Worst Alpha Modifications

[Jennifer]

@knp7765:

While it may be easier for Germany to take London now, I think it will only work if Japan is very aggresive in the Pacific.  With the new rules saying that both USA and USSR can attack Germany once London falls, Japan really needs to do whatever they can to keep USA’s attention focused mostly in the Pacific.  If USA puts most of their stuff in the Atlantic, USA and USSR will squeeze Germany.  At the very least, USA is sure to liberate London which puts Germany in the position of having to deal with UK and USSR at the same time.
On the other hand, if the USA and USSR are busy pounding on Germany, maybe it will give Japan the time to win the game in the Pacific.  I still think the Axis has an easier time of it only having to win on one board or the other.  A lot of you guys say that the Allies have better chance to win but I just don’t see it.  Maybe it’s just our strategies, but the Axis win the majority of our games.
That being said, there is a huge difference between capturing the required number of victory cities and total victory.  In a few of our games, we decided to keep playing even though the Axis won with victory cities.  In just about every game, eventually the Allies end up overcoming the Axis.

That was always true, however.  America can either pummel Germany or pummel Japan because Larry gave them WAY too much money to spend, in my opinion.  (I’d like to see USA reduced to 50 IPC and make the islands worth more to USA.  Maybe something like: Iwo Jima worth 1 + 5 American NO, Okinawa worth 1 + 5 American NO, Algeria, Morrocco, Tunis, FIC, Carolines, Marshalls, Formosa, Hainan the same.)

[Noll]

Hey Jenni can’t we just like the game as it is? I think it works! Also, playing Allies is significantly easier than playing Axis (at least in my esperience). You should play Axis more in my opinion! <3

[Jennifer]

@Noll:

Hey Jenni can’t we just like the game as it is? I think it works! Also, playing Allies is significantly easier than playing Axis (at least in my esperience). You should play Axis more in my opinion! <3

I try.  My opponents always want to be Axis.

[JamesG]

@knp7765:

That being said, there is a huge difference between capturing the required number of victory cities and total victory.  In a few of our games, we decided to keep playing even though the Axis won with victory cities.  In just about every game, eventually the Allies end up overcoming the Axis.

I don’t think the game designers made an attempt to balance the game with total victory in mind.  They tried to set it up so the Axis have a chance at winning the game via Victory cities if they play aggressively early on.  If they play too conservatively the Allied economic advantage will wear them down over time.  The same thing tends to happen if you play on to total victory.

@Cmdr:

Larry gave them [the US] WAY too much money to spend, in my opinion.

Again, I think that was by design to put a clock on the Axis.  If they don’t get their Victory Cities quickly enough the US’s power will close their window of opportunity permanently.  If you weaken the US you give the Axis more of a shot at winning via Total Victory or a longer term Victory City win.  But those games take longer to play out.  I think Larry and Co. wanted a game that could be played in fewer turns - at some point either the Axis has won or it becomes obvious the Axis will never win (though it may take time grind them down).  With a weaker US a stalemate is more likeley to develop, with neither side having the omph to drive to victory, at least until one side makes a key mistake or gets a great run of dice luck.

[Jennifer]

I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

For example:

Victory cities are now NOs for enemy players.  Does not matter how gets them, for each CONQUERED VC each Axis or each Ally gets 3 IPC.  (Example:  Germany holds London, so Germany, Italy and Japan each get 3 IPC a round.)
Total victory is defined as:

• Allies, Reducing both Germany AND Japan to their home countries or conquering their capitols (both).
• Axis, Taking any 2 capitols from:  England, Russia and/or The United States (not defined as India!)

USA:  5 IPC for each conquered original Japanese territory
USA:  Continental, Mexican and Alaskan NOs removed - permanently
USA:  5 IPC a round for each round France is free (defined as Paris VC), regardless of state of war.
UK: 5 IPC a round if Scotland, Ireland and England are free
Germany:  5 IPC a round for the COMPLETE control of European France (France, W. France and S. France.)  Germany must control all 3.
Germany:  5 IPC a round for the COMPLETE control of Great Brition (England, Scotland and Ireland.)
Italy: 5 IPC a round for control of Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania
Japan: 5 IPC a round for control of Wake, Midway and Hawaii (replaces previous island NO.)
Japan: +1 Transport SZ 33
Japan: +1 Destroyer SZ 36
Japan: +1 Strategic Bomber Pauline
Germany: +2 Armor Hungary
Germany: +2 Infantry, +1 Armor Libya (Theme: Afrika Korps.)
England: +5 AA Guns, +1 Fighter England
USA: +2 Destroyers SZ 101 (Theme:  Convoy escorts for Lend-Lease with England.)
USA: +1 Destroyer SZ 10 (Theme: Anti-Submarine warfare California Coast.)

[Alsch91]

@Cmdr:

I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

Yes, have the nation that has to spend in two theaters make less than Germany or Japan. :-D

Total victory is defined as:

• Allies, Reducing both Germany AND Japan to their home countries or conquering their capitols (both).
• Axis, Taking any 2 capitols from:  England, Russia and/or The United States (not defined as India!)

Say hello to 100% KGF every single game with no exceptions.

• i.e. OOB

[JamesG]

@Cmdr:

I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.

[Jennifer]

@Alsch91:

@Cmdr:

I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

Yes, have the nation that has to spend in two theaters make less than Germany or Japan. :-D

Total victory is defined as:

• Allies, Reducing both Germany AND Japan to their home countries or conquering their capitols (both).
• Axis, Taking any 2 capitols from:  England, Russia and/or The United States (not defined as India!)

Say hello to 100% KGF every single game with no exceptions.

• i.e. OOB

My copy/paste missed the Financial victory condition, circa Classic or “Vanilla” Axis and Allies.

If the combined income of all three axis powers meets or exceeds a certain threshhold (I chose 200 IPC, but we can play with it to find a good balance) then the Axis wins.

Keep in mind, each VC is now worth 3 IPC to each nation (total of +9 for the Axis!) so you can rack up income pretty fast.  (Philippines +11, KSU +11, Hong Kong +12, Hawaii +10, France +13 etc that alone is 57 IPC toward the Achievement.)

[Jennifer]

@JamesG:

@Cmdr:

I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.

Well, as I said, my post was trunkated, the Financial Win path was not pasted in.

Basically, I want America to have to GROW TO GREATNESS.  Give them incentives to “island hop” to get their finances up.  Slow their arses down a bit.  Make the player sweat like FDR and wonder if they have to go relieve England and piss off the people or chase the Japanese and risk England falling (but show the people they went to war because they were attacked, not because FDR was salivating at the thought of global conquest.)  I am, of course, not trying to put thoughts in FDR’s head, just a thought exercise.

Historically, America hit almost all the islands listed.  Marshals, Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.  If you really want to keep the NO income, them Wake = 5, Midway = 5 and Continental = 5; remove Mexico, Alaska and slash the Continental in half.

[Clyde85]

Yeah I really dont think the allies need to be any weaker. There is no reason to under-represent the US’s industrial capability from WW2. By 1943 the US was producing more war material then all 3 Axis powers combined. So there is really no reason from a historical standpoint to reduce the US’s income. While I can see that from a game balance perspective the 80IPC might seem unfair to the axis, thats only at face value. By the end of G1 with territorial conquest and NO money Germany could be collecting nearly 50IPCs. This is nearly the same as waht the US will be producing for the first 3 turns of the game. While this is going on the 2 countries are not at war and all of Germany’s resources are being thrown against a 30IPC UK economy or being prepared to be thrown at a 37IPC Soviet economy. Meanwhile, the rest of the axis powers(Japan and Italy) are at around 40-45IPC economy combined. this gives the Axis a total combined economy of around 90IPC. This is during the rounds before the US’s entry into the war at the begining of round 4, so the total allied economy is only around 65-75IPCs between UK (europe and pacific) ANZAC and China. It balances out a bit more for the alies if you factor in the Soviet money, but they only really come online at about the same time as the US. So for 3 full rounds the Axis powers can either hammer the UK, ANZAC forces, and prepare to hit the Soviets and the US. The Axis should be able to hit these countries and buy themselves several more turns before that US money really even comes into play.  
If the Axis can not capitalize on this economic edge against their existing enemies before the US or the Soviets get involved, then why make the US weaker? What would it really do but prolong the game? If the jig is up, then why meaninglessly pad out the gameplay?

[Young Grasshopper]

@Clyde85:

Yeah I really dont think the allies need to be any weaker. There is no reason to under-represent the US’s industrial capability from WW2. By 1943 the US was producing more war material then all 3 Axis powers combined. So there is really no reason from a historical standpoint to reduce the US’s income. While I can see that from a game balance perspective the 80IPC might seem unfair to the axis, thats only at face value. By the end of G1 with territorial conquest and NO money Germany could be collecting nearly 50IPCs. This is nearly the same as waht the US will be producing for the first 3 turns of the game. While this is going on the 2 countries are not at war and all of Germany’s resources are being thrown against a 30IPC UK economy or being prepared to be thrown at a 37IPC Soviet economy. Meanwhile, the rest of the axis powers(Japan and Italy) are at around 40-45IPC economy combined. this gives the Axis a total combined economy of around 90IPC. This is during the rounds before the US’s entry into the war at the begining of round 4, so the total allied economy is only around 65-75IPCs between UK (europe and pacific) ANZAC and China. It balances out a bit more for the alies if you factor in the Soviet money, but they only really come online at about the same time as the US. So for 3 full rounds the Axis powers can either hammer the UK, ANZAC forces, and prepare to hit the Soviets and the US. The Axis should be able to hit these countries and buy themselves several more turns before that US money really even comes into play.  
If the Axis can not capitalize on this economic edge against their existing enemies before the US or the Soviets get involved, then why make the US weaker? What would it really do but prolong the game? If the jig is up, then why meaninglessly pad out the gameplay?

I agree, a perfect example of this window of opportunity closing for the axis is the ridicules victory condition the allies have. I mean, has anyone really seen the allies take all 3 capitals before they are declared the winner. Most of our games hardly need one capital conquered, before the axis realize that they are all but done for.

[Jennifer]

Allies generally need one and a really good shot at another for us to conceed our games.  (That one being Italy because they get farmed so easily now.)  Which is the primary reason I want to strip the Americans down and force them to pay significant attention to what they are doing.  With most of their money in harder to attain (not hard to attain, HARDER) islands in the Pacific they should have less to use to hit Italy with and thus, Italy should have a modest ability to first survive and second prosper again.

I understand the days of a 60 IPC Italy are probably over.  Fine.  I didnt really like it anyway.  However, now we’re at a 0 IPC Italy in almost all of our games.  (0 collected, not 0 in holdings necesarily.)  And it’s all due to America.

[Clyde85]

@Cmdr:

I understand the days of a 60 IPC Italy are probably over.  Fine.  I didnt really like it anyway.  However, now we’re at a 0 IPC Italy in almost all of our games.  (0 collected, not 0 in holdings necesarily.)  And it’s all due to America.

I think your blaming the wrong country here for Italy’s demise. I mean, America really dosnt factor into the Med. until turn 4 or more often 5, and by that time Italy has already been totally castrated by the UK. Realisticly, Italys best chance for gaining an larger economy is going to be done at the expense of the UK, in both material loss(gaining NO) and territorial loss (in Africa). So if Italy is getting extreamly hampered by the UK on their first turn, then isnt the US really just hammering the last nail into the coffin? I mean it seems to me that if the UK can cut Italy off from growing economicaly then the issue has been deicded and it wont matter if the US makes 50IPC a turn or 180IPC a turn, Italy will never recover from this first turn loss no matter how long you stretch out game play for.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

Allies generally need one and a really good shot at another for us to conceed our games.  (That one being Italy because they get farmed so easily now.)  Which is the primary reason I want to strip the Americans down and force them to pay significant attention to what they are doing.  With most of their money in harder to attain (not hard to attain, HARDER) islands in the Pacific they should have less to use to hit Italy with and thus, Italy should have a modest ability to first survive and second prosper again.

I understand the days of a 60 IPC Italy are probably over.  Fine.  I didnt really like it anyway.  However, now we’re at a 0 IPC Italy in almost all of our games.  (0 collected, not 0 in holdings necesarily.)  And it’s all due to America.

What is Japan doing while America is hammering the Italians?

[Jennifer]

@Young:

@Cmdr:

Allies generally need one and a really good shot at another for us to conceed our games.  (That one being Italy because they get farmed so easily now.)  Which is the primary reason I want to strip the Americans down and force them to pay significant attention to what they are doing.  With most of their money in harder to attain (not hard to attain, HARDER) islands in the Pacific they should have less to use to hit Italy with and thus, Italy should have a modest ability to first survive and second prosper again.

I understand the days of a 60 IPC Italy are probably over.  Fine.  I didnt really like it anyway.  However, now we’re at a 0 IPC Italy in almost all of our games.  (0 collected, not 0 in holdings necesarily.)  And it’s all due to America.

What is Japan doing while America is hammering the Italians?

It doesnt take 80 IPC a round to hammer the Italians anymore.  I do it with 2 carriers, a destroyer, 6 transports and after that a pittiful 23 IPC a round in ground forces thereafter.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Cmdr:

@Young:

@Cmdr:

Allies generally need one and a really good shot at another for us to conceed our games.  (That one being Italy because they get farmed so easily now.)  Which is the primary reason I want to strip the Americans down and force them to pay significant attention to what they are doing.  With most of their money in harder to attain (not hard to attain, HARDER) islands in the Pacific they should have less to use to hit Italy with and thus, Italy should have a modest ability to first survive and second prosper again.

I understand the days of a 60 IPC Italy are probably over.  Fine.  I didnt really like it anyway.  However, now we’re at a 0 IPC Italy in almost all of our games.  (0 collected, not 0 in holdings necesarily.)  And it’s all due to America.

What is Japan doing while America is hammering the Italians?

It doesnt take 80 IPC a round to hammer the Italians anymore.  I do it with 2 carriers, a destroyer, 6 transports and after that a pittiful 23 IPC a round in ground forces thereafter.

You’re right, I support the UK forces in the Med with an aircraft carrrier and 1 fighter, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, and 3 loaded transports.

[knp7765]

@JamesG:

@Cmdr:

I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.

Yeah, the last time we decided to “play it out” from an official Axis victory, it really stretched out the game.  The Axis won in round 8 I think.  Basically, it was one night’s worth of playing.  When we kept going, eventually the Allies overwhelmed the Axis and it took 19 rounds.  That took all of the next day plus into the next weekend.  I should point out that before the Axis won with 8 VCs on the Europe board, Japan had already been taken out due to a huge blunder of leaving their capital unprotected.  They had a decent navy in SZ 6, but NO land or air units on Japan itself.  The US went in with anything that could reach and it was a tough naval battle.  However, the US land units just had to walk into Tokyo.  After that, the rest of the Japanese navy was hunted down and they had to push through a rather large army presence on the mainland.  If Japan hadn’t made such a blunder, who knows how long the game might have lasted.

[Jennifer]

@knp7765:

@JamesG:

@Cmdr:

I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.

Yeah, the last time we decided to “play it out” from an official Axis victory, it really stretched out the game.  The Axis won in round 8 I think.  Basically, it was one night’s worth of playing.  When we kept going, eventually the Allies overwhelmed the Axis and it took 19 rounds.  That took all of the next day plus into the next weekend.  I should point out that before the Axis won with 8 VCs on the Europe board, Japan had already been taken out due to a huge blunder of leaving their capital unprotected.  They had a decent navy in SZ 6, but NO land or air units on Japan itself.  The US went in with anything that could reach and it was a tough naval battle.  However, the US land units just had to walk into Tokyo.  After that, the rest of the Japanese navy was hunted down and they had to push through a rather large army presence on the mainland.  If Japan hadn’t made such a blunder, who knows how long the game might have lasted.

Yes, that is why I put in the Financial victory rule.

---

@knp7765:

@JamesG:

@Cmdr:

I can see that, James.  Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.

I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.

Yeah, the last time we decided to “play it out” from an official Axis victory, it really stretched out the game.  The Axis won in round 8 I think.  Basically, it was one night’s worth of playing.  When we kept going, eventually the Allies overwhelmed the Axis and it took 19 rounds.  That took all of the next day plus into the next weekend.  I should point out that before the Axis won with 8 VCs on the Europe board, Japan had already been taken out due to a huge blunder of leaving their capital unprotected.  They had a decent navy in SZ 6, but NO land or air units on Japan itself.  The US went in with anything that could reach and it was a tough naval battle.  However, the US land units just had to walk into Tokyo.  After that, the rest of the Japanese navy was hunted down and they had to push through a rather large army presence on the mainland.  If Japan hadn’t made such a blunder, who knows how long the game might have lasted.

Exactly, it does not take much.  Just enough to be too costly for Germany or Italy to attack and enough transports and ground forces to put “threat” on Italy.  After you get that established, it’s only 23 - 27 IPC worth of ground units being shucked into Africa and walked over to the Middle East or dumped in Gibraltar to run into Spain once large enough.

[Young Grasshopper]

Are we a bunch of negative Nellys if “the worst of” poll boasts 5 pages, and “the best of” poll has less than 1?

[Jennifer]

@Young:

Are we a bunch of negative Nellys if “the worst of” poll boasts 5 pages, and “the best of” poll has less than 1?

There’s a best of?  Dang.  ^_~