Russian tanks are great if Germany decides to swing down towards the Middle East instead of a straight march to Moscow. They are not going prevent the stackwalk any better than artillery except perhaps if the calculations show that the extra firepower will slow down a critical step like Rostov or Belarus. Hence it could be good to build the tanks on turns 3 or 4, depending on the German DoW. No need for them on Round 1.
What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?
-
@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.
-
I was more addressing those that simply throw the initial border forces into Amur, and leave it at that.
That force will be pushed back in a few rounds.But you’re completely right. I would just wonder how Japan manages to sustain the income needed for that kind of land commitment, since they’re not spending an awful lot in the ocean.
I guess if Japan just uses its initial air force to stall for time (being that 16 IPCs for Japan is equivalent to 36 IPCs for America), they could last long enough to put a dent into Russia. But it’s definitely not a long-term strategy. -
I dont think Japan should be doing anything in Russia. Granted, I can see some advantage to attacking, espically if the oppertunity to destroy the Russians far east forces in one stroke presents itself. However, all of Japans objectives are in the south, along with a number of ICP rich territories, that is where is Japan should focus its attention. I think a Japanese strike in Siberia should only be done if the oppertunity presents itself, which would be if 2 or 3 of the 4 powers ringing Japan fall.
Japan and the pacific are not a European side show, and should be treated as an equal front. A dedicated Japanese strike against Russia is an abandonment of the Pacific theater as an independent front and subordinating it to Europe. Japanese forces should be used to achieve Japanese objectives, NOT German ones
-
With all due respect Clyde I see you regularly support a more historical approach to the game and call for Japan to be treated as independent. But this game allows you to change history and let’s be honest if the strategy that occurred in history worked so well how come they lost. All in all it is a game and the objective is to win if that means one power has to take a beating in order to help deliver a killshot then by all means they should take a beating. Every power plays its part.
-
I think there really isn’t enough reason for Japan to go into Russia rather than going South unless it wants to completely abandon trying to achieve its own victory. Maybe that means that Japan should generally attack Russia anyway, but i think it means things should be changed to make Japan want to be more independent.
-
Well, the reason I bring it up is because it’s breaking the game. This entire thread is about discussing how alpha+2 is broken and what should be done in “alpha+3-the-return-of-the-son-of-the-next-generation of rules and setups”. Alpha+2 isn’t broken, not by a long shot. It may need a few tweaks here and there, such as having the Italian navy start the game all deployed in the same sea zone, or changing the Japanese NO that gives them money for not invading FIC, for example. Simple things like that are all that’s really needed, and these are things can be handled by the players, it doesn’t need a massive overhaul by Larry himself.
Also, gamers will always find ways to “break” the game, regardless of what Larry does, so why should he keep trying to please them? When and if Larry does come out with a new setup and rules, it won’t be enough, or the gamers won’t like it. What you need to acknowledge is that this is a Historical game. If you want to play a game that represents a period of general history and is perfectly balanced, go play Risk or Battleship. If you want a game that recreates World War 2 and allows you to play with history and explore the what ifs? Then Axis&Allies 1940 is for you. The thing you have to realize is that Histroy isn’t balanced, and all Larry can do is get it as close to fair as he can and let us play from there. This is as good as it’s going to get, and its pretty good as is.
-
It gets wayyyy better in Hearts Of Iron 2. As Japan I was able to attack China 6 months earlier. By pulling all my garrisons off my worthless islands I was able to take China out of the war by 1938. Then I prepared for the fall of France, grabbed FIC and then launched an attack on the allies in Burma/DEI area. Sweeping through Burma I reached the border with Persia and then prepared for the invasion of Russia. Meanwhile my diplomatic corps was sweetening our relationship with US while my marines were invading Australia.
You mean like that? HoI2 is a great game to recreate WW2. A&A is a WW2 themed boardgame.
-
It gets wayyyy better in Hearts Of Iron 2. HoI2 is a great game to recreate WW2.
Jim, I love the HOI series, and there’s a whole thread in the other games forum about it, please, stop bringing it up here.
A&A is a WW2 themed boardgame.
I dont think A&A40 can be called a “WW2 themed boardgame” anymore. I’ll grant you, previous incarnations of the game are just that, espically A&A revised, and can be ranked with other historical themed games like Risk and Battleship. However, with this game, the seires has achieved a level of depth that has, till this point, not existed. There are pages and pages in thread after thread, detailing, in depth, conditions and strategies on various fronts of the game, and they are all still perfectly and beautifully bound to eachother by the over-arching game play. What happens on one front will have an effect on others, sometimes in a major way and other times more subtle. In past games, the Japanese rush on the Soviets made sense, you only had to take 2 China territories and 3 or 4 Soviet ones to be at the gates of Moscow. This made sense because Japan could build a factory on the mainland and be threating the Soviet heartland in 1 turn. Now, trying that same idea requires you to push through 4 or 5 Chinese territories, with China now being able to defend itself in the process, which could make it take longer! No A&A game has ever allowed a player so many options, from unit choice, to strategic option, to so much money to spend. There is to much detail, and to close a parity with the actual historical situation it is trying to represent to call it a “WW2 themed” game anymore.
-
Amen.
This game isn’t broken. I still welcome changes, because changes represent thought, and playtesting, and evolution, and those are all ok.
It would be a mistake to lump people into groups such as the “numbers and game mechanics” nerds and the “I’ll only play a historically-aligned game” geeks… we’re all some combo of the two. I think that like anything, though, people can drift too far one way or the other, for a time.
Finding a game mechanic that ‘wins’ every time and then mechanically repeating it is the same definition of insanity found in someone who has to play a historic reenactment every time, even to their own in-game death.
Again - the game is fine.
-
Yes Clyde, the game gives you choices.
Choices like attacking Russia, which was very much an ideological enemy of Japan.
Japan doesn’t abandon its own objectives by attacking Russia. It simply realizes a different option available to it.If you want so much historical accuracy, why do you say -
It may need a few tweaks here and there, such as having the Italian navy start the game all deployed in the same sea zone
When the Italian navy in reality did employ a strategy that required it remain at harbour, very much vulnerable to the British Med carrier-based forces that did effectively cut the strength of the Italian navy in half with one fell swoop? Why are you against this option?
or-
or changing the Japanese NO that gives them money for not invading FIC
Like how America did place stronger trade sanctions on Japan for the forceful occupation of the Indo-China region? Why are you against this very real and historical parallel?
I apologize if I seem rash, but I really don’t understand your qualms with this game.
It’s a game, naturally there are superior and inferior strategies. -
Yes Clyde, the game gives you choices.
Choices like attacking Russia, which was very much an ideological enemy of Japan.
Japan doesn’t abandon its own objectives by attacking Russia. It simply realizes a different option available to it.If you want so much historical accuracy, why do you say -
It may need a few tweaks here and there, such as having the Italian navy start the game all deployed in the same sea zone
When the Italian navy in reality did employ a strategy that required it remain at harbour, very much vulnerable to the British Med carrier-based forces that did effectively cut the strength of the Italian navy in half with one fell swoop? Why are you against this option?
or-
or changing the Japanese NO that gives them money for not invading FIC
Like how America did place stronger trade sanctions on Japan for the forceful occupation of the Indo-China region? Why are you against this very real and historical parallel?
I apologize if I seem rash, but I really don’t understand your qualms with this game.
It’s a game, naturally there are superior and inferior strategies.Ideologically, yes, it made sense for Japan to attack Russia. From any other standpoint it made no sense. Japan had no desire or ability to slog through thousands of miles of land that was far less valuable than land to the South. The Soviet Far East isn’t exactly a rich territory. I’m not saying Japan shouldn’t have the option of attacking Russia; I’m just saying it should be more inclined to actually want to follow its own goals instead of essentially being a German puppet (which is certainly was not in real life).
There’s also a difference in allowing for different broad strategic options (like Japan attacking Russia, or Sea Lion) and having an opening situation that makes a specific tactical option (e.g. Taranto) very preferable to one side and devastating to the other. Hence the problems with the Italian fleet and, to a lesser degree, the FIC NO. I don’t like a situation where a nation should always do a certain option or never do another (in this case always Taranto, never FIC).
When it comes down to it A&A is about historical plausibility, not historical accuracy. If it went for accuracy the Allies would always win, after all. But it really isn’t plausible at all for Japan to divert tons of resources into attacking relatively poor territories in the North when it can go for richer territories in the South. It is somewhat more plausible for Japan to actually benefit a bit from taking FIC, and for the Italian navy to not be in such a bad strategic position at the beginning of the war.
-
Always Taranto? :?
I nearly never do it. Even though it should usually go UK’s way (although I’ve had terrible luck recently), Taranto, with a UK-threatening G1, basically equates into a very easy Sealion.
It is definitely a difficult decision for UK. -
Always Taranto? :?
I nearly never do it. Even though it should usually go UK’s way (although I’ve had terrible luck recently), Taranto, with a UK-threatening G1, basically equates into a very easy Sealion.
It is definitely a difficult decision for UK.Agreed.
If 2 German planes in SITA + Extra german transports = I never attack Italian fleets.So I can’t say “never” or “always” since my moves (except G1!) depends on my opponent moves… which is very nice. No “always”, no “never” !!
-
I still claim all that really needs to be done to rebalance things, in the most simplistic manner possible, would be to keep the FIC NO forever or until Japan invades (which it might do for the possibility of a Minor Complex perhaps.) That would balance them out so they can slow America enough to allow Germany to win, if America goes all in after Japan. That is essentially what is making it “broken”.
So I can’t say “never” or “always” since my moves (except G1!) depends on my opponent moves… which is very nice. No “always”, no “never” !!
“I never invade Moscow on Germany 1.” Except for those obvious statments (of which I reference only to be silly) I agree with that statement.
One last point, it is VERY hard to test a strategy to see if it breaks since to perform the test, your opponent must, by necessity, know it is being tested. Minor things like India Crush or Australia Crush (both of which can be done routinely despite interference) or exceptions. I refer more to surprise attacks like Sea Lion, Kill America First, etc.
-
I would like to see a more realistic Sealion. The problem is that it is:
A) Too easy for German success (as I see it anyways) I understand the need for “Balance” in this game but surely it could have been done some other way. Historically speaking, Sealion was always going to be a gamble at best and would be very difficult to pull off. From what I can tell, Alpha +2 has overlooked this and gone for game balance rather than historical accuracy. What I’m saying is that Sealion should be possible but not at 65-85% of the time but rather 25-45% of the time.
B) To counterbalance point A, a failed German Sealion should NOT constitute a German “Game Over” It wouldn’t have historically and it could be seen as the bait for a 25-45% Sealion gamble by a German player. If you succeed, great, if not there are other options and the game doesn’t necessarily need to be restarted. Has anyone really continued playing a failed Sealion game? there are probably VERY! few of you who have. All that lengthy setup for a game that doesn’t last 3 full turns is rather sad (I can’t stand a game that isn’t more than 8 Full game rounds)
C) I’m not sure how these two ideas might be incorporated into the global game. Maybe a failed Sealion postpones the Russian DOW/ American involvement by a turn or two (so long as other conditions are not violated) Maybe at weaker odds of a successful Sealion you increase the prize by making it far tougher for the allies if it is accomplished. Maybe the “Battle of Britain” involves far more aircraft as it historically did with alternate battle rules or something.
Suggestions? Agree? Disagree?
Suggested Topics
