After hearing this I’m definitely going to print out Alpha+3 and try them this weekend when I play again.
Thanks a lot for the advice!
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
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.
-
Just a clarification. I don’t think Japan is so strong as they roll over China way to easy.
-
I think making China any stronger would be a huge mistake. If Japan does not pay attention to it as is it can grow out of hand and retake all of China and lock down 2 victory cities. Thus US is free to spend 90+ in the Atlantic.
It is also very easy for Japan to under committ to China if US goes in Pacific at all and the 18 Russian Inf attack.
-
In my view the game is very close to being balanced. I think it might slight favor the allies but I have not played enough Alpha 2 to decide that for certain. Germany got a lot stronger, Japan can bring US into Pacific and Italy can get quite big under certain conditons. This did not happen in OBB. Alot was done to beef up the Axis in my view with National objectives and such. So far I think Larry Harris did a good job and the game is close to being balanced.
-
Without being sarcastic, I think they should make Germany weaker because if the US ignores them and goes all out against Japan, by the time they took it Germany would be too strong.
Clearly we can see that makes no sense. Your logic is right from the perspective, lets make the game more balanced. From that point of view we could just give Germany a bigger army and start them out with Eqypt with a complex. For those who think the Allies are to strong that would certainly make it more balanced. But then it wouldn’t be World War 2 in 1940. It would be something else.
My point is the fact that AA was meant to be a game of what could have been, but to start it at a point of historical accuracy and make the possibilities, like techs, within the realm of plausible during that time era with what was going on during that time.
The problem of balance should be solved with in a starting point of historical accuracy. Japan rolling over China is crazy. Hitler indeed almost took Moscow and could have had he not made some blunders. Had he not impeded some of his wonder weapon research toward the middle part of the war due to his arrogance of “providence” he could have developed jets sooner. The battle of the atlantic could have given him victory if the US entry into the war was delayed. These are real possibilities. Had he prepared for the winter, and the US delayed its entry, his Spring 1942 could have been much more successful. Germany not wasting so much of his resources on Sea Lion could have been sent to N. AFrica. Sea Lion had a 40% chance of suceeding.
The answer of balance should be kept within the historical accuracy of the time.
-
eddiem:
AAP(40) may, indeed, be out of whack. It uses pretty much the same setup as came for AA40. But this is not a discussion of AA40-OOB, this is a discussion of AA40A2 and A2 reversed and destroyed the fortunes of war for the Axis.
As for the point about China and US, it does, in fact, matter. This is a game, not a rewrite of history. HISTORY, does not matter, PLAYABILITY, most certainly does matter, I submit, it not only matters but is the only consideration to think about…after fixing playability, if you have time, you can futz with the historical aspect.
It used to be all nations piled on Germany, now it is more all nations pile on Japan. We traded a bad situation (all on Germany) for a bad situation (all on Japan.) It should be remedied. Hell, it always should have been remedied!
One remedy was national objectives…why do you think most are in the Pacific for 40 and 50? Sure, there’s a smattering in the Atlantic, but there are no objectives for Japan to invade Russia or America to play in Africa/Europe in 40 (there was 1 for America in France in 50).
My objection to increasing the strength of China is that Japan is already hopelessly out-matched against the allies and you want to make one of the allies STRONGER??? As it stands now, if anything happens to China, I would recommend REMOVING infantry! Fix Japan, then talk to me about buffing China…if you put all of Japan’s aircraft back in, double their transports and give them an extra destroyer or two, then yes, HELL YES, even, China would need another 4 or 5 infantry. Until then, China’s OP, IMHO.
Frank:
I think the advantage to the allies is very significant. Run the math on # of Units for both sides, Value of Units for both sides, value of land, value of NOs for both sides, and assume very basic things for round 1. (France is taken by Germany, the Italian fleet is sunk or mostly sunk, etc.)
I think you’ll find that the allies out spend Japan by 40-50 IPC a round + the allies outspend Germany by whatever England earns (as Russia usually earns about what Germany does in most games).
If you don’t think 100 IPC (give or take) difference per round of the game is significant: I bid 50 IPC to Germany and 50 IPC to Japan every round of the game…any takers?
Yea, I didn’t think so…
Questioneer: Maybe I misspoke or you misunderstood…Alpha 2 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE FINAL, it’s way too flawed…
Larry wants test results??? Does he own a computer? He’s more than welcome to come to these boards and just LOOK at the results of hundreds of games of varying degrees of players and get plenty of results.
The results are in: Japan is way too weak.
The fix is simple: America must be required to spend a portion of its money in the Atlantic and a portion in the Pacific.
Effects of the fix: No bid required. No major changes to the rules (it only applies a rule that currently exists to a nation that currently does not need to abide by said rule.) Ends the 40 IPC deficit that Japan has per round and reduces it to an easier obstacle to overcome. Not EASY, EASIER, there’s a significant difference.
Now you have, what I feel, is a perfect game: The axis have more equipment to start, but earn less. The allies have less equipment to start, but through wise play can use their slightly stronger income to overcome the axis powers.
Just my two cents.
As for going there, as I said, he’s more than welcome to come here - he has a profile here, he’s posted under it before. The play testers I know that are here have been PMed numerous times on things and some fixes I know for a fact won’t even be considered (ie changing the play order back to make life easier on the axis player who is reading his or her copy of War and Peace cover to cover waiting for the allied player to finish already!) (ie moving the Italian fighter from N. Italy to S. Italy or combining the Italian fleet or moving the British fleet to the otherside of the Suez, etc)
I didn’t even include those fixes, I know they won’t be implemented. I am pushing for a fix on America’s spending habbits because it HAS been done before (Gamer’s Paradise Expansions) and it IS part of the rules currently (England has the split in finances) so we don’t have to INVENT anything.
What did he say about tech? Right now, it’s really lame to even try. LRA would be nice, but I can replicate it with ABs, HBs would be nice, but its cheaper to buy a tactical bomber and effectively replicate that too, etc.
-
If the game has to be balanced by ‘US income has to be split’ then the game cannot be balanced. Because what would stop anyone from building a carrier in the Pacific and the requisite fighter/tac on the Atlantic side of the board. Some artificial rule that says ‘thou shalt not move units from Atlantic to Pacific’? If that has to be a rule, then count me out.
What is really missing, is a second Axis power in the Pacific. Of course, that’s a-historic (unless you want to call it ‘generic pro-Japanese minor power’ combining Thailand/Manchuria/ea) but from the arguments I see in this thread, something being a-historic should not be a barrier to implementing it, after all the game is supposed to be competitive, if the game was historic allied advantage would be huge (US would have to make at least 500 IPC for realism).
Maybe axis should be allowed to attack ‘neutral’ neutrals w/out consequence of all others switching pro-allied?
-
Splitting the American build would not stop them from building carriers, neither does splitting the British build stop them from building carriers….however, in both cases, the Axis power most effected gets some relief. England split relieves Germany a bit, America split would relieve Japan a bit. England and America can still bring all they have to bear on either nation, it is just a little bit harder to do so.
Yes, there really does need to be another nation for the Axis. There is nothing of historical value enough to justify it historically, there really is nothing more you can take from the Axis and make them stronger, tactically or strategically either. Not to mention, that violates my concept of minimal alterations to balance an unbalanced (grossly) game.
Another idea would plain be that Japan gets the 10 IPC NO from FIC until Japan, Italy or Germany invades FIC. Essentially, it’s 10 IPC that can only be lost if Tokyo is lost. It too is a VERY minor adjustment to the rules, perhaps more minor than splitting the American build. The only bummer is that it would restrict Japanese minor industrial complex placement in the south…I like to have one in Malaya and one in FIC since I cannot have a Major down there and at least that lets me put 6 ground units close to India…in the hopes of taking India before the inevitable loss of naval supremecy to the Americans…(sorry, but they’re ridiculously strong…America always was the powerhouse in these games and I think more than a little American Patriotism may have something to do with that, but common, America earns double any other nation and there is no restrictions on how they spend that cash. It’s rather sad to see all you Americans fighting saying you have to be allowed to put 12 Submarines and a Destroyer in the Pacific EVERY ROUND, you know. Yes, the Major in W. USA plus a minor in Mexico and you can build 13 units a round in the Pacific…name any other country that can afford 13 naval units per round, every round.)
-
@13thguardsriflediv:
If the game has to be balanced by ‘US income has to be split’ then the game cannot be balanced. Because what would stop anyone from building a carrier in the Pacific and the requisite fighter/tac on the Atlantic side of the board. Some artificial rule that says ‘thou shalt not move units from Atlantic to Pacific’? If that has to be a rule, then count me out.
So we can count you out because you have to do that with England? I don’t understand. You already have to split England’s money into two piles, all I am recommending is doing the exact same thing with America. No one is saying you cannot move units from theater to theater, unit movement rules are fixed, they’ve been fixed since time-immortal. Naval units move 2, air units move 4 or 6, ground units move 1 or 2. If you want to walk a guy from Alaska to Central America, you can do that…no idea why you want too, but you can.
Reiterate, for those unclear on my thought:
- America MUST spend 35 IPC on units on the EUROPE MAP (they can MOVE after they are built, they do not have to stay on the EUROPE MAP.)
- America MUST spend 17 IPC on units on the PACIFIC MAP (15 IPC if Philippines have been lost. The units do not have to stay on the PACIFIC MAP, they can move as per normal rules for movement.)
- America then has 30 IPC to spend in any combination on either the ATLANTIC MAP or the PACIFIC MAP or BOTH MAPS.
35 IPC: Tactical Bomber, 3 Destroyers, in 1 turn the bomber can be in the Pacific, in 2 turns the destroyers can be in the Pacific.
16 IPC: 2 Destroyers can be on the Atlantic map in 2 turns.Etc…just to illustrate. You can, of course, improve upon those examples for instance:
W. USA builds 2 fighters, they are on the carrier off the coast of E. USA next turn.
E./C. USA builds 1 Tactical Bomber, 2 Strategic Bombers, they are in Hawaii / Hawaiian SZ next turn.The above exceeds the minimum purchase amounts for America per theater of operations and still allows America to quickly deploy her forces to either theater of operations.
As I said, it’s a MINISCULE change, but it MAY be enough to balance a game that, as it currently sits, is far from balanced…it feels IMMENSELY IMPROVED compared to OOB, but it’s a far cry from balanced.
-
I think it is a good balance,the Axis have to be agresive and remember the only country between Germany and Japan is Russia, dont give them a chance to buildup. Attack the Allies on the second round. Thats an interesting idea about splitting the American money,the group I"m in looked at that for a couple of games and since it wasnt in the global rules we didnt try it.I think its made us more aggresive as the Axis.Also it depends on the dice, if an aggresive person pulls the Axis and if you can win key battles with minimal loses .we dont play victory cities Let me know if you try the split American income.
-
There’s a huge difference, since England and India are worlds apart, distance wise, whereas the continental USA is one contiguous country (excluding Alaska, though that wasnt a state at the time).
I’ve played a variant designed by some other guys where the British Empire was divided into five separate economies (Canada, S. Africa, India, ANZAC and UK itself) so I have no problem with such a split, since at the time most of those were already dominions which were independent in all but name. This is not true for the USA, so to me such a ‘split’ rule would feel artificial. But opinions can differ, I accept that. And though I see less need for balancing, I do accept that it seems that some games on this forum are won by the allies in a way that some would consider to be ‘unbalanced’. I have not that experience, but that might be more a matter of opponents.
Though with the 35 IPC in the Atlantic, plus option to buy planes in the Pacific, I doubt the pressure on the euro Axis will be relieved. I feel the game might actually swing that way again, with USA focusing on KIF since there is the smallest delay in that.
I think the solution has to be found elsewhere. Maybe in the FIC bonus as you mention. Maybe in changing the ‘neutral’ neutrals rule, maybe in a unit or two.
-
Yes, I have been working on some strategies of an early Axis start, but none have come to overly strong fruition…generally, the first time an allied player sees it they freak out and collapse, but the second time they are more than able to compensate.
Keep in mind,
the Axis combined earn 115 IPC, including most round 4 attacks and NOs.
the Allies combined earn 196 IPC, including most NOs and Territories by round 4That’s a difference of 81 IPC and that is a HUGE hurdle to cross! I am not even totally sure the game designers are aware of this problem, if they are, they have to be snorting something if they think the game is at all balanced right now. I’ve tried being nice, but let’s call a spade a spade, this game is still hopelessly unbalanced it just went from OOB where it was unbalanced in favor of the axis to A2 where it is unbalanced in favor of the Allies.
Something has to be done to weaken the Allies without weakening them TOO much. The best option I’ve seen so far is tied: 1) America has to spend 35 IPC in the Atlantic and 15 IPC in the Pacific (the rest as they want). 2) FIC is worth 10 IPC to the Japanese until it is taken by England, Australia or America no matter what.
In regards to 1) America can still bring it all to bear, it just takes longer. That gives Japan, at least, some time to prepare!
In regards to 2) It’s only 10 IPC a round, but at least it gives Japan all it’s income to go towards naval vessels and 2 infantry, 1 artillery to push into China essentially free each round…better than nothing, and no where near enough to over-compensate for the unbalance.New one I thought of: Go back to the initial setup charts, use the Alpha 2 rule set. That un-nerfs Japan significantly and makes them a contender in the Pacific. After all, wasn’t AAP40 “allegedly” balanced?
However, if you want the allies to be played by a Newb and the Axis to be played by a Tournament Champion, then yes, I can agree that the game is balanced. :roll: Seriously, however, I want a 50 IPC bid to be Axis, to compensate for being 80 IPC in the hole for countless rounds.
It’s not that big of a difference, 13th. America spent a significant portion of its military and industry in Europe/Africa and another portion in the Pacific. This brings the game some historical realism coupled with balancing the game.
You are correct, the “split” making USA more like the UK, would have a minor effect. It is the hope that this minor effect would be cumulative and thus, balance the game without resorting to sillyness such as 50 IPC bids to make it fair, or saying that China cannot have it’s NO, regardless of the board situation, to give Japan a chance, or to require England to be limited to only tan territories on the Pacific map, again to make life liveable for Japan.
I am not quite so worried about Europe as I am how badly they screwed the pooch in the Pacific. I have no idea why they decided to screw with the set up, if it was balanced for the stand alone Pacific, it shouldn’t have been worse for the allies when the allies had more income and Japan the same…
Anyway: I could see recommending that the Pacific side of the global board be set up identically to the out of the box rule-set. At least Japan would have a transport they desperately need, back in the south of the ocean, and all those planes would be back, thus, compensating for the incredible difference in pay! (Not to mention, who the frak can-opens for Japan? Eh? Yea, another one-sided benefit against the Axis.)
-
If you want an interesting set up go for the original set up that is printed on the box tops, as for the N.O.either pic and choose or loose them all. For the techs go with the anniversary edition.
-
@Cmdr:
Keep in mind,
the Axis combined earn 115 IPC, including most round 4 attacks and NOs.
the Allies combined earn 196 IPC, including most NOs and Territories by round 4That’s a difference of 81 IPC and that is a HUGE hurdle to cross! I am not even totally sure the game designers are aware of this problem,
:-o :-o
Did you pick the 3 worst games for Axis you could find to come with these numbers ??
Seriously, 115 IPC with NOs by turn 4 for the Axis combined ?!?!??
Ok, let’s see…. Typically, we have Germany at 50-55, Italy at 25-45 (gap is big depending if SZ97 has been, or not, obliterated on UK1) and Japan around 60. In the worst case, it’s 135-140 IPC for Axis…
115 vs 196…So i understand that Germany has intended Sealion and failed, Italy got her fleet destroyed and only managed to get 1 NO(at best) by round 4 and Japan has focused on China and Russia only…Maybe we can meet your 115 -196 numbers with these conditions…
-
Typically we have Germany with 1 NO, Scandinavia; Italy with no NOs and completely ousted from Africa and Japan with MAYBE, the DEI NO and possibly the 5 of 7 NO.
IF you’re doing better, great! I’m glad to see you found someone who has a hard time playing the allies!
Anyway, as I’ve pointed out a few times, its MY OPINION, I am not requiring you to have the same opinion, I am just stating MY OPINION.
I would be interested in trying a game or 17 with Japan, China, ANZAC, England-India and USA-Pacific using the OOB setup and Alpha 2 rules for everything else. THat may balance the game! As I understand it, Pacific is balanced, so if one returns to the Pacific set up, perhaps it will balance what seems hopelessly unbalanced.
-
I think it is worth noting that the allies generally have to spend way more on expensive war ships while Germany can spend points on very cost effective Infantry to defend from Allie attacks. The US has to spend a tremendous amount on transports to really bring the pain to Europe. They also have to build a Navy large enough that it does not get sunk by German subs/planes or the Italian Navy. There is also the factor that the smaller Allie countries can sometimes be killed piecemeal by the larger Axis countries.
I think a lot of changes have been made since OBB and at this point a lot of very serious play testing is needed to see if anymore changes need to be made to balance the game. -
@Cmdr:
Questioneer: Maybe I misspoke or you misunderstood…Alpha 2 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE FINAL, it’s way too flawed…
Larry wants test results??? Does he own a computer? He’s more than welcome to come to these boards and just LOOK at the results of hundreds of games of varying degrees of players and get plenty of results.
Are you serious??? Larry made the Alpha2 for us- he didn’t have to but did and according to the 99% of us its pretty balanced. Your arrogance will get you nowhere. I respect your opinions but you got it all wrong sister. YOU need to either tell him yourself or quit your belly aching. Just not humble enough to do that huh??? Pathetic…
You misunderstand what I am saying…your complaining is getting us nowhere. Give me $50 each for Germany and Japan you say??? LOL :lol: I’ll take that game, when I’m done with finals and the new mod comes up (last one keeps crashing). You are totally exagerrating… :lol:
-
I think it is worth noting that the allies generally have to spend way more on expensive war ships while Germany can spend points on very cost effective Infantry to defend from Allie attacks. The US has to spend a tremendous amount on transports to really bring the pain to Europe. They also have to build a Navy large enough that it does not get sunk by German subs/planes or the Italian Navy. There is also the factor that the smaller Allie countries can sometimes be killed piecemeal by the larger Axis countries.
I think a lot of changes have been made since OBB and at this point a lot of very serious play testing is needed to see if anymore changes need to be made to balance the game.Yes, but for once in the history of the Game, Russia is perfectly able to stop the German incursion and repell it without the assistance of England or America. This may well be the root cause of the unbalance. Perhaps if some of that strength was moved from Russia to England to prevent an early Sea Lion (which is almost a mandatory attack if the Axis want any hope of a chance, even then they have to be on the ball because America’s a god now, not a powerhouse a god) and to allow Germany the slight edge to get in to the walls of Moscow, /shrug. Something to look into.
I still think the easiest, least intrusive manner to balance the game is simply to require America to spend 35+ in the Atlantic and 15+ in the Pacific less any territorial losses on their respective boards. It is not “new” it is not a huge “nerf” it isn’t “unfair” because England already has to do it….
But England’s split so significantly from India to England!"
The hell does that have to do with squat? Airbase in S. Africa and you can get 2 fighter/bombers to a carrier in India just as easily as America can get fighter/bombers to carriers off W. and E. USA. I see no frackin difference really.
Yea, I didn’t see that, but what about getting Indian units to England???
There are HUGELY significant odds that England/France will own all of N. Africa and the Middle East, and that England will have a minor IC off Egypt. Are you honestly trying to tell me that Indian units can’t be very significant reinforcements for the battles in the Med? The invasion of Italy?
Yea, I didn’t see that, but what about Japan?
What? Wait, there’s a Japan in this game? Oh yes, that funny country that is completely ineffective? Well, you’re not invading Italy until round 6 or 7 anyway, that gives America the 2 to 3 rounds it needs to completely crush and annhilate Japan, you’ll then be able to send equipment through Russia anyway…not like Germany is going to have Leningrad/Stalingrad and/or Kiev.
England Turtle, Russia Turtle, Japan falls (defined: Reduced to JAPAN only) Italy falls if the Axis don’t surrender LONG before then. This seems to be the situation in the vast majority of games even those where Sea Lion is successful early (ie Round 3, 4).
The absolute BEST I’ve seen so far is playing a naive Allied player so that skill and experience can win a game that dice and economics have no prayer of doing. In such a case, a massive burst into Russia and the Pacific early proves to be effective, of course, as with the olden days of the “tank-dash”, and “fools-mate”, once you see it, you can easily stop it.
A game that costs THIS MUCH, and is THIS involved should take LONGER to play than to SET UP and should not require “gambits” to win. Both sides should have a traditional method to win and then gambits. Classic was like that. 3 Nations piled onto Germany hoping to get it before Japan took Russia. Germany attempted IPM to be a backup in case Japan gets bogged down. I just don’t see that in this game. In that respect, Anniversary is far superior a game.
And yes, that’s MY OPINION, as it is my opinion that the game testers MEANT well, but FAILED abyssmally, much like governments. Governments and lawmakers MEAN well, but they FAIL abyssmally - which is why we have a military, IMHO. Just like parents MEAN well, but usually FAIL ABYSSMALLY (which is why kids always think they’ll be better parents, but they arn’t…can’t be, when we provide better parents, the universe gives us worse children.)
My statement stands, he has a profile here, he is more than welcome to come collect the data, run it through some calculators, and see for himself. If he does not care, well, that’s his business. He has snail-mail coming from me anyway, he’ll get to it eventually. It has spreadsheets of all games past round 5 of last Wednesday (6 Apr) under OOB, A1, A2 that I could find… It won’t mean a hill of beans, but at least he won’t be able to claim he “didnt know”.
-
I have played the new Alpha+2 several times and I am currently playing a 2 player game of global with a player of equal experience. We have played the game over several sessions over several weeks and neither of us have made any significant tactical errors. We have even lost track of how many rounds we have played (at least 10).
The game appears to be completely balanced east and west. The game also appears to be never ending. But we love the game and will continue to play until someone gives up. A significant bet is on the line.
So in summary I vote no significant changes to Alpha+2. In our large group games it appears player skill decides the winner (as it should).
-
when I’m done with finals and the new mod comes up (last one keeps crashing).
Dou mean my module or TMTS’s one? I guess TMTS since this is alpha chat, but I’d prefer be sure :-)
Suggested Topics
