The Italian infantry piece is the same design as before. The Italian equipment sculpts are all new, including a new tank sculpt representing a slightly different model of Italian tank than the one from Anniversary. One nice feature about the new Italian equipment sculpts is that their shade is a much better match to the shade of the troop sculpts; in previous games, the equipment pieces were too dark.
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
Oh, that was a reply to:
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……
-
The Germans have to play in such a way as to make Italy Viable. Growing Italy is as important to Germany as growing the Germany.
A naval build with air support - meets this end.
-
Honestly, even in Alpha 2 you have to have pressure on England to make Italy viable. Heck, I think its all the more important now than it was in OOB because half the British navy starts in the Med now…and if you start counting your ships on UK 1, almost the entire British navy (Atlantic Side) is in the Med. Italy has to overcome this, somehow, and the best way I know of (at this point in time) is to make it so England has to spend all their money in London, or lose it. But that seems ridiculous.
Why not buff British home defense and move the British fleet out off the coast of Nigeria (SZ 82). They’ll still have their boats, they wont be so overpowering in the Med that Germany has to make so darn sure they don’t even THINK about building units outside of London else the Italian dreams of even hitting WWII level conquests in Africa go up in smoke. Or so it seems. Hence the reason people put a carrier, destroyer and submarine in the water, so that on G2 they can put +9 Transports (for a total of 10 transports) and have a super strong Sea Lion on G3, or, England builds the snot out of their defense and Germany decides not to build all those transports. However, Germany could still dump on G3, so England STILL has to stack the crud out of London, just in case on UK 2, thus, essentially, the fleet builds buy Italy 2 or 3 rounds to get situated before England can do anything to stop them.
In my opinion.
-
Here’s the deal:
The onus is on the UK bigtime.
Germany only has 2 choices:
1.) Sealion- this includes G3 gambit, G4 Gambit and Fake Sealion variations. By G2, Germany has to decide whether G3 or G4 is a “GO” before building all those TTs.
2.)Barborossa- Balls to the Walls on Russia- pretty linear strat.
In either case a G1 naval build is nearly standard as in either Sealion or Barbo you have to neuter the UK. Wiping out the UK navy is a must.
As far as the Med, if Germany does not proceed with the Sealion then they should send some units/fighters to help Italy get established in the Med. If Germany goes Sealion, the numbers are in slight favor for the Allies in the Med- at least initially- as it should be. If Germany aborts Sealion, chances are Allies will lose the Med for awhile until US support comes- as it should be. Yes UK loses Africa but they are still alive- start throwing some units is SAfrica. Depending on what Japan does, build a TT and send more troops to Africa early from India- Britain will still be in the game.
With where the Axis go, Britain has critical decisions to make in the first 3-4 rounds of the game.
UK could evacuate the Med and save its ships- haven’t had the time to try this yet but I strongly believe their is some promise to it-especailly if you know Germany is going to help sac Cairo with Italy (aborted Sealion/Barbo route)
On the Pacific side, things are better for Japan but I think its really tough for them to get 6VC because of all the transporting they have to do. Sydney is the “6th VC” and US will defend it at all costs. If you are Japan and you go after Sydney first you run right into the hammer of the “sleeping giant” sooner AND India/China just gets stronger. Also, Remember in Alpha+2- Russia gets 12 bucks if you attack them first. Japan and Russia leave each other alone because the gain is not worth the cost- at least within the first 6 rounds or so.
Axis advantaged game??? Just don’t see it yet. I’m seeing a slight Allied favor.
I’m seeing what Gargantua sees…Axis threaten real hard…but seems to run out of gas. Bid for Allies.
-
Yes, well, until I creamed someone and almost pulled a victory out of a game in progress (twice) and that with some errors done on the Alliance side (building too much, etc) I am not ruling it out.
As I see it, the Axis have to play a LONG game (20 rounds give or take) or a very short game (3 or 4 rounds for VC and or alliance surrender).
As for Barbarossa vs Sea Lion, I believe it all comes down to what happened to your units on Round 1. Was your luftwaffe decimated by British shipping? Did you lose a lot of forces in Paris?
Looking at the board, if you took heavy losses to your ground forces, but your Luftwaffe came out virtually unscathed - or literally unscathed, then Sea Lion is probably the better of the two. You only need 20 ground units for it and you have 14 in E. Germany that cannot do anything on Combat Move Germany 1 anyway.
If you took a pounding to your air units, but your ground units did well, the Barbarossa is probably the better option.
-
I did round 3 india with japan in my last game. since kamikaze can go anytime less worry about usa. so i just went balls deep. :) was a pretty fast game.
here are my thoughts. uk and india need like an inf and another fighter. give germany a bonus for holding the french territories. schiffler plan or whatever you want to call it.
kick japan off with an IC on manchuria. it was after all japan’s puppet state. Either that or korea.
-
I’d go with the IC on Korea, so Japan has the option to improve it to a Major if it wants.
-
Hey.
Don’t have a cow, but you can’t build a Major in Manchuria.
-
Not to make this political cow but over half the country wants abortion abolished. Roe v Wade was supposed to be about if a woman was raped or incest not abortion on demand. So I would say that is flawed logic.
-
Not to make this political cow but over half the country wants abortion abolished. Roe v Wade was supposed to be about if a woman was raped or incest not abortion on demand. So I would say that is flawed logic.
not to make this political but I will any ways
-
Hey.
Don’t have a cow, but you can’t build a Major in Manchuria.
Exactly. It’s a minor in Manchuria or a Major in Korea. The reason I picked Korea is it’s the only territory eligable for Japan to put a Major IC on. Any other territory is either of too little value or captured from a foreign power.
The idea of the Korean major is only to put 10 infantry a round into Asia without using your fleet to defend transports. (Not to mention 5 Transports cost more than 1 Major Industrial Complex.)
-
If I want to play infantry slugfest, I will play classic.
-
@Cmdr:
Hey.
Don’t have a cow, but you can’t build a Major in Manchuria.
Exactly. It’s a minor in Manchuria or a Major in Korea. The reason I picked Korea is it’s the only territory eligable for Japan to put a Major IC on. Any other territory is either of too little value or captured from a foreign power.
The idea of the Korean major is only to put 10 infantry a round into Asia without using your fleet to defend transports. (Not to mention 5 Transports cost more than 1 Major Industrial Complex.)
Just popping in, but isn’t Manchuria and Kiangsu all original Japanese territory, and therefore eligible for a major IC? On the game map out of the box it is colour coded as Japanese, making them an original Japanese territory?
-
My experience:
OOB: allied advantage
Alpha1: even
Alpha2: axis advantage -
Just popping in, but isn’t Manchuria and Kiangsu all original Japanese territory, and therefore eligible for a major IC? On the game map out of the box it is colour coded as Japanese, making them an original Japanese territory?
The only original Japanese territories in mainland Asia are Siam and Korea. All China is chinese. It’s the same as in AA50, 42 scenario: Germans started with soviet territory occupied, but still was original soviet
But for historical reasons Manchuria should be original Japanese (Pu-Yi as puppet of Japan, and occupied by Japan before the start of WWII (sino-japanese war) in 1937 :wink:). It’s chinese in game to allow China enter in Manchuria (stinky ACME wall)
-
@13thguardsriflediv:
My experience:
OOB: allied advantage
Alpha1: even
Alpha2: axis advantageI’ll agree on A2 with the caveat of an Axis surprise attack somewhere on the board.
-
Just popping in, but isn’t Manchuria and Kiangsu all original Japanese territory, and therefore eligible for a major IC? On the game map out of the box it is colour coded as Japanese, making them an original Japanese territory?
The only original Japanese territories in mainland Asia are Siam and Korea. All China is chinese. It’s the same as in AA50, 42 scenario: Germans started with soviet territory occupied, but still was original soviet
But for historical reasons Manchuria should be original Japanese (Pu-Yi as puppet of Japan, and occupied by Japan before the start of WWII (sino-japanese war) in 1937 :wink:). It’s chinese in game to allow China enter in Manchuria (stinky ACME wall)
Are we sure about that? Has Krieghund commented on this? By the rules, all colour coded territories are origanal, aren’t they?
-
Roundels, not border colors, indicate original ownership.
-
What a SCAM!
-
I’m currently seeing no losses as the axis, with a London first and Anzac first approach.
This makes America choose which side is more important….with London and Egypt, all Germany needs is 2/3 of the Russian cities which means they don’t hit the 100+ units in Moscow. With Australia secured, Japan just needs India or Hawaii…as India is “permitted” to do well by turn 5 so as to draw their men away from the capital, a rapid redeploy with the Jap Navy and 9+ transports can make India easier than Hawaii. (Especially if you build 1 naval base mid game).
Regarding Italy, my G1 moves always result in 2 German fighters in S. Italy for a 3 plane scramble that makes UK1 assault on Italian navy a coin toss…and expensive. Plus it requires over committing units due to the implied threat of a scramble.
To counter the axis, I am working on a UK1 abandon UK strategy that shuts Egypt down and brings the US into the war turn 2. I have not seen a London that can hold on turn 4 or later. (4 games “actually” played so far with different opponents each game)
Just my impression so far, with so few games played.
To Jen: regarding the home guard and sea lion. Would simply moving France to the top of the turn order, force Germany to build other then the standard sea lion and delay sea lion by one turn? I guess Italy would lose Northern Italy if Paris were to abandon France and Britain would gain 1 French fighter…might be too much. Eureka: have UK go first, this gives them one more build then the German’s in terms of units able to hit London, frees the Navy so that there is a Royal Navy and denies the UK the Sub NO as they can not kill all 5 subs turn 1. Also, this lets Germany choose its strategy after seeing if UK went all infantry. Not sure if India being able to reinforce Yunnan with a turn 1 DOW would be overpowered.
Suggested Topics
