Totally agree Cow. Most games are won by axis because of how fast they can expand, as well as how many air units they have that can do SO many differen’t moves. The allies air power must all be used for defense for a long time. Eventually I think the allies would win almost every game, if it were about total world conquest, but this game is based on the VC win. This means allies don’t stand much of a chance, in my oppinion. Honestly it reminds me of an 8 VC game in Revised.
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
To avoid excessive possibilities for canopeners and allow timely responses, how about this turnorder?
Germany
Soviet Union
China
Japan
UK Europe-Pacific
France
Italy
United States
ANZAC -
Krieghund’s already essentially said that there will be absolutely no changes to the turn order. Go buy a copy of War and Peace, you’ll have time to read it while the Allied player does his/her turn.
Here’s some ideas:
1) Whoever owns Paris, controls all French units and territories. You buy for France, you Combat Move for France, you Conduct Combat for France, you Non-Com Move for France, You Place units for France and you Collect for France.
1a) This ends the need to wait for France to say “I do nothing” so you can get back to your turn.
1b) It turns France into an ANZAC style nation.
1c) Italy can “can-open” for France and France can “can-open” for Germany giving the European axis the same insane “can-opening” ability as the Allies get.2) The United States must place AT LEAST the same IPC worth of equipment on a campaign board as territory it controls on said board before exceeding the value of territories on the other board. (IE: You cannot build more than 22 IPC on the Europe board before building some on the Pacific board, unless you own more than 22 IPC worth of land on the Europe board or some of your territories have been captured.)
2a) This ends the kill Japan first ALWAYS strategy. (And why not, right now, you have 5 nations against Japan!)
2b) America can still spend 45 IPC in the Pacific each round, that’s pretty much Japan’s income for the first few rounds anyway! Just now they have to spend 34 in the Atlantic side each round.
2bi) It is my personal opinion that the designers were either on drugs, mad with American Exceptionalism, or designed the game in a way that they expected America to invest on both sides of the map. Which option you think is your favorite explanation is up to you, I’m laying my money on the “they were on drugs.”3) England needs 3-5 “Commandos” or whatever. Maybe just make it + 2 Infantry so a new unit does not need to be invented. The infantry start in London.
3a) Germany can still succeed in Sea Lion, but it’s no longer as certain as it is now.
3ai) This is to help make up for France going to the Axis early. (After all, why would Germany attack Normandy if they suddenly control it after taking Paris? Likewise, S. Italy won’t take S. France.)4) Notes:
4a) With France remaining “free” with just a nation’s control marker on them to signify who controls them, the entire issue of whether or not S. France should be German is moot. Germany will have to put a complex in either Yugoslavia or Greece if they want direct access to the Med. I like this, personally.
4b) This will effectively give Italy two national objectives on Italy 1, unless the British fight to stop them. They will have N. Africa (taking Alexandria should give it to them) and a Med with only Axis warships in it. (Because the French Cruiser/Destroyer become Axis upon the fall of France.) They may even get the one for Gibraltar, Greece, Egypt and/or S. France if England is not careful. This turns Italy into more of a Pacific England/China nation.These four adjustments may balance a game that right now requires the Axis to use unconventional tactics and pray for good dice in order to win. I’ve done it a few times with a sneaky Japan + Sea Lion, but that only works once, then your opponent sees it coming and adjusts for it.
-
I think it’s pretty solid overall.
To Jen:
I agree with your point for the most part. If the US dumps everything into pacific they can still squash Japan pretty easily, even when ANZAC and INdia have been eliminated. But need we address this with some complicated build rule?
How about we drop back some of the starting American naval presence from the Pacific? Take as much as you like untill they are delayed by a turn.
The Pacfic campaign favours the allies but not by all that much. A delicate beginning change might be the answer…
…or bid.
-
In the end we will have to settle for a slghtly unbalanced game.
We have every other time.
But I gotta say, if its going to favour one group over the other I would rather it favour the Allies. Why? Ask Imperious Leader sometime about the importance of historical accuracy. :wink:
-
-
most games have bids between 5-10 IPC, I expect this game to be not much different.
-
Canuck,
The America build rule I described is akin to the England build rule. Both England Atlantic and England Pacific are England, they move simultaniously (as in they cannot can-open for each other, etc) but draw two piles of money to be spent in their specific baliwak / sphere of influence. The American rule is slightly more forgiving in-so-much as England can only spend the National Objectives for the half that earned it, while I envision America using any NO on either sphere of influence (because America should be able to be wishy-washy if it wants to be!) At least, that is how I see it, what do you (community) think?
If we removed American equipment, I think we might do more harm than good. For one, we’ll have the twits bitchin and moanin about historical accuracy in a strategy game (may the gods of olympus be damned if it screws up the game, sheesh) and/or we might overly weaken something due to position on the board, etc.
As for my current thoughts on bids?
- Germany needs 12 bid for 2 submarines to assist in sinking the British fleet around England. (Counter to scrambling which unbalanced the Atlantic round 1, IMHO.)
- Italy needs 18 bid for 1 fighter, 1 destroyer to protect against the British Med Sea Fleet.
- Japan could use 18 bid as well, for more infantry in Asia (Most probably in the south near Yunnan/Kwangtung)
What does that mean? Yes, you’re correct, that means I think that the Axis, as the game stands now, are 48 IPC in the red when balanced against the Allied powers. Yes, I do believe it is that drastic. Why else do you think I suggested such drastic changes in the above post? If we delay America’s NO collection one round, force them to spend in both maps and give France over to whoever controls Paris (yes, that means England or America could invade and collect for N. Africa, Normandy, S. France, whatever if Germany/Italy own France and yes, that means that Germany/Italy could not collect for French Territories or build at the Minor Industrials in France (major being downgraded on being conquered, the switchover occurs after the collect income phase, but the complex could be upgraded by the Vichy-French or the Free-French later)).
-
Okay. Noted.
You may be right. I dont think it’s THAT unballanced. Proabably needs ONE of the three. But that’s beside the point.
What’s important is: Sucj a majot change is not happening this late (in Larry’s mind) in the Alpha process. So perhaps we should take the spirit of your argument and attempt to make some simpler changes so that we cna be a little more constructive to the real process.
Inf in China… yeah maybe. Maybe a ship in the Med, maybe 1 more sub or maybe we knock off 3 ships from the US Pacific fleet. Historical accuracy went out the window with a British AC in the Med. We’re close now and I think that the split income thing is just too complicated. Keeping 2 seperate incomes AGAIN? and besides, what happens when the Current US fleet has weekened Japan to the point where they’re on the run and the US doesnt need to feed the fire anymore? now you have to drive your ships all the way around?
Throw up the Idea on Larry’s site. See what he says. He always responds. Maybe he will like it. Either way it’s getting more constructive.
-
The easiest change would be the America build rule change. Effectively treating E. USA and W. USA as seperate nations as per London and Calcutta.
It does not change the play order, does not open new prospects or strategies, has no major impact on the game, other than it forces America to participate on both sides of the board. (One could build aircraft in the east and carriers in the west and still get it all into the Pacific just as England can put carriers off the coast of Egypt and Calcutta can send fighters there to get it all in the Atlantic.)
I’d want to house-rule it locally for a while, to tweak it, but I think reducing what America can dump directly into the Pacific would go quite a ways to helping…as it stands now, the only time I have seen the Axis win is if they attack round 1/2 and get slightly to vastly above average dice. There’s just way to much money going into Russia and the Pacific to wait.
-
Whew just finished reading through this topic, in comment to the earlier discussion regarding the defense of UK we have a house rule in place for the invasion of any VC (not just England) the defenders gain the amount of Inf. to points of IPC generated by that location so UK is 6 so would gain a one time bonus of 6 Inf, France would gain an additional 4 Inf. for defense against the German invasion. We allow the activation once at the first moment of invasion, so obviously plans for invasion are drawn out and planned to negate this bonus, basicly a longer game, though i do like to marshall U.S troops in UK for Dday, looks all purty.
While I like the Home Guard idea we try not to have rulesets for individual nations not because I dislike the idea but because the simpler the better.
-
To qualify for your rule that everyone has the same ability, if you were to use “home guard” I would recommend it as you described, but the units are a one time bonus of units defending at 1, attacking at 0, move 0, cost 0. In effect:
America invades E. Germany. E. Germany is worth 5 IPC (no idea why it’s worth less than London, whatever) so Germany would get their defenders and an immediate placement of 5 units that defend at 1, and can be taken as casualties.
On Germany’s next turn, just after France’s collect income phase, before Germany buys their units for this round, those units are removed and a marker placed on E. Germany to show that the “home guard” has been used. However, I would suggest just allowing them to be activated on each and every assault of a Victory City. (so England has to beat them, America has to beat them and ANZAC has to beat them and if that does not work, France does not beat them, then Russia would have to beat them as well. Worst case scenario.)
Just my thoughts…anyway, that strengthens England against Sea Lion, necessary, but unless you do something to beef up the Axis, this is just like adding another nail to the coffin. IMHO.
-
@Cmdr:
To qualify for your rule that everyone has the same ability, if you were to use “home guard” I would recommend it as you described, but the units are a one time bonus of units defending at 1, attacking at 0, move 0, cost 0. In effect:
America invades E. Germany. E. Germany is worth 5 IPC (no idea why it’s worth less than London, whatever) so Germany would get their defenders and an immediate placement of 5 units that defend at 1, and can be taken as casualties.
On Germany’s next turn, just after France’s collect income phase, before Germany buys their units for this round, those units are removed and a marker placed on E. Germany to show that the “home guard” has been used. However, I would suggest just allowing them to be activated on each and every assault of a Victory City. (so England has to beat them, America has to beat them and ANZAC has to beat them and if that does not work, France does not beat them, then Russia would have to beat them as well. Worst case scenario.)
Our gaming group is very mixed in ability of playing this game, plus at the clubs we sometimes have folk who have never played a strat board game mixed with vets. the rule was essentially to keep it simple as possible as we do random draws on who plays what, and some of our players are very aggresive and will push for sealion no matter and if the UK player is new and learning (and out of the game on G3 is not learning anything other than to shore up in UK and pray) this was the main reason why we implemented the house rule but we decided all nations should gain it, to stop mistakes happening as well :/
However yes against a group who play regular I would take the house rules further and implement what you have added to hopefully improve the game further, as i believe the militia activation already does in our games, I will point out that since using it our games usually last 2 more turns. I look forward to the time when your worst case scenario happens though, not quite reached a point where Berlin is threatened by the Soviets, yet.
-
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Are you kidding me. Nothing has been done to fix the biggest problem that every version of AA has had. China is way to weak. Just way to weak. I have played AAP and the China thing is absolutely ridiculous.
The attempt to fix the 2nd biggest problem (no action in the pacific) is to come up with all these crazy NO’s, which I don’t necessarily disagree with, to force action in the pacific.
Why not just fix the root of the problem. China can only purchase men, maybe artillery, make them cost only $2, start them off with more infantry and bring down the cost of navy ships so they do not eat up such a huge part of you money. Lets see. Purchase 4 tanks to invade Russia or one battleship that wil see no action if the US retreats. If aircraft are $10, Subs should only be $5, $4 for the Germans, transports $4 especially since they can’t defend, destroyers $7-it should not be a ship of choice, but an expensive forced buy to counter submarines, cruisers $9-less than a plane not more, why would you make them more expensive yet much weaker, yet confined to only sea battles, battleships $16 but allow them to transport men and material that can offload to transports, or unloand only on friendly territories. Maybe someone will buy them. They did have some use you know, may not ship of choice, Aircraft carrier $10. That makes 2 planes and one carrier a weaker attack value than 1 battleship and 1 cruiser for what you spend but a better defense value.
The main point is that when buying fleets eats up too much of your income when you can use that income to a greater effort for a greater return, you don’t buy fleets.
More technology would also be great like radar and counter radar for subs. Make destroyers find subs when by themsleves.
-
Jen and others,
Reading around the sites, it seems pretty universal that G40 is a slight Allied advantage in which case one would use a bid.
Jen, I really disagree with your observations mainly because the game numbers don’t prove it (as least not yet). You seem to be in the minority.
However, if slight changes are made (and those will probably be the only ones left made) then they definitely should be to help the Axis.
My suggestion is to log on Larry’s site and state your case. He will make this Alpha+2 final soon. Even if you succeed in some slight changes for the Axis it may be good overall. Your wasting your breath here talking about it- go to him directly on his site. Once its final- its final and no one can complain since they all had a chance to voice their opinions.
-
Eindatadog:
Give the axis powers to the stronger players, the allies to the weaker ones. (It can still be sort of random.) This way, the nations at a disadvantage on the board have the stronger strategists while the nations with the stronger position on the board have the weaker strategists.
Eddiem4145:
As it stands right now, China cannot be improved in power. The allies already have a significant advantage, improving China would only make the situation worse. However, I think you discount what China can and cannot do at this time. If Japan ignores it even for one round, China’s a monster that cannot be stopped. If Japan does not ignore it, America is a monster that cannot be stopped significantly earlier in the game. (It is anyway, it’s only a difference of if it happens in Round 5 or Round 10.)
Questioneer:
As far as I have seen, if the two sides are evenly matched in skill, the allies have a win percentage of 67%-83% (about 4 to 5 times out of 6 games) unless there are some accidents (underdefending something because of not taking into account presence or absense of bases, etc) or some really wild dice (losing a major engagement where you had 80% or better odds as happens often enough to be mentioned.)
Community-at-large:
I doubt Alpha+2 will be finallized. The sides are in more disarray than they were out of the box, in my opinion. However, “fixing” the game shouldn’t be overly difficult. My goal in fixing the game (reducing one side’s chances of winning any given game to 40-60% from the time setup is complete) should be to do the absolute minimum. To me, that means forcing America to split its spending just like England has too, and for exactly the same historical and strategic reasons.
What about a bid? Sure, you want 30 IPC bids going out? I don’t. I think that would be a very, VERY, significant change in the game. Bidding, by necessity, seems to be a very drastic change to the game. It seems far less impactful to just force America to split its spending. America can still bring everything to bear on one side or the other, it just takes longer. Just like England can bring it all to bear on one side or the other, it just takes longer. Meanwhile, it takes America just that much longer to bring it all to bear, allowing Japan time to flex and adapt to the developing situation, or Germany/Italy can adapt, as necessary. And since I recommend America be able to dump the income from NOs on either side of the board, it is not that big of a change - even England has to keep their NOs on there respective sides of the board.
As for Tech, as it stands now, I feel technology is a waste. For one, unlike Anniversary, you do not keep your researchers forever. Unlike every other incarnation of the game, Technology has minimal - at best - impact on the game, in my opinion. To be viable the current structure should be scrapped and built from the ground up - IMHO of course. For instance, LRA: is it as effective now? Why not just buy an Airbase? To get LRA you have to have a research success, that takes 6 dice on average or 30 IPC. Then it takes 6 successes to get LRA on average. That’s significantly more than just buying an airbase.
I suggest finding an online calculator that will use Bayes Rule for you (conditional probability.) You need a 6 followed by a 5. That is a 1 in 6 chance following a 1 in 6 chance. I believe we are talking something akin to impossible…stats was never my strong suit, but I would not be surprised if the odds were about 17% of 17% or about 3% of getting the technology you wanted, and why put up with it? Just get the Airbase, it has way more utility!
Basically, what I am saying in reference to tech is this: “The cost far outweighs the reward, thus, basic risk analysis on your Return on Investment rules out the possibility of attempting to find technology. Compared to the guarenteed return for circumventing the dice altogether, it seems to indicate that the current technology system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt, or discarded altogether.”
Eh, I’m open to arguments, but you get the gist. Nerf America slightly instead of having ridiculous bids, scrap tech or fix it.
-
@Cmdr:
……To me, that means forcing America to split its spending just like England has too, and for exactly the same historical and strategic reasons…
I agree 100%! I also agree that the abundance of NOs simply force you do something that you may or may not want to do. This should be a strategic game of choice and chance, not a scripted theatrical performance. Our group just finished a game of AAE40 where we used the Alpha.2 setups (really like this) and only one or two NOs per country. Except for the US, IPC gains came from taking territories. We gave the US a blanket 20 IPCs once war broke out. The results of this game were very interesting as after three days (yes days) of play, neither side was winning so we declared a draw. Our group does not include any inexperienced players so the skill level was fairly even. Our next game will be a global one where the US economy is split between the Atlantic and Pacific with the only US NOs being 20 IPCs for the Atlantic and 10 IPCs for the Pacific. In a nut shell, I think that the setup is balance but the NOs are just too much.
-
In this game, I view the NOs as bonuses for working in a field of operations. Too bad there are no American NOs in the Atlantic, Africa/Europe and so, there is no incentive for them to play in that theater of operations. Another reason the American player should be required to spend a portion of their money on both maps. IMHO.
I like your option on making the War NO an one time thing for America. I have no qualms with just reducing the number of American NO’s to “balance” things, it just seemed more intrusive (you are changing the rules, as opposed to clarifying a rule as with the divided spending, as I see it.)
Perhaps if the American NOs were:
+10 Continental United States- 5 Alaska, Mexico, Hawaii, Midway, Guam, Jonston, Gilberts, Line
- 5 Philippines
That would only give them 20 at a maximum, with half that easily taken by Japan if Japan’s on the ball. It should rebalance the Pacific greatly. Say, Japan with 42-50 IPC (missing some of the DEI islands) + 5 IPC for pacific islands (5 of 7) for a total of 47-55 IPC a round. Against that you have America with 50 + 10 NO, England with 13, ANZAC with 10 (assuming Japan takes part of New Guinea to deny both ANZAC NOs) and China with 14 (8+6 NO) only puts Japan in the hole 42 IPC.
(Yes, Japan is SERIOUSLY out gunned! It’s routine to see the allies making 2.5 to 3 times what Japan makes, and you wonder why some think the game out of balance???)
With Japan’s starting equipment, and judiciously selecting targets, they may be able to prevent that 42 IPC deficit from being too much to bear. For instance, with enough Submarines, Japan might keep the floating navies away and conduct some CRD…just a thought.
-
The simple point is this. The biggest problems of the game still have not been fixed. I have been playing axis for over 20 years and it kills me the problems are still not fixed. Slightly improved but not fixed.
The same complaint of every axis games has always been the unrealistic nature of how the war is conducted. I understand the idea of axis being a “what if” game. But it has to start form a point of historical accuracy.
Jennifer: Your point about going after China and US getting to strong does not matter. They should just pile on Germany and Japan should just go after Russia. The NO change that but why create NO’s that make the game more complicated than just fixing the problem.
China is to weak and ships cost way to much money. That has always been the ever eternal problem. The lack of action in the pacific is just that.
The axis should be disadvantaged but not to much. Bidding is a tool to make it even, not change the game and a choice among expert players who don’t make mistakes to see who is better. Otherwise the main state of play should be, "If I was hitler and didn’t make his mistakes, could I do it. There are enough variables, territories, luck of the die, to keep the global game from becoming a cookie cutter formula like the other AA games have been. It plays more like chess now then checkers. Many of the beggining moves are standard, but the middle game and end game are all up to individual strategy.
The US spent near 90% of its resources killing Germany because Japan got bogged down in China so forcing them to split thier income is not realistic or historical. UK could not instantly ship thier Pacific resources to Europe like the US could from the pacific to the atlantic. Japan’s alternative, hold of on attacking the US. That should be the option. Japan should not be such a major threat but a distraction to the US to take pressure off of Germany. Australia should be a much much bigger prize if captured. If Wester US is taken even for 1 turn, it should be a massive penalty for US.
Technology should be improved and should be the key to German success.
Just fix the problem. Make ships much cheaper, make China stronger, create more techs for Germans. Problem solved. Done
-
I haven’t played the global yet Jennifer, but AAP40, many times. I think it has been well established that AAP is way out of wack because the Japs are way to strong. In other words, they attack turn 1, and soon China is gone and they out IPC the US. This is well established.
-
And instead of coming up with so many NO’s that you have to keep track of, just fix the problem. Ships way too expensive, China way to weak, and if that makes Germany to weak, more techs for Germany. The idea of makeing Japan stronger and keeping China weak for balance is makin the game not a WW2 game that starts in 1940 but a WW2 like game on earth from a different dimension.
I have waited decades (20) years for AA to fix these problems. Since the very first edition. They improve them so little but they don’t fix the problem.
Suggested Topics
