You need a minumum of about 10 posts before you can post links or attachements. This is due to the forum’s anti-spam software. The moderators (dezrtfish, DarthMaximus, Guerrilla Guy) can move your post the correct section of the forum. Send them a personal message if they don’t notice your post in the next day or two.
What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?
-
… And yet, those 12 IPC are just an “advance” on income in fact, since after 3-4 turns Russia will have lost 12IPC in income (and Japan 12 more!)
With Japan I attack Russia on first turn, no hesitation.
-
… And yet, those 12 IPC are just an “advance” on income in fact, since after 3-4 turns Russia will have lost 12IPC in income (and Japan 12 more!)
With Japan I attack Russia on first turn, no hesitation.
I beat the snot out of China first, don’t actually TAKE China, but since my ships are there for the time being, and I have those infantry, may as well heckle them a bit.
A major complex in Korea with 48 IPC in fast moving ground units into Russia seem to make up for the lack of other units.
-
Jennifer… mobile units with Japan? What!? I quite remember you were pretty disinterested in Mech Infantry a few months ago… :)
Mobile units are exactly what Japan needs - time is an issue for Japan (all the Axis, for that matter), and mobile units increase speed and maintain the initiative when well-used. Infantry and Artillery are still critical, but a combination is best.
BBB - I just tried the J1 attack on Russia, and I like it. the 12 IPCs to Russia get eaten up fast in lost economy for the Motherland and gained economy for Japan. And it’s ok if Russia forms a wall… Japan can be content with a stalemate in the north while they use the bulk of forces to go center and south.
-
The thing with mobile units is it’s not too hard to block them from blitzing. Sure, they can still use their mobility in other useful ways, but not as much.
-
6 Mech, 4 Arm in Korea blitz into Russia starting around Round 3.
-
I dont think there are any big balance issues in the game. The better players usually win and if the teams are even we almost play for 15 hours and are not able to call it (unless grave mistakes are made). The problem i have with the game atm is more that it is not as dynamic as it could be.
I think there are a few changes that could make the game more dynamic.
The first would be some sort of Vishy rule. Say there is a minor axis ally formed in southern france and some of the colonies when france falls while the rest are free french and work with the Britts. There might be a need to redeploy/add/remove some units to compensate for this, mainly in the med.
I also think there should be an european NO for the americans (tourch is a good one), the alaskan or mexican one could be removed if needed to compensate for this.
Furthermore i do not like how grave it is to loose ones capital. I think there should be some sort of exiled capital rule. Say if a capital is taken the attacker gets all the defenders ipc on hand and that the defenders income collection rate of the power with an occupied capital is halved. I think this could be a potential way of fixing all the silly all-ins that are used in the game.
I also have some problems with ANSAC being a power in itself. I understand the function in the game as the set-up is now but i would rather have it as a third part of the CW with is own economy (Canada could possibly also be a separate economy and there could be some sort of transfer system, its might make things more complex but it could also be alot of fun).
Last but not least i would like some sort of micro IC:s say for the cost of 5-6 IPC that could be built anywhere (or in areas with an IPC-value of at least one) and that could build one unit (maybe not capital ships or strategic bombers). This could make remote parts of the maps more interesting. Russia could build one in the far east, Italy in East Africa and the Japanese or the Americans could build them on islands in the Pacific. Combined with the free french and the exiled capital a rule like this could generate alot of interesting options.
All of these thoughts are untested. They are just things i i think would be interesting to try out.
-
I believe Alpha 3 will include a transfer of one American NO to Europe from the Pacific. Unsure as to which one, I believe the Mexican one, but I do believe that is what Larry was talking about doing. It would probably be an NO for the liberation of France (recurring) I would assume. 5 IPC a round for France being liberated.
-
Dany - I like two of your thoughts in particular -
Some sort of Vichy rules (like the old Xeno game), and an IC that can build one limited unit per turn. If done well in design, and playtested, both could have a lot of merit and playability.
-
Dany - I like two of your thoughts in particular -
Some sort of Vichy rules (like the old Xeno game), and an IC that can build one limited unit per turn. If done well in design, and playtested, both could have a lot of merit and playability.
I also like those thoughts and agree with Stalingradski.
-
The Axis won last nite good game too many details to go into
Tried splitting the money for U.S.A. it wasn’t a good idea in my opinion but I wasn’t America. He did it by land values on the east board and the west board.
Italy is the game changer do it right and victory is achievable, if something goes bad then good luck -
Clyde - you made a compelling argument and didn’t get much response.
Thank you Stalingradski for the acknowledgement, time and again I find myself on the outs arguments here mainly because I play for the histroy, and by extension, play to the history. Contrary to the common argument, which usually goes something like, “If you play to history, then the axis would just lose every time”. It has been my experiance that more often playing to the history will drastically help players. Its a shame that so many people get caught up in winning the game instead of playing the game. Dont get me wrong, im not saying that it isnt fun to win, or that I wouldnt rather win, Im just saying that playing to enjoy the games intricacies and the company in which we play it should take presidence.
-
Clyde - you made a compelling argument and didn’t get much response.
Thank you Stalingradski for the acknowledgement, time and again I find myself on the outs arguments here mainly because I play for the histroy, and by extension, play to the history. Contrary to the common argument, which usually goes something like, “If you play to history, then the axis would just lose every time”. It has been my experiance that more often playing to the history will drastically help players. Its a shame that so many people get caught up in winning the game instead of playing the game. Dont get me wrong, im not saying that it isnt fun to win, or that I wouldnt rather win, Im just saying that playing to enjoy the games intricacies and the company in which we play it should take presidence.
I think the point of the game is also to see “what would have happened if Japan/Germany/Italy did this instead of that?”
That means also having fun with the game from an historical point of view.I remember having a chat with my wife’s dad where he was talking “what if Italy did this and that the war would have been won”, so I just said him: Come at my place and play with my A&A global 40 and employ all your ideas :D
-
I disagree, Japan never invaded Russia in World War II and yet, so far, in every incarnation of the game, one of the best (if not the best) strategies is to invade Russia with Japan at some point.
Perhaps it is an exception.
In older versions of the games, i never really went after history, but I always worked on a Slow or Kill Japan first strategy with the United States primarily because most players are inexperienced in responding to that attack. It happens to be historically accurate to some extent as well, but that is a function of happistance and not design.
-
I kinna agree with both Noll and Jennifer… even if it seems opposite. I mostly played (any version) A&A 1vs1. In such game, the global victory comes way before every nation’s objectives.
For instance, from Japan’s point of view it’s quite pointless to invade nothern poor land and would required a loot of land troops to keep control (occupation is free in A&A) while a non agression pact fits Japan just as Russia. From A&A “Axis” point of view, specially as 1 player acting whole side, there’s no doubts, no mistruss so all units from different nations fight towards same objectives… and Japan’s pressure on Russia serves (and needed by) Germany.
So, I agree that Japan attacking is always a good strategy for Axis and it’s ahistorical… but still, doesn’t remove anything from Noll’s “what would have happened if Japan/Germany/Italy did this instead of that” which I totally agree with.
That being said, I rarely (if not never) saw Alliance win with a Kill Japan first strategy. If it happens is not because Alliance succeed to beat Japan, it’s because Germany failed to win… which would be very surprising if USA is not involve in Europe.
-
@Cmdr:
I disagree, Japan never invaded Russia in World War II and yet, so far, in every incarnation of the game, one of the best (if not the best) strategies is to invade Russia with Japan at some point.
On the contrary, the Soviet Union and Japan fought numerious times during, up to out right invading Mongolia and having a huge battle in the Khalkin Gol desert. Tens of thousands of troops were involved, and the Soviets won in the end. This battle in 1939 was what convinced the Japanese high command to look at invading the “southern resources area”.
In previous games, Japan’s main goal was crushing China and and invading the Soviet Union. This was usually the only way the Axis could win with either an economic victory or having the Allies just forefit. However, with the introduction of the victory cities, Japan no longer needs to do either of these 2 things for the Axis to win, and should rather focues its attention on the allies to its south. The old ways of playing are mostly dead, and we need to look at this game with a different perspective to fully appericate it.
Just to clarify, when I say “play to the history” I dont mean following what the other countries did excatly, but using what their real world objectives were and making it your driving force, while avoiding the pitfalls that those countries fell into. -
I believe there were numerous battles prior to and following World War II between Japan and Russia including the sinking of the vaunted Russian fleet prior to WWII, but not actually during WWII.
Anyway, we are digressing, the point is that the strongest line of attack is to have Japan invade Russia along with Germany and Italy. At least currently. I like to have Italy take it, Germany reinforce it as well, it allows planes to land on “newly” conquered territories. (New being defined as before Russia gets a turn to reclaim it.) And it only takes a modest investment with Japan, perhaps 100-150 IPC.
As for previous versions and KJF/SJF campaigns not being seen often, that’s the point. I did it because most players had never seen it or had not had enough practice to know how to counter it. A famous game is when I shut down NCSCSwitch in an AAR (Revised) game with a KJF. I never even had to land troops in Japan because once Japan is neutrallized, the game is over.
-
Weren’t you saying a while back that, as Russia, you wanted the Japanese to attack you?
-
Weren’t you saying a while back that, as Russia, you wanted the Japanese to attack you?
Yes. How does this change my statement that Japan’s best move is to attack Russia? As Russia I also want Japan to attack me, that way I get the immediate boost of IPC when I can most effectively use it (ie, early in the game).
-
Initially Russia is helped by a Japanese invasion.
And a minor investment of a few tanks, along with those 18 Infantry, will push the Japanese forces back across Siberia.
While Russia does experience a net loss, long term, Japan loses a lot more than Russia does.However, if Japan continuously puts resources into Russia, then those 2-4 tanks plus the Siberian infantry no longer are enough.
That’s when Russia can die much more easily. -
Generally, we’re talking 144 IPC investment by Japan into Russia with the stated goal of getting Evenki and Timguska and all territories east of there. That’s 12 armor, 18 Mech + whatever Chinese forces you want to pull out. At least, for me.
Suggested Topics
