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

[Guest]

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.

[Jennifer]

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 4

That’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.)

[suprise attack]

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.

[Axisplaya]

@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 4

That’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…

[Jennifer]

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.

[Chompers2]

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.

[questioneer]

@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:

[Jennifer]

@Frank:

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”.

[Geoscal]

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).

[Funcioneta]

@questioneer:

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 :-)

[SgtBlitz]

I like the game balance in this version in that it actually plays differently.  Each theater acts individually yet still blends into the world game map as a whole.  US and UK cannot effectively ship 20 FIG to Russia like they have in previous games unless they have already dealt with Italy and Japan and have them successfully contained (i.e., Russia is its own separate theater for the majority of the game).  In the Pacific, however, playing as a team for the Allies is required.  More territories and more money on the game board means that traditional infantry-push strategies will be ineffective; it will be up to the tactics and strategies of the players to see their conquests through to capture the capitals.

[soldaatvanoranje]

Thumbs up for Alpha2+ !!

I’ve played it several times now and though I discover new threats, tactics and opportunities every play, I never had the impression either axis or allies have an unfair advantage.

[eudemonist]

@Cmdr:

Russia is perfectly able to stop the German incursion and repell it without the assistance of England or America.

Still don’t agree with this.

@Cmdr:

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.

I think this premise is flawed as well.

[Jennifer]

I won’t agree the game is balanced until either America’s financial situation is reduced or America is encouraged to invest in both wars.  As it stands, the game is too heavily biased towards the allies since Russia, England and France can pretty much hold their own against Germany until Japan is crushed (reduced significantly, and easily maintained with a bare minimum effort from America and full effort from Australia).

By “hold their own” (as I am CONSTANTLY forced to explain) I do not mean WIN.  I mean NOT LOSE.  There is a VERY significant difference between those statements!  As long as Moscow, Toronto and Washington DC do not fall, the Allies are HOLDING THEIR OWN against Germany, because Germany cannot win without one of those three Victory Cities.  Considering two of them require significant naval power, it is safe to assume the one that will be attacked is Moscow.  Russia is MORE than capable to keep pressure on the front and retreat ONLY when absolutely necessary to maintain their defensive punch.  Maneuvering like this, it seems highly plausible that Russia can hold out for 11 or 12 rounds before variation in dice results could display a need for Allied intervention.

11 or 12 rounds is roughly 4 rounds more than is needed, worst case scenario, to bottle up Japan and gives England (India) and America 4 rounds to move into Africa, Europe and Russia.  WIth America getting roughly 80 IPC a round and India at least 20 IPC a round, that should be enough to come to the defense of Russia (30ish IPC a round by then).  Even if Italy is gettin 30 IPC a round, Germany 60 IPC a round and Japan 20 IPC a round (maximal I can possibly envision Japan having before the allies need to turn back to Europe.)

From there, it’s matter of time.  The Allies can afford to throw away tanks after infantry, the financial situation is that far in their advantage.

I’ve said it before, I will say it again, and again and AGAIN.  If something is not done to distract America, then the game will never be balanced.  Some players have said they invest in both theaters, to you, I say Kudos.  Play the way you want, don’t be a power player!  However, keep in mind the optimal strategy is to utterly destroy Japan (it has no chance if you dedicate to it) and ignore Germany for the most part.  It doesn’t even matter if you lose London (granted, do as much damage as possible, of course!).  Once Japan is bottled, China is secured, all you have to do is walk up through Persia and sail over to liberate London/Africa.

[Funcioneta]

@Cmdr:

WIth America getting roughly 80 IPC a round and India at least 20 IPC a round, that should be enough to come to the defense of Russia (30ish IPC a round by then).  Even if Italy is gettin 30 IPC a round, Germany 60 IPC a round and Japan 20 IPC a round (maximal I can possibly envision Japan having before the allies need to turn back to Europe.)

I cannot see how can India get 20 IPCs each round beyond round 3. Even with the changes made to alpha’s. If the idea is still a J3 attack with a total catch of DEI, India should not colect more than 5-6 IPCs (10 if one island is not taken by Japan). But maybe people are doing J1 attacks… I guess that no wonder what version, I’m always out of the mainstream strategies  :lol:

But, if India is really doing 20 IPCs most of games, I agree that alpha is unbalanced. But I cannot talk much because I continue refusing to do free testing work for WOTC  :roll:

[Jennifer]

It’s either India or Australia getting 20+ IPC a round.  Japan cannot possibily hold it all, however.  It is relatively simple to pile a 300 IPC fleet in SZ 42 (Java) take Java, build an airbase on Java and land 3 Australian fighters to protect the fleet even more if that’s what I need to do.

I prefer to have India make 20 IPC a round, since that gives me more money to go into Caucasus with, however, some prefer to let Australia earn 20 IPC, either way, it’s a moot issue.  Japan cannot survive.  Once it’s at war, it effectively has no National Objectives, there’s no way a good Allied player is going to let them have an NO for more than 1 or 2 rounds (even then…I fail to see how the Allied player did not put him or herself in position to irrevokably take the NO away and sink anything Japan left away from the main fleet.)

Japan CAN protect home island, that’s not all that hard to do really.  But it is not the objective, the objective is to limit Japan to Home island, SZ 6 and immediate zones and that shouldn’t be hard to do by round 5 or 6 in most games, 8 or 9 at the very latest, giving America 4 rounds to build fleet and move them to Europe before Russia’s in dire straits as well as England a few rounds to start sending units into Persia to kick the Italians out.

[questioneer]

@Funcioneta:

@Cmdr:

WIth America getting roughly 80 IPC a round and India at least 20 IPC a round, that should be enough to come to the defense of Russia (30ish IPC a round by then).  Even if Italy is gettin 30 IPC a round, Germany 60 IPC a round and Japan 20 IPC a round (maximal I can possibly envision Japan having before the allies need to turn back to Europe.)

I cannot see how can India get 20 IPCs each round beyond round 3. Even with the changes made to alpha’s. If the idea is still a J3 attack with a total catch of DEI, India should not colect more than 5-6 IPCs (10 if one island is not taken by Japan). But maybe people are doing J1 attacks… I guess that no wonder what version, I’m always out of the mainstream strategies  :lol:

But, if India is really doing 20 IPCs most of games, I agree that alpha is unbalanced. But I cannot talk much because I continue refusing to do free testing work for WOTC  :roll:

I agree here…how is India making 20+ per round- by round 3-4 they should only be making like 6IPCs a turn. :?  I do believe Japan needs something units but not as much as you claim for this reason.  But like Func said if you are right then it is indeed imbalance and needs adjustment.

[questioneer]

@Cmdr:

It’s either India or Australia getting 20+ IPC a round.  Japan cannot possibily hold it all, however.  It is relatively simple to pile a 300 IPC fleet in SZ 42 (Java) take Java, build an airbase on Java and land 3 Australian fighters to protect the fleet even more if that’s what I need to do.

I prefer to have India make 20 IPC a round, since that gives me more money to go into Caucasus with, however, some prefer to let Australia earn 20 IPC, either way, it’s a moot issue.  Japan cannot survive.  Once it’s at war, it effectively has no National Objectives, there’s no way a good Allied player is going to let them have an NO for more than 1 or 2 rounds (even then…I fail to see how the Allied player did not put him or herself in position to irrevokably take the NO away and sink anything Japan left away from the main fleet.)

Japan CAN protect home island, that’s not all that hard to do really.  But it is not the objective, the objective is to limit Japan to Home island, SZ 6 and immediate zones and that shouldn’t be hard to do by round 5 or 6 in most games, 8 or 9 at the very latest, giving America 4 rounds to build fleet and move them to Europe before Russia’s in dire straits as well as England a few rounds to start sending units into Persia to kick the Italians out.

Ah I see…however you must have to put 100% US effort into Pacific to do this well right???  In that case you are just giving the Euro Axis all of Europe and Africa.  I doubt that Britain and Russia can “hold their own” that long- you say 11-12 rounds w/o American intervention???  Interesting…I can kinda of see it yet kinda of not because your looking into deep rounds.  Its like thinking 10+ moves ahead in a chess game- however, this is easier when known openings are established as they are starting to be in AAGlobal.  I’d like to play you a game/or watch a game and see it in practice first.

[Krieghund]

@Cmdr:

As long as Moscow, Toronto and Washington DC do not fall, the Allies are HOLDING THEIR OWN against Germany, because Germany cannot win without one of those three Victory Cities.

I’m not sure of the basis of this statement.  The European Axis can indeed win without controlling any of these cities.  Only eight of the eleven victory cities on the Europe board are required to win.

[The Fire Knight]

Just started reading this thread, and while I’m not quite sure if I believe jennifer, I have definitely thought from the beginning that America needed incentives in Europe as well as the pacific. Just a thought, but if this is the only thing that needs balancing (which it probably isn’t but could be a start) then a really easy fix could be to reduce america’s NO for holding the continental US from 10 to 5, and then give them a NO of 5 to hold a territory and have troops in Europe. I think this is similar to what anniversary did. And another bonus of this is that it gives a slight, slight incentive to hold Sicily or sardinia if the rest of Europe is too well defended. Plus, while not a hard objective, this is definitely realistic (b/c it was America’s goal since the start to invade france and such) and could even create the debate again with Britain as to whether or not invade Africa first or go straight to france. Plus, I think the general consensus is that even w/o the US crush of japan, the allies are slightly disadvantaged. This reduces America’s income by about maybe 15-20 ipcs over the 4 or so turns it would take to capture normandy or sicily or something. Thoughts?