gain… when suddenly it becomes SO much more.
Personally I find it much easier to win as the allies. It’s the Axis that can’t make mistakes. As long as the economics are kept in your favour - through your own intervention, and you remember what your strategic objectives are - and you keep it that way. You win hands down.
Her strategy is a Japanese victory, with a likely ALL Axis ground units in Europe to India push.
You could even come around the horn from Nenestia with a German division, and drive south through Russia. Japan just has to take Hawaii and the obvious hong kong / Manilla. One might think it’s just a middle eastern strategy for economic gain… when suddenly it becomes SO much more.
Ahh. I know this one. But I have not been able to get Japan’s 6 cities before turn 7 at the earliest.
Well that’s my guess anyways.
Otherwise it’s a sealion / Egypt capture, Perhaps a blitz through turkey G3 with an Armor stack. No J3 DOW. And a German Pincher movement G4 into Novogorad and Volvograd, with Italian can-opener support in the caucusus. The theory relies on a few strict mobility mechanics, and giving up some eastern german territory but it’s plausible.
You could also modify the strategy, with an exchange of Novogorod or Volvograd, for Ottawa using your sea-lion remnants. You only need to hold for a turn, and it’s not likely the Americans will be in a positions to strike IMMEDIATELY against a significant landing force of 8 or more ground units. Italians could support it too, or be responsible for the attack entirely.
Easily blocked if you see it however, and have the foresight to do something about the problem.
I think Alpha+2 is almost perfectly balanced.
The only bad part, in my opinion, is that Italy looses too much too easy. GB is able to sink most of the Italian fleet AND push him out of Tobruk in her first round. Italy is seriously crippled before it can do anything, and GB is still powerful in the Med after that.
Me and my group, we are thinking about putting the north Italian tactical bomber into South Italy. Hence the Italian can scramble one Aircraft more, if he wants, and GB has to choose between pushing him out of Africa or sinking his Fleet, or be very weak in the case of trying it all.
Moving the Tac is the smallest change possible to balance it more without changing too much of the Setup and thus, the game.
I would love to demonstrate my strategy to Gargantua. If he feels it is a push for Calcutta then he can prepare for it as he sees fit. smile However, if he changes his mind and figures he was wrong about a push for Calcutta - if it appears it is not a push for Calcutta - then he can adjust accordingly.
I do not want to give away my idea until I have polished it’s implementation. There is a counter to every strategy, almost, and I need to figure out what those are so I can figure out the counter to the counter.
Cryptic, but honestly, until I work it out, I don’t want to outline what the idea is and be made a fool with something as simple as just saying “well, if you NCM something here, you can stop the plan dead in its tracks.” I just need time, is all. As I did when I ironed out my Kill America First plan in Revised, I will write it up for the forums scrutiny - adjusting to repair holes as discovered by the community or scrapping it outright if there is no way to repair the strategy. However, I do feel that there is a way to make the game untennable for the allies, given non-radically outrageous dice (either pro or con, pro of course would be great for you, but says nothing about the strategy. Good dice beat good tactics every day, bad dice defeat even the best tactics almost every day.)
I will say it requires Operation Sea Lion to be set up, if not prosecuted by the Germans. You don’t HAVE to set up Sea Lion, but it does force the Americans to consider investing money in the Atlantic, which means less threat in the Pacific.
Interesting thread…
Right now I tend to agree with Gargantua on these issues. I think people need to play a few quality games before making a judgment.
Sorry Jen, I know you got some experience, but I’m not buying into some “Master Opening”. KAF for Revised…didn’t you steal that from Caspian Sub guys??? Is that the same as the z42 progression/Canadian Sheild hybrid??? Jen seriously…30 more games???..next your gonna tell me you’ll finish them all be next week right??? Haven’t we all heard this before from you??? Take your time, read all the rules carefully- there are quite a few changes- and play a few “quality” games, not mass number crunching :roll:
I currently have a few games in Alpha +2 going. Right now, I don’t see the any overwhelming advantage for Axis or Allies.
On Sealion…yes its possible under the right circumstances…if your Germany and the initial battles go your way you should pull the trigger…doesn’t guarantee a win…remember if you do it on G3 you bring the US into the war earlier!!! G4…although possible is some circumstances is suicide from what I can see…though I need to re-explore it a little more.
Japan seems to take longer to get their 6VCs because they have to go one direction then the other to sack the VCs they need.
Because Axis starts first, I divide the Axis openings into “Barbarossa” and “Sealion variants”. Well anyway I’ll give a full report on balance and strats later, still more playtesting to be done as I know we are all doing right now. :-)
the balance is not bad. I’ll still argue its slightly in an axis advantage. I stated before that I would like to err on the side of an allied advantage, but on further review I’ll make a case the other way:
An axis bid will only provide for a more effective sealion campaign. a low bid of just seven will get Germany another transport. Since the axis hold the innitiative, an axis bid is much more dangerous for the allies than the reverse. Since I’d like to see fewer Sealion campaigns maybe the set-up is right. Then the allied player’s bid can nuetralize a Sealion play.
How many of you have actually played a game where germany didn’t build ships on G1 or G2? Have any of you gone for Russia’s throat from the start? Seems all of this balance discussion take only into account a German Sealion approach. Every game I look up on the forum shows a German ship build on G1. And for the most part Japan leaves Russia alone. odd……
No, my Kill America First games came out before Csub published Canadian Shield, etc. Heck, I even helped CSub get their stuff formatted into PDF files which is why I have the collection. However, my KAF stages from the Carolines and does not require Germany to assist whereas, CSub staged from Japan and Europe to take E. and W. Canada in one move. Very large difference. Their version pretty much ended the Axis if the Allies got wise and countered it. Mine gave me the option of KAF but also put me in a great position to take Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii instead - targets I would probably want anyway.
As for a master strategy, as I said, I have to test it out against a few people. Right now, from the one game I’ve used it in, it appears very devastating for the allies and is not so much a “win” as a win steal maneuver akin to M84 style wins. (One in which I have no respect for the win and view the winner as some vile disgusting beast that evolved from human feces, but a win all the same.)
As I said before, fimatleven.
No, I always see Germany build ships. Finland/Norway seems to be too important to give up and without ships, you wont be able to get units there in a cost effective manner. Besides, the threat of Sea Lion is enough to give Africa to Italy barely a throw from giving it uncontested because now England has to put 100% of their money into home defense, leaving nothing for Africa. That alone is worth putting G1 money into a carrier, destroyer and submarine.
