@Cmdr:
I concur that giving up Sea Lion is pretty much a bad idea. Removing England from play in Europe seems to be the only saving grace the Axis have in that field. Likewise, if Japan can get India, their lives are eased significantly as well.
Perhaps to balance things out we should make India easier to nab?
I disagree. Russia needs to be weaker. It needs to be that the can’t hold without the West intervening to ease pressure. Lose 10 inf, I say.
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
Why?
1) Japan can dedicate less force to deal with India.
2) With less going towards India, more can go after Russia.
3) Russia has to contend with more force coming at it.
4) Further, Japan has an easier time capturing India.
5) Japan not only captures India, but also gets a complex and an NO
6) Russia is not boosted in any way to counter this increase in Japanese strength (in relation to the allies) and is thus weakened.
@Cmdr:
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
If you want to weaken Russia, then weaken Russia. Don’t weaken India in the hope that it will indirectly weaken Russia.
Historically the Axis did attempt Barbarossa and not Sealion. THerefore i agree that Russia can be reduced. I don’t see a need for India to be easier.
THere was discussion a few pages ago about using OOB setup and Alpha2 rules and NO. Has anyone attempted a test? I wonder if that wouldn’t solve the Pacific problem.
Obviously this has the added value of using what’s in the box and not requiring additional printed pages of setups.
@Cmdr:
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
If you want to weaken Russia, then weaken Russia. Don’t weaken India in the hope that it will indirectly weaken Russia.
Agreed. It is a simple solution. Don’t complicate it.
@Cmdr:
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
If you want to weaken Russia, then weaken Russia. Don’t weaken India in the hope that it will indirectly weaken Russia.
No, it was an answer to someone saying we need to weaken Russia. We don’t need to weaken Russia, we need to weaken India and make it more like Australia.
Better idea: Industrial Complex in India is a Minor Complex downgraded from Major. If they want to make it a major complex, they can do that at their own expense!
minor in India, minor in west india
that might do the trick
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
If you want to weaken Russia, then weaken Russia. Don’t weaken India in the hope that it will indirectly weaken Russia.
No, it was an answer to someone saying we need to weaken Russia. We don’t need to weaken Russia, we need to weaken India and make it more like Australia.
Better idea: Industrial Complex in India is a Minor Complex downgraded from Major. If they want to make it a major complex, they can do that at their own expense!
I disagree with making India weaker though I do think the game favors the Allies. India can not be made to be as weak as Australia. Australia might as well be located on the Moon for all intensive purposes as far as Japan is concerned. India on the other hand can be reached fairly quickly by Japan and I feel the tension between the 2 is just right as is. If Japan is left alone it will kill India as is. I do not like a fix that puts Japan one victory city away from victory turn 3 essentially. Then the Allies would really have not choice but to go into the Pacific first.
I believe Russia can probably stand on it’s own a little too easy in Alpha +2 by purchasing lots of Infantry and Artillery. So maybe if Russia was made weaker or perhaps Germany or Italy was made stronger that might be a solution to balance the game.
No, it was an answer to someone saying we need to weaken Russia. We don’t need to weaken Russia, we need to weaken India and make it more like Australia.
No, we need to weaken Russia. Every other power is about right. If you play Europe on its own, you still run into the same problem for Germany. Weakening India isn’t going to solve the real problem in either global or either game on its own.
Japan can take India with a good plan well executed, but that requires they practically empty out Manchuria and Korea of troops to have enough - and even then it’s probably 50/50 against an equally skilled opponent. India first seems like the most solid gambit. India can be weakened with SBR and by taking Malaya, Hong Kong, and Borneo right away, leaving them with only 7 IPCs. Point - India isn’t too bad as is.
Russia on the other hand, needs tweaking. First, my gripe about the Soviet Far East. The 18 Infantry that are inexplicably stationed in SFE are a nightmare to handle. They are supposed to be pulled out and sent back to Moscow, but my opponent likes to have them sit there and menace me. The last game we played, he invaded Korea and set up a minor IC - then proceeded to build a submarine each round into the Sea of Japan. By the rules, you cannot load transports from a zone in combat, so until Japan liberates Korea, each and every round Japan was unable to load transports from Japan during the Combat Phase, due to the one submarine each round - it ruined my ability to invade Honolulu which was essentially undefended. I think the power that declares war should provide the other with much more than 12 IPCs - perhaps 30? The current SFE setup ONLY favors Russia - that’s lame.
Also, Russia has a few too many Infantry to work with. In G3 or G4 when Germany is most likely to want to invade, Germany is always already outnumbered by Russian troops. As long as the Russian player isn’t dumb and places them in the correct zones, it’s extremely difficult for Germany to make a 50/50 shot at Moscow. That’s all I want - a 50/50 shot assuming average die rolls.
… then proceeded to build a submarine each round into the Sea of Japan. By the rules, you cannot load transports from a zone in combat, so until Japan liberates Korea, each and every round Japan was unable to load transports from Japan during the Combat Phase, due to the one submarine each round - it ruined my ability to invade Honolulu which was essentially undefended…
Submarines don’t block movement or prevent loading, even if you attack the submarines in that seazone. Transports can still load and move during the combat phase. They can also load and move during the noncombat phase.
In Alpha 2.0 they prevent unloading during the combat phase only, but only if the player performing the amphibious assault (the ONLY way to unload during the combat phase) doesn’t also have a surface warship present.
Now, if he’d built a destroyer, that’s another matter.
Would adding say 5 tanks and 3 infantry to Germany do the trick perhaps? That might cause the Russians to feel some pressure early and create need for Allied intervention to save the Soviets bacon.
If Italy is going to remain a broken design then I think Germany has to become pretty powerful to give the Axis a close to 50/50 chance at victory.
I admit to being highly confused with the new sub rules as well, are you sure enemy subs only block unloading and not loading in combat movement? Also you’re sure they don’t block in noncom?
how do I acquire a copy of the alpha two changes? Do the Japanese destroyers have the option of trasporting one infantry as in the pacific game? If so, should incorporate due to the low number of Jap transports. Also, for playability, America is enormous. Maybe start USA with $40 or $42 and then add $25
I admit to being highly confused with the new sub rules as well, are you sure enemy subs only block unloading and not loading in combat movement? Also you’re sure they don’t block in noncom?
Yes. Well, I’m 99% sure. I admit that exceptions trip me up, but, the logic breaks it down like so:
Transports cannot load from a hostile (or contested) seazone.
Enemy subs alone do not make a seazone hostile (nor contested).
Transports thus can load from a seazone containing subs. It’s a rule that’s been around since AA50 (page 14).
As for the Noncombat move block that’s established by Alpha 2. They prevent amphibious assaults from occuring if there isn’t a surface warship (owned by the transports power, friendlies don’t count) in the seazone with the transport. That’s the only thing they prevent. Thus, noncombat drops in friendly territory are not blocked.
If I can get 2 games in this weekend I’ll convince the guys to change it up and try something a little different.
Three weeks ago I mentioned it to them and I got weird looks, the week before that when we went to set the second game two of them looked at the set ups on the lids and looked at me and back to the lids.
I need to have 2 boards set up one of each set up.
I also had a thought about, if people think Japan is to weak to be in it after 12 or so round, to give them the OOB set up with the ALPHA+2 rules
When they start to get board with the board try something diff.
Cool tanks
Frank, I routinely take Australia with Japan lately. I don’t think it’s very far away at all, and it’s pretty much Japan’s only hope of having enough income to counter the Americans.
Yes. Well, I’m 99% sure. I admit that exceptions trip me up, but, the logic breaks it down like so:
Transports cannot load from a hostile (or contested) seazone.
Enemy subs alone do not make a seazone hostile (nor contested).Transports thus can load from a seazone containing subs. It’s a rule that’s been around since AA50 (page 14).
As for the Noncombat move block that’s established by Alpha 2. They prevent amphibious assaults from occuring if there isn’t a surface warship (owned by the transports power, friendlies don’t count) in the seazone with the transport. That’s the only thing they prevent. Thus, noncombat drops in friendly territory are not blocked.
That’s correct, except for the “(or contested)” part. Only a hostile sea zone will prevent loading.
Is the rule where you can load in a zone with enemy ships on the turn you declare war thrown out then?
