The problem is America, not Japan or Russia. We’re pretty well established on that on the forums Larry posts on, best I can tell from what I have read.
One other NO that is being bantered about is one for complete dominance of China. Eh. I don’t think even with that I would bother. What we need is a Philippines NO for Japan, maybe Philippines, Solomons and New Guinea.
@Cmdr:
The problem is America, not Japan or Russia. We’re pretty well established on that on the forums Larry posts on, best I can tell from what I have read.
One other NO that is being bantered about is one for complete dominance of China. Eh. I don’t think even with that I would bother. What we need is a Philippines NO for Japan, maybe Philippines, Solomons and New Guinea.
I don’t know about that. I think the problem more is that when the US goes strong in the Pacific, Germany and Italy still can’t win the game the large majority of the time. All it takes for the European Axis to fail is for Moscow to hold or UK to control Egypt or France. These are not hard objectives to achieve while the US mops up Japan. Any solution that tips the power to Germany and Italy when the US stays out of Europe is going to be better than what we have.
I don’t know about that. I think the problem more is that when the US goes strong in the Pacific, Germany and Italy still can’t win the game the large majority of the time. All it takes for the European Axis to fail is for Moscow to hold or UK to control Egypt or France. These are not hard objectives to achieve while the US mops up Japan. Any solution that tips the power to Germany and Italy when the US stays out of Europe is going to be better than what we have.
Germany will take Russia and England if USA stays out of the European board, baring bad dice.
The problem is that they rarely can do it fast enough when the USA is dumping near 100% into one side of the board until the enemy there is contained. And you do not “fix” the game by making it faster.
Therefore - the issue is USA being able to go effectively 2 countries (US Pac/US Eur) into one side with no real penalty.
Germany will take Russia and England if USA stays out of the European board, baring bad dice.
The problem is that they rarely can do it fast enough when the USA is dumping near 100% into one side of the board until the enemy there is contained. And you do not “fix” the game by making it faster.
Therefore - the issue is USA being able to go effectively 2 countries (US Pac/US Eur) into one side with no real penalty.
You aren’t showing that the US alone is the problem or that altering it is the only solution. The US should be able to tip the scales either way it goes. However, if it goes all out on one side, that should let the Axis on the other side win. And that does happen now if the US goes 100% Europe. It does not happen when the US goes 100% Pacific. That’s the problem. Strengthen Italy, weaken Russia, whatever as long as lack of US intervention allows Axis Europe to win.
Germany will take Russia and England if USA stays out of the European board, baring bad dice.
The problem is that they rarely can do it fast enough when the USA is dumping near 100% into one side of the board until the enemy there is contained. And you do not “fix” the game by making it faster.
Therefore - the issue is USA being able to go effectively 2 countries (US Pac/US Eur) into one side with no real penalty.You aren’t showing that the US alone is the problem or that altering it is the only solution. The US should be able to tip the scales either way it goes. However, if it goes all out on one side, that should let the Axis on the other side win. And that does happen now if the US goes 100% Europe. It does not happen when the US goes 100% Pacific. That’s the problem. Strengthen Italy, weaken Russia, whatever as long as lack of US intervention allows Axis Europe to win.
If you weaken Russia or strengthen Italy, you’re removing the Sealion strategy because then killing off Russia will be too easy. That would make the game shorter, and remove strategies which IMO will harm the overall replayablilty of the game.
I’d much rather encourage the US to have to spend time and resources on both sides of the board instead by tweaking what appears to be the problem, rather than trying to fix the symptom.
And the problem is that 2 USA nations can go into one side of the board without much penalty.
You aren’t showing that the US alone is the problem or that altering it is the only solution. The US should be able to tip the scales either way it goes. However, if it goes all out on one side, that should let the Axis on the other side win. And that does happen now if the US goes 100% Europe. It does not happen when the US goes 100% Pacific. That’s the problem. Strengthen Italy, weaken Russia, whatever as long as lack of US intervention allows Axis Europe to win.
Agreed. If with the absence of the US in Europe, the Axis still can’t take Russia, then making the US spend $ there will only make it that much worse.
You aren’t showing that the US alone is the problem or that altering it is the only solution. The US should be able to tip the scales either way it goes. However, if it goes all out on one side, that should let the Axis on the other side win. And that does happen now if the US goes 100% Europe. It does not happen when the US goes 100% Pacific. That’s the problem. Strengthen Italy, weaken Russia, whatever as long as lack of US intervention allows Axis Europe to win.
Agreed. If with the absence of the US in Europe, the Axis still can’t take Russia, then making the US spend $ there will only make it that much worse.
They can take Russia, even if Russia does nothing but turtle. They just can’t do it fast enough for some people - meaning before USA have contained Japan enough in the pacific that they can focus with near 100% in Atlantic and let the Allies in the Pacific mob up. Remember, USA do not have to take Japan to contain them.
It is still the same issue. Axis can’t win on Europe side in the absence of the US presence there.
I hesitate to post because I’ve only managed 5-6 A+2 games, mostly as axis, however I’d just like to mention two things that I havn’t seen in this thread. I don’t claim to know how LH expects his game to play, nor do I know history.
OTOH, in my games, USA has generally split up well, which is what you all seem to want. And I have played a lot of Rev/AA50.
So, compared to previous versions, the two quick points that come to mind are:
(1) Italy is too weak financially. Italy is simply not as capable as in AA50 due to the map changes.
(2) Japan is too weak on the continent in terms of possible unit count. I don’t mean starting set up, just the sheer cost and distances involved in getting sufficient units into Asia. I do not imply Japan invading Moscow either.
I hope those short points are enough for experienced players’ minds to brainstorm. I can’t qualify any of the suggested fixes regarding Italy or Japan, just wanted to confirm some others’ POV.
I will vote with India is too strong, since I feel this is the more specific problem with Japan being too weak. Italy too weak is tied in my mind, but perhaps a close second since I see more variation in UK/Rus play than in Japan play.
(1) Italy is too weak financially. Italy is simply not as capable as in AA50 due to the map changes.
Weak overall, yes. The UK can devastate Italy before Italy even gets a chance to go. Weaken UK a bit and they’d have a chance to get going.
(2) Japan is too weak on the continent in terms of possible unit count. I don’t mean starting set up, just the sheer cost and distances involved in getting sufficient units into Asia. I do not imply Japan invading Moscow either.
With China strengthened and fewer starting transports, Japan can only really handle one threat at a time. Any direction they don’t go, the Allies there can grow to overwhelming force. They can handle things if the US leaves them alone, but if the US comes in, it’s far too much to handle.
Yes, but by weakening Italy they lose any prayer of defending England. This is primarily why many of us claim Germany should always treat Round 1 as if they are going to perform Sea Lion. You can easily change your mind later, but it gives you very awesome odds if England goes after the Italian fleet.
I go so far as to not even bother defending the Italian fleet iwth German planes. I want England messing around down there, not sending aircraft to England, makes it much easier to win England and less dicey. (Although, 99.1/99.2% odds in England can hardly be considered dicey.)
Absolutely correct Kobu.
“Italy is too weak financially” – the reason I word it like that is that there are other ways to deal with it than just the fleet problem. They need more money one way or another in order to handle the differences in the map(/game) compared to older versions.
“Any direction they don’t go, the Allies there can grow to overwhelming force.” This is a good statement I agree with. I specify the continent as a specific fix, unlike the general statement above with Italy. I feel it’s a stand out problem compared to the strength of HAW/AUS. One way or another, Japan can’t get enough troops to attack it (remembering that I prefaced my post with USA balancing fronts). And so, I voted for India.
@Cmdr:
I go so far as to not even bother defending the Italian fleet iwth German planes.
Yes I would hope this is common now, I do this as well. If you think it through it makes the most sense.
The idea, currently, is to take England with Germany. IF you do this on round 4, you have 99% odds or better to win. Now it is the German and Japanese navies vs the American Navy with Italy only having to deal with remnants of the British.
Italy shouldn’t have a very hard time growing to 40-60 IPC a round income in this manner.
It is unfortunate that strategies are forced towards a first turn Sealion threat. Other options allow the UK too much flexibility. This is a reason why I don’t think it’s just the US that is the problem. The Axis game shouldn’t get so much more difficult by Germany choosing some other opening.
I agree. England should be buffed to make Sea Lion impossible in the first 5 rounds, Italy should be buffed to make up for England not having to worry about London anymore, Germany should be buffed to make Russia collapse farther and America should be nerfed BIG TIME.
One thing we’ve done is traded all the American fleet units in SZ 26 and replaced them with an equal number of infantry in England. (1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Submarine, 1 Transport becomes +4 Infantry in England.) That’s enough to stop Sea Lion on G4 as it gives the British 32 ground units and Germany at max 40.
We then dropped the Germans from 8 VCs to 7 VCs but they had to have either E. USA, England or Russia as one of the 7. (A capitol.)
Lastly, we removed the NO for the Continental US, replaced it with an NO for France being liberated. (10 IPC a round if France controls France.)
That balanced things WONDERFULLY. Stopped all the gambit plays and made the game equitable for all players regardless of sides. Russia could still blitz their fast units back or leave them to dissuade the Japanese, America had to invest in the Atlantic as it is quite easy to get 7 VCs compared to 8. Etc
When you say “we” do you mean A+3?
No, I mean my core group of die hard players.
Our changes balance the game, but I fear would be way to radical for Larry to read! We don’t want to give the old man a heart attack! lol.
In your balanced game, hows the record stand? 50/50 either one has a chance or is it like when ever one person plays this country they always win. Do you keep track of how you do as one side and the other against any and or all of the hard core addicts.
We do in a way sometimes It will be a rematch from weeks previous. Our record so far is about 50/50 and we’ve done somewhere around 21 or 22 games. If I had to guess for our next game I would say the Allies because the Axis won the last two. we have 5 at the board every weekend. The last two I was the Axis in the first and the Allied in the second (Germ. & U.S.A.)
5 games completed, 1 game in progress. Axis = 3, Allies = 2, last game is on Round 2 so too early to tell.
Seems about as balanced as things can get, and while this is way more accurate than the latest gallup poll on which flavor of ice cream is better (Vanilla vs Chocolate) it is not all inclusive by any means.
However, before this we had a dozen or so games and the Axis only won once out of all of those, so this is certainly more balanced - for our group at least - than Alpha 2 is.
