Alpha 3.9 Favors Axis

[theROCmonster]

Planes as allies to russia does nothing. Just more units for germany to kill in moscow. Japan is a lot more powerful than what people are are indicating. I agree with carl that adding an airbase in gibralter would help out a ton with ballance issues, and possibly giving US an extra sub off panama or something.

[Cow]

it is not too bad though. just slight edge for axis, g1 is a bit dicey and so is japan when it uses all air to hit infantry stacks.

It is still the best version so far and many believe it is well balanced. The russian NO from africa is what is holding the allies together it seems.

[Alsch91]

Isn’t it a problem though, when the metagame develops towards requiring Russian units to blitz around in a very non-Russian theater?

I liked Global’s compartmentalization of powers.  It made this game unique among other AaA games.
'42 is a good game too, but the convention of Japanese fighters in France seemes a bit odd at times.
It works, and the game is very balanced, but I like G40’s lack of situations like that.  I’d prefer it not to move in that direction.

[Rhey]

@Cow:

You can SBR west germany but not germany… where will you land if you bomb germany?

Japan is still strong, any half decent japan player can force USA to spend at least half his income on the pacific to stop you from taking all the VCs necessary for a pac win.

You don’t need to bomb Germany, bombing all the other IC’s from Germany is enough. That way Germany has a hard time reinforcing western-europe or Italy and has to spend less IPC’s on Russia.

[Cow]

not really. the 3 minors off russia and germany itself is good enough. you got to do at least 10 to west germany and 3 to france which is fine.

[theROCmonster]

Completly agree with Alsche. Love this game. I’m not complaining I just wish the allies would get a couple more units. In my oppinion it is easier to play as axis, so the allies should have a small advantage. Something like 52% chance of winning would be great since the allies are a lot harder to play.

[Cow]

Well most A&A games involve bids for a reason. Perfect balance is hard to test out when dealing with a game that involves dice as they can swing either direction. Plus bidding down is a nice way to determine who plays what.

I like the africa/medit setup the way it is currently. I would like the russian NO from africa to go away, Iraq is fine. In compensation a russian bomber and an artillery somewhere would be nice, in fact it would make russia less boring to play.

[Rhey]

@Cow:

not really. the 3 minors off russia and germany itself is good enough. you got to do at least 10 to west germany and 3 to france which is fine.

ehm we’re talking about a J1 or J2 attack here… Germany won’t have ANY of the minor IC’s from Russia. So their only functional IC is the one in Germany by G3 (or G4). Therefor the USA is still able to land in Novgorod and make a bombing run back to the UK while bombing Germany again. The IPC’s Germany has to spend to be able to buy some units to attack Russia are way too valuable.

Unless you’re going all out on a pacific victory, I don’t think pulling the USA in the war too soon, is advisable.

Also because Japan is a lot weaker compared to OOB and has an extra front with Russia compared to the Pacific stand alone version.

[Cow]

I usually do war round 1 or 2 with japan. So you start bombing with 1 bomber on round 2 and 5 total at most round 3. Germany usually has enough interceptors as deterrence in those rounds.

[GuamSolo]

What are the advantages of bringing U.S. in early?  I agree with Rhey that bringing U.S. in early is tougher on axis.  Why give them the extra cash?  Use the extra time to build up axis and stage themselves for whatever their strategy will be.

[Cow]

1. it is not much money 2) japan getting income is better than waiting.

think of it this way if you don’t DOW japan 2 then uk pac anzac and china will double your income… that is silly.

[questioneer]

Round 1 or 2 attacks are gambits. � You are allowing US to make cash early for a quick strike hoping to stay ahead in position and tempo. � If you’ve studied/played some chess you really understand this. � The trade off is position and tempo for material. � The only thing with playing gambits, as in chess, is that you have to continue to play very tactically, keeping ahead in position and tempo (leading to the win), b/c if you don’t, then the material that you gave up will overwhelm you quickly.

Personally, I like the G2/J2 gambit options. � G1/J1 are really gambity (if that’s a word)- hyper-gambit opening that are high-risk. � Not convinced they are playable in the fact that lead to a lot of wins. � Although Cow would disagree.

[Cow]

J2 is not a gambit, it is the most optimal play. you start taking islands sooner, kill transports, kill stuff, take money from uk pac. you benefit more than waiting, usa only makes a small chunk of extra money. It is not a big deal.

J2 is not a gambit it is standard play. J3 is for when japan pushes russia spots on J1.

A simple cost benefit analysis proves this to be true. Gameplay and experience also confirms.

excluding kills and unit loss and looking at purely income. +3 kwangtung +3 malaya + 4 borneo + 4 dutch island +2 FIC +2 phil. +18 japan -18 allies. 36 ipc swing - 20 from usa NO income. 16. not going to war 10 japan. Japan is +6 in terms of income for DOW 2.

There you go. pure and simple math. if you want to include brazil for allies, sure +4 income advantage for DOW2 for axis when compared to do nothing.

[Axisplaya]

After reading this whole thread, i can confidently say that Alpha 3.9 favors Cow.

[questioneer]

I suppose increasing Minor ICs to Major ICs means nothing.  That fact that US can produce over 3X as many units instead of restricted to 3 per IC mean nothing either. :roll:

There are many gambits in chess that are playable or standard, but that’s not the point I making.
J2 by definition is a gambit.  You are giving Allies something extra when you do a J2, whether by income, material, production etc to gain position and/or tempo or some other advantage.  It is simply an early tradeoff that involves some risk at whatever amount.

Defintion- Gambit-

1.(in chess) An opening in which a player makes a sacrifice, typically of a pawn, for the sake of some compensating advantage.
2.A device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage.

So again Cow is wrong- it IS a Gambit.  Playable??? Yes.  Standard???  For some.  I don’t see hoards of people playing J2 all the time.  Optimal???  Too early to tell IMO.  Cow is afraid to play anyone PBF so he wouldn’t dare try to prove it me.  Cow=talk, no action.  Not to say he doesn’t have good ideas.  He just needs to back them up.  Something he avoids to do.  Likes to give lame excuses.

[questioneer]

@Axisplaya:

After reading this whole thread, i can confidently say that Alpha 3.9 favors Cow.

Of course, its his thread.  Talk is cheap.  Ask him to play a PBF game.

[Cow]

I suppose increasing Minor ICs to Major ICs means nothing. � That fact that US can produce over 3X as many units instead of restricted to 3 per IC mean nothing either.

A) carrier/fighter are solid naval buys for USA not at war. carrier can go west usa fighters central also dd sub west.

Can usa spam subs or dd instead with a major? yeah sure, but most naval purchases end up being mixed and the fighters can go central. usa has 52 to spend on majors instead of minors, it can make him buy cheaper units instead. Sure I’ll give you that, but usa starts with plenty of those units… carrier / fighter would give him range and better defense.

J2 is not a gambit, it is economically efficient. The most conservative japan players always war on japan 2 and they go strait for the income.

J2 is a gambit if you are more calcutta oriented instead of cash money.
~
From this point on, I am ignoring you and jen. Neither of you can add or subtract, let alone do statistics on odds. Pointless to argue, I just showed you how it is beneficial for japan to DOW j2 in terms of increased japan income and decreased allies income as a whole.

Also the more successful japan players DOW on J2 every game. People have figured it out already.

[Guest]

@Cow:

J2 is not a gambit, it is economically efficient. The most conservative japan players always war on japan 2 and they go strait for the income.

Cow, I have question.  This is not meant to be a criticism, but just a question.  If attacking J2 is your standard move, that means that America can declare war on USA2 and American units can leave the Atlantic coast.  That would include bombers that could go to UK as (very expensive) hit soakers to deter sea lion, or to Tunisia where they could threaten German transports in z100.  So If you are doing your J2 attack as the standard would it be right to assume that you completely rule out those other two strategies (sea lion and z100)?

[Zhukov44]

Gotta agree that J2 is usually the turn to go.  Japan can’t afford to wait much longer–otherwise UK Pacific collects too much cash and becomes too big a nut to crack.  If Japan is going on J2, USA is going to need to spend much or most of its income in the Pacific to prevent an Axis Pacific victory.  So even though USA will be able to intervene in the Atlantic sooner than Western Axis would like, USA won’t be able to afford enough to make a decisive difference without risking losing in the Pacific.

The circumstances where I would question a J2 declaration would be if China has let itself wide open on J2 (allowing Japan to focus all its air on killing China units J2), or if USA has spent all of its money on the Atlantic or has moved Pacific units into the Atlantic.  In the latter situation, it may be useful to hold off to stall USA’s offensive in the Atlantic.  But on the other hand, if Japan waits, then it puts off applying additional pressure in the Pacific.

[seth4god]

@questioneer:

I suppose increasing Minor ICs to Major ICs means nothing. � That fact that US can produce over 3X as many units instead of restricted to 3 per IC mean nothing either. :roll:

There are many gambits in chess that are playable or standard, but that’s not the point I making.
J2 by definition is a gambit. � You are giving Allies something extra when you do a J2, whether by income, material, production etc to gain position and/or tempo or some other advantage. � It is simply an early tradeoff that involves some risk at whatever amount.

Defintion- Gambit-

1.(in chess) An opening in which a player makes a sacrifice, typically of a pawn, for the sake of some compensating advantage.
2.A device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage.

So again Cow is wrong- it IS a Gambit. � Playable??? Yes. � Standard??? � For some. � I don’t see hoards of people playing J2 all the time. � Optimal??? � Too early to tell IMO. � Cow is afraid to play anyone PBF so he wouldn’t dare try to prove it me. � Cow=talk, no action. � Not to say he doesn’t have good ideas. � He just needs to back them up. � Something he avoids to do. � Likes to give lame excuses.

I’ve taken to playing a mean G1/J1 thanks to someone in my ftf A&A group, cow’s stumping, and my own analysis. I’d love to play you another game with me as axis and maybe you’ll see it personally and at least agree that it’s a viable strategy, even if it’s not one you’d do yourself. I would not do a J1 on it’s own since it’s too easy for US to eventually crush Japan if they invest all into the pacific. My goal is to force a rapid and level US response by creating situations in both sides of the map. Too little into the pacific and Japan can create at least economic parity with US and get the VC win they need. Too little in Europe and Germany will be outproducing US and racing for that last VC. I’ve only lost once, and that was due to a huge flop by my Japanese partner when we played ftf. I’m not saying it’s foolproof or a guaranteed win, but I’m 3-1 with this strat so far and it’s looking like I might reach 5-1 if the allies don’t turn things around soon in my active games.