How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.

[Cow]

jennifer you can tout your game results with inexperienced players as much as you want. Not fooling me.

But if you think your strategy is that good then maybe usa should go back to +15-+30.

[Jennifer]

I only play people on this forum these days, nearly all of which are hardly “inexperienced” any longer.

However, if America is sending what it can to England, it is not taking S. America nor is it building anything to stop Japan from taking and holding W. USA.  If it is taking S. America and preventing Japan from owning the Western Half of N. America, it is not sending what it can to England.  In either event, America is neutralized and Japan can focus on ANZAC then England, which is the point.

The Burma Road is closed on J1, reclosed on J2 and permanently closed on J3.  It is such in every game I have ever seen to date (Alpha 2 rules, OOB it was closed permanently on J2).  Any entertainment that it may remain open to allow the purchase of Artillery confounds the fates of the universe.  Any thought it can be kept open once China has been reduced to less than half a dozen infantry and a fighter is beyond comprehension of even a confounded fate, it boggles the minds of everyone, I fear.  Japan needs no investment on the mainland to effect this result.

England, with barely 15 IPC income itself, is not going to pose any threat to Japan.  With minimal investment (60% of what England can build or roughly 9 IPC per round) should be more than effective to lock England in Calcutta preventing any reinforcement of China. (This does not count as investment as mentioned above, because this effects England, not China.  Thus no investment is made into China.)

ANZAC, the pittance it is, is also collecting 15 IPC but starts out even weaker than England.  Crushing it like a bug shouldn’t take too long, and once that is accomplished - even if W. USA is not taken, results in Axis victory for Japan shall surely have 6 Victory Cities.  Hong Kong, Honolulu, Manila, Sydeny, that Chinese one and Tokyo.

Remember, the idea is to win the game, not take the capitols.  If Germany can pull the United States Air Corps out of N. America, then Japan can dedicate more ships and planes to crushing ANZAC/England faster.  Since China has no real ability to be a threat early in the game, all Japan has to do is stop them from having the Burma road open prior to build units phase.  That shouldn’t be an issue.  You have 28 ground units in China at the start of the game.  China has 16.  Japan has the ability to produce 13 ground units a round, China has the ability to produce 4, England 5.  That’s a losing proposition for the Allies regardless of how you feel about a J1 sneak attack.  To add even more, Japan has enough fighters that throwing them away isn’t an issue.  I’ve attacked 2 infantry and a fighter in China with nothing but aircraft specifically to destroy that fighter.  I would have similar interest in doing that to England.

Meanwhile, if America does stick to the Pacific, Japan has only to prevent naval assets from being developed while Germany crushes Russia. (Which will have at least 4 or 5 less IPC with Japan in the Soviet Far East.)  That only requires 60% of the income of the united allied income, which Japan should be more than capable of creating with all islands under its control. (Probably ANZAC too, that’s +20 IPC in NOs alone.)

[Cow]

Just play USA and see for yourself. You don’t have to hold WEST USA just have to counter (especially if japan is going to have like 3-4 loaded carriers in range… why bother. just trade over the territory and AA gun ftw. Usually you can hold west usa for a round with just a few men unless he sends  the transports over. In which case you place central usa.

Why are you trying to hold against 12 guys when you only place 10?  why bother just fight over west usa for a bit back n forth. it’s not hard. and getting south america while sending to uk is easy enough a simpleton can do it.

yes there are many inexperienced players on this forum.

[Cow]

depending on what you send… assuming you send all your japan forces to usa… holding west usa is idiotic . all you gotta do is counter attack whatever boats he sends by building in central usa.

setup the counter with your buy. all starting pieces can begin pushin down R1.  this method is way faster.

[Jennifer]

That’s just it, though.  You can reclaim W. USA if you like to think of it that way, but then you have to counter 10 ground units a round from Japan. (Because I will eventually have a train of 5 transports because I can produce 10 units in Japan a round.)

However, thats at minimum 30 IPC and more realistically 45-55 IPC a round out of your 60 IPC income (fine, 65 IPC, maybe.)

Or you plan to hold it, taking at least 25 IPC a round for 3 or 4 rounds (about how long it would take Japan to set up a decent transport train to attack it and trade with America.  However, this is cheaper because it is spread over the first few rounds and more efficient since Japan won’t bother attacking against a well staged America.)  The drawback?  You do not have the equipment to save London and England will fall.  Meanwhile Italy is gobbling up Africa since England cannot invest to stop them and Japan is sending annoyances down to ANZAC/UK Pacific to prevent them from growing. (They’re weak as shit, just keep them weak as shit.)  From there it’s really only a matter of keeping China at 3 or 4 territories (simple enough) and staging in Yunnan.  You dont have to take Calcutta, England will cower there to stop you.  However, just having a large force near will stop him from expanding.

Then Germany with all of Europe and an infantry in Egypt for the NO should have more than enough power to crush Russia and win with NOs. (Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Berlin, Rome, France, Cairo, London).

---

---

What I am getting at is that if the Axis powers move quickly and efficiently there is nothing the Allies can do to stop them from winning the game.  This is very similar to AARe in which the allies had to play extremely carefully to stop the Axis from winning before the allies grew to sufficient power.  The main difference here is that you can stop teh allies from collecting more than you if you move appropriately.

[SgtBlitz]

Hey guys, just thought you ought to know about the proposed tank changes for the NEXT major game balancing version of GlobalAA40.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4592&start=80

[SgtBlitz]

Nevermind, the proposed change didn’t stand the light of day for more than 27 hours…  I knew that it stunk to high heaven.

[Cow]

That’s just it, though.  You can reclaim W. USA if you like to think of it that way, but then you have to counter 10 ground units a round from Japan. (Because I will eventually have a train of 5 transports because I can produce 10 units in Japan a round.)

central usa can make 10 units. east usa can make 10 units. setting up to counter west usa is only done on round 1 if you put all 3 boats in range and have them fully loaded.  Round 2 usa counter and drops 10 inf/art on central with tank buy on east usa (since he made mad money round 1 he should be able to do a full buy in central).

Either way if you want to pursue America which you have a strategic disadvantage at Asia will be looking good and america is too far away to get in the action, diverting your forces is the most effective thing usa can do.
~
allies just have to get through the early game,without losing their capitols. besides you act like a 5 transport train to west usa is cheap as dirt and usa doesn’t make enough money to throw down 10 inf round 2 in central usa with a few tanks in east usa, like it doesn’t mean anything, and that china and pacific UK and ANZAC can be written off like they don’t matter

Jennifer I admire your creativity, but this is a little much. I don’t know how else to say it. You put ships in the ocean, USA sees it USA buys. You ships move forward to USA. USA sees it, usa already bought the counter and now usa sprinkles a little extra to be safe.

I merely suggested USA’s proper play is to setup starting pieces to get more money as the rounds go by and not to be derailed by Japan.

[Cow]

tanks should be 3/2/2/5 anyway. I hardly see tank play.

[Cow]

I agree. Weaker tanks would bog down the game to inf stacks.

you mean it hasn’t already for your games?

[Cow]

point well taken; you got me good.

Man ANZAC does suck, we need to +1 battleship and stick it someplace like below south america. Just so they can feel like they will get into the game someday.

[Cow]

I don’t see that too often. Japan is kind of a powerhouse. you can get away and push south and have enough air to drop america if he gets in range most of the time.  especially now that kamikaze can go off anytime. It’s a real confidence booster as well… extra rolls for a close fight is rough.

What I am doing as Japan is kickin the crap out of china/india and ignoring USA’s existence until I am done with that… then I hope I have enough air leftover and ships to counter any advance… in the mean time I try to find nuetrals to take to boost my income over USA’s then it is a matter of time. Either hold out till Germany does it big or get the last few VCs on the pacific.
~

I think that is what the problem is. USA has to fight two fronts from a really long distance… like in WWII. Perhaps split USA’s production. they split UK to solve that issue. Also I really don’t like attacking south american nuetrals… I don’t remember america bombing brazil to pay tribute to the war.

[SSPanzer]

@Cmdr:

I think there are some minor changes that need to be made to make the game more palattable.

One: They have got to figure out a way to break up the turn order better.  It’s ungodly waiting for, essentially, 5 countries to go and even worse trying to use all 5 at the same time.  I feel it really slows down PBF and most likely, desk top play too.

One_Solution:  I feel a proper solution would be thus:

• (Axis) Germany
• (Ally) Russia
• (Axis) Japan
• (Ally) England Europe
• (Ally) England Pacific
• (Ally) ANZAC
• (Axis) Italy
• (Ally) America
• (Ally) China
• (Ally) France

Note, this also makes it more comfortable to play France which, by about Round 1, is essentially useless. Okay, maybe Round 2 or, at best I feel, Round 3.  I’ve had multiple opponents express wonder as to why France is sandwhiched between Italy and Germany in the turn order and I, personally, have contemplated just telling my opponent(s) what to do with the French guys - if anything - just so they can post Germany right away.

Also, I do not feel the change in the turn order would change the balance at all.  It is essentially the same turn order, except that America and China are back at the bottom of the turn order.  In other words, go back to the out of the box turn order for the countries.  The English and the Americans are still consecutive in the Pacific and only a minor Axis power lays between them in Europe.  I have not seen a benefit to the new order of play, only a mind-numbing detriment.

Possibly, I would consider (with some seriousness) swapping England 1 and 2 and ANZAC with China, America and France.  But I fear there would be backlash against Italy in the form of nerfing her navy.

What about all of the Axis players going at once and then all of the Allies going?

[SSPanzer]

@Commander Jennifer and others…

To shorten the game, has anyone considered having all of the Axis players go together followed by all of the Allied players…?

[jim010]

To shorten the game, has anyone considered having all of the Axis players go together followed by all of the Allied players…?

The game is not balanced for that.  The Allies would overwhelm the Axis, I would think.

I like this idea, as Third Reich works this way, though.

[Cow]

It depends on who you play with.
~
once people get the spaces down, know where everything is, and develop a decent strategy… things will go faster.

[Cow]

I have no idea what is everyone is upset about.

I just want a better game.~ anyway if USA can just make what it made in pacific alone + what it makes in europe alone. I think the game will be fine.

USA and Russia typically beat germany/italy. while in pacific Japan typically wins. nothing wrong with that. It’s just a race.
~
If that’s too imbalanced for whatever reason, split USA’s income. I mean sure one can argue they can build land units and move it to the other side.central usa goes to whoever has that side on their board.

before we can make any adjustments we need to know if germany is meant to take over uk or not. if uk should hold by buying max # of units on their capitol without sending away their air… then we have a completely different game than uk trying his best to not get taken and losing anyway every time. game is totally different without a player

[Jennifer]

Can America stop Japan from invading?  Yes.  I always said yes.  However, they give up something else to do it and what they give up would most likely make the game much easier for Germany and Italy.

Let us assume Sea Lion was successful, as it is almost impossible to stop and, in point of fact as of Alpha 2, the only way to stop it is to turtle on England and hope for good dice.

Let us further assume Japan has set up the 10 transports it needs by this time (Round 3) because, let’s face it, you need the transports anyway to get Anzac, America and England - I suppose you could just build 3 minor ICs and almost have the same ability to put ground units into Asia Minor, but that reduces your mobility and I don’t like sacrificing mobility if I can help it, and here I can help it.

So America is facing a situation, they can put 3 units a round into W. USA until the war starts for them, thus reducing their naval purchases or they can mobilize in an effort to undo sea lion - which I suspect most players do since one cannot stop sea lion (objectively speaking.)  This results in America trading W. USA which is unreliable at best since they cannot build 10 units in W. USA if they just liberated it.

[Jennifer]

Conceited or Conceding?

The idea behind a J1 strike is that if they do not do the strike on round 1, when their opponents forces are spread thing and Japan can bring most of their units to bear was to make the Pacific easier.

The idea behind Sea Lion on G3 is two fold: A)  England cannot defend against it - period.  B)  America HAS to spread itself thin or leave Russia on its own. (The third option is a strawman arguement, you cannot leave the Pacific to Japan because Japan will win by Victory Cities.)

The overall strategy is to negate America as a force. America is WAY too powerful in this game to begin with.  I personally believe that is because we do not play her as the game testers expected us too and that is, by splitting her income across the Atlantic and Pacific.  So conquering her outright is virtually impossible.  I am of the opinion it is better odds that England will survive a G3 Sea Lion attempts more often than Washington D.C. will fall.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt it.  So if we cannot take America, how can we stop them from being overpowered?  Well, if we strike early, we can destroy their navy.  If we take England we can force them to pay attention to the Atlantic (otherwise, Russia is pretty much toast, right?).

Perhaps a J1 attack is unwise.  Perhaps leaving the American fleet alone (and that damnable British Battleship) might be the better route.  By round 2 and 3, a Japanese attack seems unbeneficial.  All of your opponents are out of range and/or heavily reinforced requiring you to determine which if any attack gives you better position and your opponent has maximized their utilization of airbases.  All in all, if Japan is going to attack before America declares war on them, I feel it has to be round 1.

[Guest]

I think J2 or J3 is better. if you buy some carriers so you can bring your air force, attack US fleet when they have gathered it on Hawaii. in J1 the fleet is to small. in J2 the American has almost always placed it in Hawaii. then you can crush them harder. i think Japan has an advantage there.