I play against myself.
Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
-
I don’t know about any changes. I only play one game at a time and it’s maybe 2 or 3 a month now but I have played about 15 games of alpha 2 now… I have found that if USA spends too much on one side they loose out on the other. Maybe it’s the players I’m playing against but I think that USA has to walk a tight line for the first 6 to 8 turns.
-
I feel like the Alpha +2 changes have balanced the game more than enough – these additional changes are unbalancing.
First of all, I’ve yet to see a +2 game where an Europe or Pacific-only strategy pays off for the US. If the US weren’t in the game at all, the Axis would have no trouble getting their victory cities on either side – given that victory can come from one theater for the Axis, the US has to balance their forces or they will lose the game. In fact, it takes the Allies walking a very fine line to avoid losing the victory city game in alpha +2.
Secondly, if you’re looking for a balanced game like the Anniversary, you might as well take G40 back to the store, because there is no variation of 1940 that will capture that same symetrical balance. In Anniversary, the incomes and armies become relatively even after the third round or so. Then it all comes down to tactics and rolls of the dice. Global 1940 may seem extremely unbalanced (and it certainly is in Anniversary terms), but only if you ignore the massive tactical advantage the Axis have. With every roll of the dice and every unexpected move by your opponent, you will need to adjust your strategy – the Axis can pick their battle and have the mobile forces to quickly change strategy, whereas the Allies are either stuck pumping out slow infantry walls or stuck behind oceans.
In every game of Global 1940 I’ve played, OOB or Alpha +2, the game was won or lost by the Axis. The Big Book of Allied Defense is already written – the moves you need to make are known. When the Allies win, it’s been because the Axis wasn’t aggressive enough in the beginning or they got too cocky and attempted a low-odds battle. When the Axis win, it’s because their opening moves put them in position to take on the superior income of the Allies.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning that a lot of people that complained about Axis inferiority in G40 also played a lot of the earlier editions. I’ve looked through some of the Axis overall strategies for those editions, and they are way too conservative to work in the new game. I sometimes wonder if some of the Axis players aren’t able to look past their favorite strategies for the previous games.
-
Mantle:
Regards to 2) I disagree, I rarely, if ever, see any American equipment in the Atlantic outside the equipment that America starts with in the Atlantic. This is due, probably, to the fact that Russia can easily out produce Germany and thus stop the incursion without assistance.
Regards to 3) I disagree, Japan cannot earn more than America in three rounds, they cannot do it in 50 rounds either if both sides are evenly matched. If your opponents, or you, are allowing Japan to get 5 of 7 islands, take Hawaii, take NSW, take the DEI, then I suggest you start reading the games here to figure out how to stop them. Stopping Japan from earning more than 40 IPC a round is child’s play - no offense intended. Look about, you’ll see its relatively simple, or PM me for ideas on how to stop Japan, you are probably just overlooking convenient ways to abuse airbases and naval bases.
Regards to 4) America does not need to buy battleships to counter Japanese ones. Battleships are HIGHLY inefficient. However, America does need cheap destroyers and submarines (as does Japan.) Now the difference is, America can buy 2 submarines for every 1 submarine Japan buys, 2 destroyers for every 1 Japan buys. Add in Australia/England warships and you quickly dwarf the Japanese fleet.
Regards to 5) I would love to GET the DEI for a change! But I think you are missing how easy it is to sack Tokyo now. If you have your fleet down there, Hawaiian ships can destroy you, if you have your fleet up there, Australian fleets (Americans off Australia) will quickly take DEI back. Getting DEI is pretty impossible now due to how fast America can move and get ships to bear.
Perhaps we just need to remove the Naval Bases from Hawaii, Carolines, Queensland, New South Wales, India, Malaya and Kwangtung? (Hong Kong). They could be rebuilt, but it would effectively make it possible to get DEI with England without being murdered for it.
Now, granted, if you play with USA going in the Atlantic, then you are effectively splitting America’s income, are you not? You put enough in the Pacific to maintain the Hawaiian, Alaskan, Mexican and Continental NOs and the rest in the Atlantic? If more people played that way, there would be no issue! The issue comes with the Russian Turtle + Crucify Japan strategy that is the common proceedure. Why is it common? Because it’s 90% effective (or more) and there is nothing the Axis can do about it unless they get REALLY lucky with the dice.
-
Pelander:
Alpha 2 stopped the game from being an easy Axis victory to an easy Allied victory, I do not see that as balancing the game so much as pandering to American Exceptionalist attitudes.
The only games I see the Axis win are when America doubles down in both the Pacific and Atlantic. If America goes 100% Pacific, the Axis lose 9 out of 10 times at least. All the allies have to do in Europe is to turtle with Russia, keep the Germans from sailing south and kick Italy out of Africa, all of which can be done with what is currently on the board. You only need to buy 6 rounds, 4 to get America into the game and 2 to establish American naval supremecy in the Pacific.
Yes, I believe the community at large prefers a balanced game to an unbalanced one. Balancing this one should not be overly difficult. As I said, by forcing America to be “honest” and spending on both sides of the board (regardless where the units end up) you should buy Japan enough time to counter. Then it’s a matter of skill, not a matter of bias.
I agree, in the current incarnation of the game the Axis have to go balls-to-the-walls to win, but that gets screwed up by one set of bad dice. Should we have to have a game where it requires perfect dice to win? Seriously??? I feel it safe to say that everyone feels the Axis are at a disadvantage in this game, we’re only quibbling over how much of a disadvantage and whether it is significant enough to do something about.
I feel that if you total the offensive, defenseive punches as well as the income between the two sides (at about round 3 when the game really starts) you will see a significant advantage for the allies. By significant, I mean about 80 IPC give or take.
-
I completely agree with Jennifer.
Thanks for the time you put into this, you should post these concerns in LH’s forum in my opinion.
Thanks again.
-
I completely agree with Jennifer.
Thanks for the time you put into this, you should post these concerns in LH’s forum in my opinion.
Thanks again.
Eh, but then I have to create a profile there…lol. Spose I could. Although, I think the community there (from back when I had a profile there) was less experienced and less able to function at a level consistent with the players I have played here and at AAMC.
Anyway, I want to clarify, I think only ONE option should be implemented, but all should be considered to determine which is the best.
-
** As I’ve said often, the Europe side is mostly balanced, provided that the Pacific side is returned to balance. If Japan is going to be left as crippled as it is, then Germany/Italy need a significant increase in power so as to put the screws to Russia and England…
The basic concept in each plan (except the last, of course) is to nullify the massive American income. America earns twice what any other nation earns, three or four times some nations and six or seven times other nations. Allowing them to spend it all in one theater of operations (Pacific or Atlantic) unbalances things. (More so in the Pacific, hence why you see virutally every game where the board is littered in American flags all over the Pacific.) To do this one must:
a) Increase the offensive capabilities of the European Axis Powers
b) Increase the income of Japan significantly (10 IPC a round, in a manner that cannot be taken from them regardless of what the Allies can do)
c) Restore Japan’s units that were lost in the changes which would allow them the ability to “burst” and attack many targets earlier in the game, forcing the allies to have to think and apply strategy
d) Simply requiring America to act like England, spending part of their income in both hemispheres initially. (It is still possible to move units from one side to the other, but it takes time to move stuff, time Japan has to build.)
or
e) One not suggested above, reduce W. USA and India’s industrial complexes to minor complexes and forbid their upgrades, thus reducing the number of units that can be employed against the Japanese until later in the game.Ok Jen, I can understand what you are saying:
By the way I will put your post on Larry’s site since you are a bull-headed lazy butt to make your own profile. I’m only doing this because you are experienced and make some good points…
Anyway, I can tell you right now Larry won’t do “D”. He’s already talked about this before. No way he’s splitting the income like England- so that’s out.
“C” is not happening either- those million fighters were way too easy for Japan to use. If you are going to beef up Japan it is going to be through land units only- infantry probably- anything else makes Japan too strong.
Since you and others agree that its the Pacific side that needs help, then “A” will not happen either. That theater is really touchy. Its very hard to beef up Axis in Europe w/o tipping the scales quickly to their side.
“E” is not popular with Larry either.
Your only real chance is “B”.
Plan B: French Indo-China
- FIC yields 10 IPC until it is controlled by England, Russia, Australia or America. This means that Japan will probably have that NO for the entire game.
** Justification 1: Japan’s already in a financial hole that feels like a bottomless pit.
** Justification 2: Japan already has to divide her fleet to cover America, Australia and Japan.
** Justification 3: This 10 IPC bump would give Japan 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Armor or 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery a round to put against China. If you figure China earns 9+6, then Japan’s 10 IPC (2/3rds) should be enought to “hold the line” recquiring England to put an effort into China.
B is probably the best bet- I like your French Indo-China NO. It is the easiest to implement w/o immediately disrupting the setup in the region- yet it gets Japan what it needs.
Question on your proposed Frindo NO- as the Alpha +2 stands Japan cannot take Frindo otherwise it would be a declaration of war and they would lose their bonus 10 bucks for not being at war with US/Allies.
I’m assuming you want to make Frindo an exception to this rule- Japan attacking Frindo does NOT make it a DOW and then add your Frindo rule to the Alpha+2 setup right???
Also, if Japan take control and Allies takes back, can Japan retake and REGAIN/REACTIVATE the Frindo NO again for themselves??? Type out a cleaner version of this NO please.
…and Jen for what its worth, thanks for your observations, I’ll make sure your voice is heard. :-)
- FIC yields 10 IPC until it is controlled by England, Russia, Australia or America. This means that Japan will probably have that NO for the entire game.
-
I completely agree with Jennifer.
Thanks for the time you put into this, you should post these concerns in LH’s forum in my opinion.
Thanks again.
I’m with Jennifer on this - particularly the US split economy.
-
I think a split economy for the US is a bad idea. What’s next? Another Acme wall to prevent the US from building on the east coast and shipping out to the west, or land/air units in Central US from moving to the Western US? I do think the game is slightly Allied favored, but, a slight buff to German/Japanese troops and/or possibly adding another NO to Japan would go alot further in regards to balancing the game then splitting US income or giving 10 IPC a round to Japan just for holding FIC. I certainly do not think Japan needs to add to their air armada either.
It seems that the Japanese starting transports were purposely placed to not allow for a strong J1 attack (as opposed to te unstoppable Pac40 J1 atack). Any changes at this point should be more subtle than overt. My experience in the games I’ve played so far are very different then what has been described here.
-
Thanks for the post copy into LH’s forums and the comments, Questioneer.
I envision the National Objective for French Indo-China to be changed in only the one aspect, that it does not automatically disappear if America has visions of Hegemony all over the Pacific.
Essentially:
- As long as Japan, Italy or Germany does not invade French Indo-China, Japan gets 10 IPC a round.
Effects on the game:
- For one, Japan gets 10 IPC a round! (its a given, but if I don’t mention it, you know someone will point out I forgot to mention it!)
- Japan cannot take FIC without losing the NO, thus, Japan will most likely not have a minor Industrial in FIC (other than that, FIC is mostly a waste, there are other territories you can use to circumnavigate FIC.)
- Likewise, England, Australia and America will never get the 2 IPC for FIC either, unless Japan invades first.
Geist:
The economic split is not so much split as forcing America to use factories on both halves of the board. Think of it this way: A factory eventually hits peak performance and then other factories are needed. Granted a Major complex can do 10 units a round anyway, but the workers may rise in revolt over being forced to work 18 hour shifts day and night for 5 years, eh?
Seriously, the idea is to delay some of America’s units from getting to the Pacific right away. Most people seem to be under the misguided notion that what is built in Washington must stay in Washington or what is built in San Francisco must stay in San Francisco. No such limitation was ever established nor recommended. Units built in Calcutta can freely go to Sydney, Toronto or London and vice versa.
If the economic split for America is a bad idea, then the economic split for England is worse! England needs the money much more than America does AND England has a slightly harder time reinforcing itself!
-
I had another thought, as I typed the last post.
What if, and work with me here because I want feedback and I am not, necessarily, advertising this as a solution ~ YET!, but:
1) You may not build any major industrial complexes.
2) You may not upgrade any minor industrial complexes to major complexes, unless you are upgrading a complex on YOUR OWN CAPITOL CITY.
(Essentially, the only major complexes on the board are the ones that start less any that have been captured once.)3) Complexes in: Chicago, Los Angeles and Calcutta are permanently downgraded to minor industrial complexes. (The Washington DC Complex now starts as a major complex for America.)
4) One minor complex is added to W. Mexico. (So that America can put 6 units into the pacific per round, 9 if they put a complex in Alaska.)Since most of those complexes start as minors anyway, that shouldn’t be too bad. The Calcutta complex downgrade is a surety for Japan as well…but I could see adding a new minor in Malaya or West India for India to use as well, sort of diversify their building ability.
-
I tend to like the UK split a bit more, not so much for logic, but, for game reasons. It would be too easy for the UK to max out production in India, or if needed forget India entirely and use the extra IPC’s in Europe. Actually, one of the things I think that’s a bit broken is a UK minor IC in Central Persia, this lets both UK economies support each other and becomes tough on Japan and Italy.
I’m not convinced the delay the US would experience would have the effect you desire, in stopping an all out US blitz on Japan. At essense I think we do agree the game is Allied favored (though I think it’s closer to a 60/40 split, but, even that is enough to make people eventually not want to play Axis), I would just rather see the US spend more resources in the Atlantic because it’s the sensible thing to do rather than because they are forced to. This would almost seem to suggest a buff to Germany/Italy rather than Japan. To me it seems that it’s tough for Germany to put real prussure on Russia, certainly not the kind of pressure Germany is under from US/UK.
I tend to be biased against building IC’s in general, but, for some reason the idea of building in Mexico and Alaska just doesn’t mesh with my sense of historical accuracy.
-
I sort of dislike the England split. Other than for historical purposes, it does nothing but weaken England unrealistically. I grant that the allies need to be weakened, but I disagree that it should be England.
Rather: Combine England and split America. Drop the Major in India to Minor. Combine the “original land” NO into 1 and leave it at 5 IPC. England needs a round or two of London dump, and that would necessarily weaken the Indian offensive to make it easier on Japan…sounds like an awesome trade for me! Kills two problems at once! England gets the defense it needs against early Sea Lion, Japan gets the relief it needs in China!
Great idea Geist!
-
I think adding to the starting German military heavily and giving Russia some sort of +2 inf Novosibrisk NO similar to the Europe one. The game doesn’t deal with the Soviet industry in Turkmenistan or Kazakistan or the Don River industry (although I suppose Southern Ukraine could count).
Perhaps give the Germans more infantry and artillery, just not on the border with France? This way Germany can’t really knock out more British navy and take all of France safely, yet Germany will be at an initial advantage to the USSR even if they focus on helping Italy or beginning Sea Lion.
And here’s where the USSR NO kicks in. It only would come in to effect when at war with Germany or Italy (and maybe Japan), but to show the mass recruitment of citizens, the Soviets should get a constant infantry flow from the Urals, where heavy Soviet Industry was moved during the war. Perhaps something like, 6 IPCs to spend or lose? That way they choose between a tank or two infantry, because no accumulation?
I agree, Axis does feel a bit weak, and it seems Sea Lion or all out Russia are only feasable steps, but turn 1 Germany needs to buy Navy to do/feint Sea Lion and to get maximum use of their airforce against the Royal Navy. So I think some more German units, perhaps a presence in the Med (nothing fancy, a trans or something) would give Germany more options (such as helping Italy secure the med) because it always seems Italy becomes convoyed to death because almost all their territories are hit by convoy zones, if not all.
@Cmdr:
I sort of dislike the England split. Other than for historical purposes, it does nothing but weaken England unrealistically. I grant that the allies need to be weakened, but I disagree that it should be England.
Rather: Combine England and split America. Drop the Major in India to Minor. Combine the “original land” NO into 1 and leave it at 5 IPC. England needs a round or two of London dump, and that would necessarily weaken the Indian offensive to make it easier on Japan…sounds like an awesome trade for me! Kills two problems at once! England gets the defense it needs against early Sea Lion, Japan gets the relief it needs in China!
Great idea Geist!
I disagree somewhat. The USA should feel like the most powerful country initially. They already have to juggle spending on two theatres, and the USA was connected, unlike Great Britain. Realistically Britain wasn’t organized enough to control their vast Empire that efficiently. I think India should feel hard to take for Japan and UK Europe might need a bit more pieces on the board. Perhaps move the battleship in SZ 110 or give it a bit more protection.
-
Maybe give Germany a NO on France, called REVENGE or NO VICHY FOR YOU or something. For holding NB + Paris + Southern France + Belgium-Netherlands. It might conflict with Italy not getting SFR, but I think Germany can put the $3 to use better anyways.
-
Perhaps a good way to give Japan additional NO’s is to split the 5 of 7 NO they already have. Change it to an ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ defense line. Outer could be Palau, Carolines, marshal, and maybe Hainai, inner defense line could be Iwo, Oki, formosa…perhaps Philipines.
The pacific is so large, and was really an objective of the Japanese government. Sure wish it was better represented in the game.
-
I have played a lot of games of Alpha 2 at this point and I am just not coming to the same conclusions. Cmdr Jennifer you have put a lot of thought into this and I am not saying you don’t have valid points. That said I believe LH put a ton of thought into Alpha +2 with the help of the gaming community. I think people need to do some more play testing before concluding one side has the advantage over the other.
Yes the allies get more IPC’s to spend but there is a lot more to be considered than that. First is the US must spend points in both sides of the board or the Axis will either get 6 victory cities in the Pacific or 8 in the European and then it is game over. It doesn’t matter if the US goes over to Europe and stomps Italy and reels in Germany if Japan does an India Crush turn 3, repells China and then takes either Hawaii or Sydney. At that point it is game over and the allies must surrender. And those are very possible goals for Japan with the use of the starting Air Force, Navy, and added extra lands units in Alpha if US spends too much, too long in the Atlantic.
Now if the US goes into the Pacific early and stays there too long Germany can bring the pain to Russia if it has chosen operation Barbarossa. Germany has a powerful starting unit advantage against Russia plus it has a larger income and can utilize the major factories in West Germany and Germany to out produce Russia. As Germany pushes into Russia the communist will be forced to fall back further and further. Germany can earn a +5 bonus for Leningrad, +5 for Stalingrad and the +5 for the Caucus if Russia decides to turtle. As it pushes in it will also capture the minors in Ukraine and Leningrad. At that point it can use the minors to help marginalize Russia and the Majors in Europe to Repel the Allies.
With the addition of so many national bonus Italy also has the potential to become a powerhouse in Global. I will admit there is the UK1 on the Italian fleet that I don’t think is very fair but skillful use of Big Daddy Germany can help Italy make it through the early hit. LH added the minor in Southern France so if Germany takes Southern France it has even more options to help Italy out. Even if UK London sinks the Italian Battleship, Cruiser and 2 transports UK1, Italy can still get back up if the Axis is determined.
Also in the Pacific Japan has options. The Air Force can be used to paste one major Allied target after another if a proper Infantry shield is utilized. This is another area that shows straight up IPCs vs. IPCs is not always the best indicator of game balance in Global especially when you consider the victory city conditions. I also disagree that Japan can not keep pace with US Naval builds. If anything I have found that it is the US who can not keep pace with Japan naval builds especially if Japan decides to put some of its starting Air Force on carriers and mix that in with sub and destroyer builds. The US would actually have to spend the points for 2 extra fighters in this scenario (Japan starts the game with theirs) if it wanted to match Japan in Capital Ships. Also there is the issue of line of supply for the US. If it wants to venture past Hawaii then Japan can out maneuver it with Naval Bases and it can hit it with both the Air Force and the Japanese Navy. The US may have a lot of IPCs but it does not have enough IPCs to survive that.
As you know the US has been altered dramatically since OBB and it is possible to peel points away from them especially if they decide to hit Europe first. I do not think it would be fair or game balancing at this point to restrict the US any further.
Also, I think people may be underestimating just how much the US has to accomplish against the Axis to stop them on both sides of the board. They most likely need a very large naval fleet in the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean. If they don’t build enough fleet in the Atlantic and the Germans have been investing some points in subs and planes here and there they can lose all their transports when they get far away from home and try to do some damage. And the US has to build transports to fight Germany while Germany does not have build transports to fight the US. This is a huge factor.
Finally this is only addressing what the Allies most accomplish to stop the Axis from winning the game. It has not even begun to address bringing Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo under lasting Allie control which is what the Allies must do to win the game.
-
I have played a lot of games of Alpha 2 at this point and I am just not coming to the same conclusions. Cmdr Jennifer you have put a lot of thought into this and I am not saying you don’t have valid points. That said I believe LH put a ton of thought into Alpha +2 with the help of the gaming community. I think people need to do some more play testing before concluding one side has the advantage over the other.
Yes the allies get more IPC’s to spend but there is a lot more to be considered than that. First is the US must spend points in both sides of the board or the Axis will either get 6 victory cities in the Pacific or 8 in the European and then it is game over. It doesn’t matter if the US goes over to Europe and stomps Italy and reels in Germany if Japan does an India Crush turn 3, repells China and then takes either Hawaii or Sydney. At that point it is game over and the allies must surrender. And those are very possible goals for Japan with the use of the starting Air Force, Navy, and added extra lands units in Alpha if US spends too much too long in the Atlantic.
Now if the US goes into the Pacific early and stays there too long Germany can bring he pain to Russia if it has chosen operation Barbarossa. Germany has a powerful starting unit advantage against Russia plus it has a larger income and can utilize the major factories in West Germany and Germany to out produce Russia. As Germany pushes into Russia the communist will be forced to fall back further and further. Germany can earn a +5 bonus for Leningrad, +5 for Stalingrad and the +5 for the Caucus if Russia decides to turtle. As it pushes in it will also capture the minors in Ukraine and Leningrad. At that point it can use the minors to help marginalize Russia and the Majors in Europe to Repel the Allies.
With the addition of so many national bonus Italy also has the potential to become a powerhouse in Global. I will admit there is the UK1 on the Italian fleet that I don’t think is very fair but skillful use of Big Daddy Germany can help Italy make it through the early hit. LH added the minor in Southern France so if Germany takes Southern France it has even more options to help Italy out. Even if UK London sinks the Italian Battleship, Cruiser and 2 transports UK1, Italy can still get back up if the Axis is determined.
Also in the Pacific Japan has options. The Air Force can be used to paste one major Allied target after another if a proper Infantry shield is utilized. This is another area that shows straight up IPCs vs. IPCs is not always the best indicator of game balance in Global especially when you consider the victory city conditions. I also disagree that Japan can not keep pace with US Naval builds. If anything I have found that it is the US who can not keep pace with Japan naval builds especially if Japan decides to put some of its starting Air Force on carriers and mix that in with sub and destroyer builds. The US would actually have to spend the points for 2 extra fighters in this scenario (Japan starts the game with theirs) if it wanted to match Japan in Capital Ships. Also there is the issue of line of supply for the US. If it wants to venture past Hawaii then Japan can out maneuver it with Naval Bases and it can hit it with both the Air Force and the Japanese Navy. The US may have a lot of IPCs but it does not have enough IPCs to survive that.
As you know the US has been altered dramatically since OBB and it is possible to peel points away from them especially if they decide to hit Europe first. I do not think it would be fair or game balancing at this point to restrict the US any further.
Also, I think people may be underestimating just how much the US has to accomplish against the Axis to stop them on both sides of the board. They most likely need a very large naval fleet in the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean. If they don’t build enough fleet in the Atlantic and the Germans have been investing some points in subs and planes here and there they can lose all their transports when they get far away from home and try to do some damage. And the US has to build transports to fight Germany while Germany does not have build transports to fight the US. This is a huge factor.
Finally this is only addressing what the Allies most accomplish to stop the Axis from winning the game. It has not even begun to address bringing Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo under lasting Allie control which is what the Allies must do to win the game.
I agree
-
I think alpha +2 is a pretty well balanced game that is actually tilted slightly to the axis the way the victory conditions are set. A good axis player will win on the other board if America goes all in on one.
-
I find it far less pressured to play the Allies, I’m also more likely to try and make an exchange of pieces with the Allies, so I think they have a small advantage, however, any solutions we propose should be grounded in what could be changed. For example, I do not think the economies for the US or UK are likely to be changed. I would think that if the UK economy wasn’t split they’d need a big nerf. If the UK started with a base economy of 45 it would be less about defending the home island and more about how fast can I crush Germany.
Suggested Topics
