3.) Launch on Tokyo by round 5 or 6??? Even if the US goes 100% Pacific (at least for the first few rounds) it cannot take Tokyo unless you are playing against a moron. Seriously, Japan is not to be underestimated and you simply cannot make a blind statement like that (explain how you put yourself in that position by that round and get past the huge navy, airforce and men that Japan can put there or attack preemptively with, not to mention the kamakazis). IMHO if US goes 100% in either theater, the allies lose.
4.) Why do they always buy that? Its not always more important to buy the most punch possible if it takes too long to get into position. Try buying mech and tanks along with airpower. Germany can be at Moscow’s doorstep with (for example) 24 Inf, 5 Art, 7 Mech, 21 Tanks, and a bunch of airpower by ROUND 4 and hit Russia round 5 against 40+ Inf and maybe a couple planes and tanks (thats 100+ attack with 50+ units - not counting the luftwaffe! - vs 80-90+ defence with 40+ units ). Now Germany has time to prepare a welcoming party for those India troops since the US is busy in the Pacific with Japan (basically a 1 on 1) and Russia is dead leaving UK Europe alone against both Italy and a monster Germany. Oh yeah, and that’s NOT going sealion.
5.) Yeah UK makes cash, but Russia gives everthing to the Axis (its income when captured as well as its territorial income and dont forget about german objective income - 20 IPCs plus middle east) By round 9 or 10 UK is trying to stay alive after you have given the axis all of Asia, Europe and at least half of Africa = over half the board!! It depends on who you play against but a good axis player will take advantage of what you give him and ignor what you dont give him. Sea Lion can be good but not EVERY time. And above all else dont be predictable.
I’m not gonna waste my breath on this one… :roll:
Jen has already discussed how in detail- I suggest you go back and READ-school yourself my friend and try it!!! :-D
Keep in mind, if Germany goes Barbarrossa over Sea Lion it’s abilities to stop the British fleet drop to near zero and it’s abilities to maintain its own fleet likewise drop to zero. This assumes a 100% directed effort to take Muskva (hell they’re calling them Novgorod and Volgorod, why not call it Muskva then, eh?). That means, no new airbases, naval bases, no added fleet units, airpower has to move east due to range, etc.
Sure. Germany could get Muskva by round 6 or 7 then. (Russia will of course see this coming and modify it’s own strategy accordingly, instead of getting any new air power or armored units, they might just dump 10 infantry a round on Muskva and retreat everything back leaving Germany with one helluva stack of units to contend with.
38 Infantry
3 Artillery
2 MI
2 Arm
2 Fig
1 Tac
Starting
It’s pretty safe to say Russia will have:
90 Infnatry, 2 MI, 3 Artillery, 2 Armor, 2 Fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber and an AA Gun (3 AA Guns maybe, though, I would retreat some to stop Japanese blitzes).
Note: 210 IPC would give Russia 108 Infantry, I am saying it is safe to assume 90 Infantry which is 17% less infantry than they could have.
Germany, meanwhile, is stretched out all to kingdom come, they’re out of position, they have lost the initiative in the Atlantic, Italy is NOT in control of all of Africa, more likely they are in control of Egypt, Jordan, N. Africa, Gibraltar and the Sudan, but not much further as they have a British floatilla landing in Morocco and some British units coming up from the south. Not to forget Indian units moving into the Middle east to pen them in all nice and tight.
Also, this maneuver for England doesn’t lock them out of Europe. Thanks to Naval Bases England can easily bring 6 ground units in a round (3 from Africa, 3 from Canada) and be out of range of enemy planes (ie no naval ships needed to protect transports, s. africans walk/drive north), maybe even have a complex in C. Persia for 9 units a round into Africa.
Given all this, I can easily see Germany being stuck in the Russian mud, Japan being locked to an island / the Korea/Manchuria territories and England strong enough to start threatening a solo D-Day or invasion of Italy.
All because Germany left them alone to build.
And if Germany decides NOT to go 100% against Russia, then what’s the point? You don’t have the strength to do both which means you won’t accomplish either. All that changes, really, is the rate in which Russia retreats in front of you, laughing at your tanks as you get stuck in the mud and run out of fuel.
I like Jens idea for an American NO in north Africa instead of the Mexican. I think this would ease some pressure off japan and allow the European axis powers some sway in hurting the USA economy. It would also give the USA incentive to build in the alantic early in the game.
As for changing the turn order I like the fact that Italy and Germany have the one two punch if you take that away from them ot would hurt the European axis too much. Maybe just have Italy go first this way they could save their navy, freeing up German aircraft.
Proposing rules changes in this thread is counter-productive. We need to limit this discussion to the balance of the game as it currently stands. Thanks.
Tally one for the Axis this week end. Operation Barbarossa was a success. Germany took all of France on G1. Japan hit China and Russia on J1. G2 was a clean up and reorganize along with some convoy raiding. US1 was a dump in the Atlantic. J2 was Pearl Harbor with the occupation of Hawaii, then off to ANZAC with the smaller of the 2 Jap fleets pushing on Kwangtung and the Islands. I had 2 good goal line stands as Russia, but it wasnt enough. The players on the board are experienced and they are open to suggestions,but they dont like to be told what to do, so what can you do, point out the mistakes after the fact….yea. the Axis had some real hot rolls. DONT CHANGE THE GAME…(make a new one)
How does Japan go after Russia and keep enough of a fleet to fend off a US Pacific build? You also don’t mention what the UK did in the game. The Axis can win, but, I think it relies more on Allied mistakes.
My last game, I built mostly Atlantic for the first three rounds of the game, giving only a few DD’s to the Pacific, and once Japan got strong enough to worry about, I switched to an all Pacific build and put Japan in an untenable position by turn 8 or 9. Japan is simply pulled in too many directions. If you try and operate in the south, you’ll get cut off in the North and your naval builds will dry up. If you operate in the north you’ll lose the DEI’s, and if you split up your navy you’ll delay the hammer fall for a few rounds, but, it will likely come at the expense of any land campaign you have going on, because you’ll need your air power to guard Japan and threaten a counter attack on the US fleet.
Proposing rules changes in this thread is counter-productive. We need to limit this discussion to the balance of the game as it currently stands. Thanks.
That’s easy- NOT balanced- Allied advantage- now let the propsed rule changes continue…
@Cmdr:
Keep in mind, if Germany goes Barbarrossa over Sea Lion it’s abilities to stop the British fleet drop to near zero and it’s abilities to maintain its own fleet likewise drop to zero.
@Cmdr:
And if Germany decides NOT to go 100% against Russia, then what’s the point? You don’t have the strength to do both which means you won’t accomplish either. All that changes, really, is the rate in which Russia retreats in front of you, laughing at your tanks as you get stuck in the mud and run out of fuel.
I disagree. I have taken down Russia without a 100% commitment from Germany. Germany can spare enough resources to keep UK contained for a few rounds without sacrificing its efforts on the eastern front.
@Cmdr:
Keep in mind, if Germany goes Barbarrossa over Sea Lion it’s abilities to stop the British fleet drop to near zero and it’s abilities to maintain its own fleet likewise drop to zero.
@Cmdr:
And if Germany decides NOT to go 100% against Russia, then what’s the point? You don’t have the strength to do both which means you won’t accomplish either. All that changes, really, is the rate in which Russia retreats in front of you, laughing at your tanks as you get stuck in the mud and run out of fuel.
I disagree. I have taken down Russia without a 100% commitment from Germany. Germany can spare enough resources to keep UK contained for a few rounds without sacrificing its efforts on the eastern front.
Not if they build from Canada from the get go and vacate the Med. Also if you keep UK alive they CAN help Russia defend in multiple ways.
Seriously though, I can tell from my limited experience that there are lots of options for all powers, definitive statements aren’t going to work on this larger board with more spaces. That being said, I have found a slight balance edge towards the Allies, but then the Axis have initiative. So it is still too early to tell if this slight advantage means the allies will win more.
If you have two evenly skilled players, how much of an edge do you need to win? A slight one or a huge one?
ugh, got my joke censored by IL:(
I think the edge is slightly in the allies favor, I would think the dice and possibly an unforseen/unplanned offensive could tip the scales in the axis favor. Because they have the initiative they do have options, you don’t /have/ to attack UK if you plan on hitting Russia G3 right?
Geist:
All things being equal (players, standard set up as detailed in Alpha 2, dice that come out with median or mean results in each and every battle, etc) all one would need to balance the game is to move 16 IPC worth of American builds (per round) from the Pacific into the Atlantic and the game would be balanced. In every game in which America ends up with +128 IPC worth of units in the Atlantic side of the game map (16 IPC per round, 8 rounds) the game has come down to skill and dice, as far as I have seen and experienced. Why the resistance to splitting the American build, which would be the easiest method and least impactful on the game, I do not know. I suspect those who resist this change are the same ones who conceed defeat the instant their opponent takes their Queen in chess.
Krieg:
Germany neither has the time, nor the resources, to successfully handle both Russia and England. If England is not under pressure, they can easily hold Southern and Central Africa, the Middle East and the North Atlantic while Russia turtles.
I suspect, what you have seen, is a Russia that is trying to win the game. This is a common mistake by players of all levels of expertese, I believe. In this game, given the shear distances, Russia should not play to win the game, they should, instead, focus on not losing the game. This is a very significant change in mental and physical strategy on the board. Mentally one has to leave the notion that you are “losing” ground just because you are pulling back and replace it with “Germany is getting extended, as they get extended their lines weaken through attrition, they slow down or they must purchse more expensive units. Further, they now have trains of say 30 IPC worth of Infantry spread over 5 territories, instead of 150 IPC worth of infantry in one territory, letting me hit them with overwhelming force at the time and place of my choosing. Lastly, they now have half their army scattered all over Western Asia and Eastern Europe, with very little defending Western and Southern Europe, making it easier for England to set up an invasion.”
Second, if Sea Lion is not conducted, taking England gets exponentially harder each round. Further, once England is unconquerable (given board position and barring weird dice) which should be about round 4, Germany’s fleet must retreat else be lost. Even if it does retreat, England can readily drop fighters into Russia to make it that much harder to “win” an invasion there, as well as the more traditional route of dumping infantry and artillery into Arkhangelsk to reinforce Muskva or Novgorod. As Germany’s fleet is now safely contained, there is no risk of Sea Lion, and therefore, there is no risk to England and thus, England no longer needs to be protected. Thusly, all those units England needed to dissuade Sea Lion become “free” units allowing England to focus on nothing but fleet and air power to maintain supremecy.
In regards to Africa, with a complex in C. Persia (if needed) and the Complex in S. Africa, containment of the Italians should not be that great a task. I can readily see Italy earning 5 IPC for Egypt/Greece/S. France + 5 IPC No Surface Ships + about 18 or 19 IPC a round, this is hardly “over powering” nor is it a “death knell” for Russia. The ludicrous statements of a 60 IPC or more Italian payroll seem implausible at best, a gross suspension of disbelief at worst. Are you blithely ignoring Italy all this time? Sure, if you just outright ignore them, and you maximize every possible territory for Italy to get you might get up to 60 IPC, but that would not be an equitable matchup of players. Italy should, and probably always will be, limited to around the 20 IPC income level, Germany stuck at the 50 IPC level (Russian invasion, no British invasion) with England at the 30 IPC level, England Mark 2 at the 30 IPC level and Russia at the 30 IPC level this should not be a very hard challenge. You have a defensive force of approximately 90 IPC against an attacking force of roughly 70 IPC giving the Allies at least 10 IPC worth of land (at 1 IPC per in Russia, that’s 10 territories) to give up before the playing field is leveled, meanwhile, it will take a very long time to get all those units over to Russia. (1 round for England to get to Arkhangelsk, 4 rounds for Germany to get to Arkhangelsk. England can get there 4 times faster, Russia starts there so they’re infintely faster.)
Here’s an idea, what if:
This would signify America’s desperate need to save England which was a significant influence on America’s desire to get in the war, and why they gave away all that war material to England for all those years, would intensify America’s need to invest in the Atlantic AND rebalance the game with a historical context many would feel needs to be there for any change to be justified, in their minds.
Not to mention, it really drives home the point that America needs to be present on both sides of the board!
I wouldn’t mind seeing the 10 point US NO reduced to 5 and an additional 5 point Europe based NO in the game.
On a second look, yes Jen I am in favor of #1, #2 and #3
Yes that will work- clever- your not eliminating and IPCs from US only shifting it to the Atlantic- very nice- yes I think that would work nicely. Now the US has 10IPCs to gain in the Atlantic and 5IPC to gain with either board (Continental NO) and 15 IPCs to gain in Pacific (2 island NOs and Philippines)- seems very fair to me.
Excellent writing!!!
I don’t really care for the 10 point London NO. I don’t think it would have the desired effect of committing the US to the Atlantic, London can turtle in fairly effectively without help from the US, so now it’s just a guarenteed 10 IPC for the US and as long as London play conservatively the first few rounds and protects it’s capital USA get’s a guarenteed 10 IPC. I’d like to see the NO encourage action and attempts to actively contest territory rather than reward inaction.
I don’t really care for the 10 point London NO. I don’t think it would have the desired effect of committing the US to the Atlantic, London can turtle in fairly effectively without help from the US, so now it’s just a guarenteed 10 IPC for the US and as long as London play conservatively the first few rounds and protects it’s capital USA get’s a guarenteed 10 IPC. I’d like to see the NO encourage action and attempts to actively contest territory rather than reward inaction.
How??? Sealion is nearly guaranteed every game- if Germany wants it- they can take it G3 or G4 barring really bad dice. UK turtle is not enough. Show me the punch counts- prove it.
Jen makes a compelling and convincing case. The imbalance is clear. This thread should shift to solutions.
Germany was researching nukes and relatively close to resolution. Perhaps a given turn allows Germany a one time spectacular effect on one territory.
If you retreat the RAF from the Med, along with 9 Infantry in your turn one build, then 10 infantry (you usually can make a beter turn 2 defensive build) with your turn 2 build you’re looking at 23 Infantry, 6 Fighters and one Tac Bomber for defense (french forces included) that does not include any transports that survive to bring over additional Canadian troops. The transports will die, but, the objective is for the UK to survive. Let’s assume the Germans build 12 transports between turns they will be able to get a Max of 26 land units and 11 air (this assumes a best case scenario for Germany, no air units lost turn one and an aircraft carrier and two transports bought turn one, 10 transports on turn 2) so yes, in this best case scenario Germany brings 13 Infantry, 8 Artillery, 5 Tanks, 5 Fighters, 5 Tac bombers, and 1 Bomber vs 23 Infantry, 6 Fighters and one Tac Bomber for defense at this point you have good odds (roughly 99%). But what if a transport survives the G1 attack and brings over an infantry and a tank from Canada, now your odds drop to 92%, still good but you get mauled on the ground.
If you go with a standard G1 build of 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 Sub you now have 4 less ground troops and your odds (not assuming the two additional Canadian troops land in the UK) your odds drop down to 88% (72% if Canadian reinforcements come) with high ground losses and on a bad die roll you’re losing air units to keep a tank alive to claim the capital. None of these scenarios take into account the possibility of German air unit losses or the possibilty that the UK will park the Med fleet in SZ 110 to buy an extra round of building up.
With the 10 point London NO, you’ll do one of two things, you’ll encourage the UK to turtle above all else or if I’m missing something here and it truly is a cake walk to take the UK, then you’ll make that the new standard opening for Germany because the Allies get hit twice, once for losing a capital and a 10 point hit to the US economy.
Geist:
The problem I have with your objection is that England already does what you say and is still lost to Germany by round 4 (vs round 3 if they harras the Italians instead.)
The other problem I have with your objection is that the 10 IPC NO is already automatic for America since it’s virtually impossible for Japan or Germany to get E. USA, C. USA or W. USA anyway.
The idea is, if we move that objective to London, then America will lose that NO unless the dice go crazy, or they go liberate it. However, it is logical that the Continental United States should be worth something (I would actually lump Alaska in here, but they were not officially a state yet, so I’ll let that one drop) so giving that 5 IPC is okay with me. However, a Mexican NO? Sounds like they were hunting and searching for anything so as to give America more money, presumably because they thought America would need the cash for both hemispheres, but I cannot read minds and I was not privvy to the discussion at the time of creation. I suggest removing this NO entirely and moving it, along with half of the continental NO, to England.
American intelligence networks knew, quite well, that if England fell, breaching Europe and defeating Hitler was going to be almost impossible. They realized how evil “Unkle Adolf” was and had first hand accounts of concentration camps from escaped survivors (whether or not they believed them is a moot point, they had the reports, you can get copies from the government under the Freedom of Information Act.) Thus, America knew it had to save England, if only to have a stepping stone into France to win the war. That is not the case in this game.
Further, do not the justifications for these National Objectives all call upon the history of the political and military situation at the time? Mexico was hardly militaristic nor strategically nor even politically significant to World War II (I apologize to any Mexicans who are reading this, no insult is intended, but they were hardly under any threat historically speaking, nor were they a threat.) Meanwhile, as detailed above, the fall of London would have been a crushing defeat to the Allied aspirations of victory, yet there is no national objective for America to stop London from falling. There is one for Germany to take it, primarily because the fall of London would have assured them success, in the real war, or very close too it.
Granted, to judge the viability of the change, we would need test data.
