YES! Liberate Scotland from the English jackboot.Re-enforce with Italian fighters,build MIC and march down the M1 to London town.
Alpha 3.9 Favors Axis
-
Sounds intriguing, since Cow refuses to play. Open up the thread with Germany and send me the link. BTW- our other game crapped out somehow with that error message you got. I tried to edit it somehow or fix it but it wouldn’t work. It won’t let me do my turn after your error message you got.
We’ll have to start it over again. League game I assume. Got my first G40 League win yesterday. What is the thread that you report these results- can’t find it???
BTW- make sure you download the new 2.7 edition.
-
Talking about gambits and risks. Does anyone see any Japan strategy that would not be risky ? I think that by essence every choice the Japanese make is kinda gambit, especially because from that depends the US economy and fleets size and moves. And in that sense, J2 is a gambit too. That being said, it doesn’t mean it should not be done, neither that it is a 95%-gamewinner.
Now, for your J1 strategy. Doing so, you want/let the US to trigger right on US1. I don’t think any of your Allies-playing opponent(s) will prevent you from doing that.
Maybe you are taking an undecisive but, fair enough, early advantage in the Pacific (I’ve read you India/ANZAC/China cash argument and IPC swing - event though I think it may be hard to achieve all you plan to do, ending with a good position),But, because, the way I see it, IPC is not eveything, you do allow the US (should they want it) to just start building an Atlantic fleet from the beginning (at least more than it should, you’ll give me that). German player gonna hate, and I bet you don’t want that either. Don’t take London, you’ll loose it soon enough. As for Russia, you’re not gonna make it. Well, I don’t see how.
Is it a good strategy for Japan/Axis that Germany be paralyzed out of the game (would it be so ?) even before getting Moscow ?How do you see this ?
-
I never go sealion if I’m opening the ball up with Japan on turn one. It’s straight Barbarossa and believe me, you can make significant headway with a G1 Barbarossa. I’ve taken Moscow by turn 5-7 in every game I’ve tried this out, even the one I ended up losing. If Japan’s playing their part well, Japan will get the win in the pacific if US goes full bore Atlantic. That’s the beauty of it, the axis only have to win on one side while the allies can lose on both and must play accordingly.
Quest, did you want a bid? I’d start it up if we were playing just a normal game right now, but want to at least give you the option of a bid if you wanted it.
-
I think the new way to play the game should be the axis have to take 14 victory cities to win. 6 on pacific, or 8 on atlantic just seems too easy to one of the axis to get.
-
I think the new way to play the game should be the axis have to take 14 victory cities to win. 6 on pacific, or 8 on atlantic just seems too easy to one of the axis to get.
It won’t work. If that’s the case USA goes 100% Euro side untill UK can manage Euro Axis alone and then strike back Japan.
-
14 vc is really hard for axis, there is a reason for the current VC conditions.
-
Maybe 12 victory cities for axis? or 13? I just don’t like that the axis can win on just 1 board even if they are getting hammered on the other. Makes the game unbalanced IMO.
-
Maybe 12 victory cities for axis? or 13? I just don’t like that the axis can win on just 1 board even if they are getting hammered on the other. Makes the game unbalanced IMO.
And US spending everything on one side or the other is unbalanced either? If the allies had to lose on both sides, it’d be too easy for them to concentrate on one or the other and destroy one before moving on. I’d trade one or two allies for either Japan or Germany/Italy and still have pretty good odds of winning the game.
-
For vitory it cant be 12 cities, because Japan can go from 2 to 5 in a single turn. And Germany can get 7 pretty easy. 13 victory cities is just the same as 8 in Europe or 6 in Pacific because the axis on both maps can get 1 short of their goal pretty easy. 14 would be like having to win on both maps and would be pretty hard to do.
So imo the split victory conditions work the best.
-
I just don’t like how one axis can be totally getting destroyed while the other one wins the game even though the allies are killing. Makes the game in favor of the axis just for the sheer reason they can dictate the game so well, and they have 36 planes combined….
-
It won’t work. If that’s the case USA goes 100% Euro side untill UK can manage Euro Axis alone and then strike back Japan.
I agree. The way I see it, the spirit and aim of the game is to see the Allies share their efforts and work together on both fronts. If they concentrate on just Germany or Japan, they will kill it, but fail against the other because it’s too late, that is the beauty of the game. That is why the Allies are harder to play.
Changing to more VCs would lead to make that possible. -
I just don’t like how one axis can be totally getting destroyed while the other one wins the game even though the allies are killing. Makes the game in favor of the axis just for the sheer reason they can dictate the game so well, and they have 36 planes combined….
I think the split VC works best, maybe you could add in a requirement that the axis control all 3 axis capitals. But even that i think would allow the allies to just play on 1 board, it might end up being a race for Moscow and Tokyo to see which one falls first. So I think it best to leave as is.
-
Then how do we balance this game to make allies have a better than just 40% chance?
-
7 vcs for a Pacific victory might be worth trying.
-
I think it is close enough that a small allies bid is enough, changing the VCs is a huge blow to axis. I find that axis breaking allies economic advantage usually occurs when they have all the VCs anyway… The game is more or less a big race for the axis and changing how far they must run is a much bigger dent than an extra piece or two.
As far as the allies are concerned, this is the least flexible axis and allies game printed. It is more Nash theory than it is anything else.
-
After playing Alpha 3.9 numerous times on the forum and off against many players, I draw the conclusion that Alpha 3.9 favors the Axis decisively for one reasons:
The Allies cannot effectively stop a USSR crush.
The USSR is too under powered to stop it, and the other allies cannot get in there fast enough to stop it without losing to Japan. The allies either have to KJF and hope they can rerout once that’s done to hold on to Cairo or to just hope Japan stumbles, giving them enough time to counter Germany. Either way is a crap shoot and futile if Germany and Japan really hammer the USSR.
Ummm… No if you play youre cards right allies have the advantage.
-
After playing Alpha 3.9 numerous times on the forum and off against many players, I draw the conclusion that Alpha 3.9 favors the Axis decisively for one reasons:
The Allies cannot effectively stop a USSR crush.
The USSR is too under powered to stop it, and the other allies cannot get in there fast enough to stop it without losing to Japan.� The allies either have to KJF and hope they can rerout once that’s done to hold on to Cairo or to just hope Japan stumbles, giving them enough time to counter Germany.� Either way is a crap shoot and futile if Germany and Japan really hammer the USSR.
Ummm… No if you play youre cards right allies have the advantage.
That’s what I’m saying. That being said, I’m not 100% sure who has the advantage one way or the other. Still playtesting really.
-
If you think allies have the advantage your axis players suck.
-
If you think allies have the advantage your axis players suck.
Ok tell that to better players here on the forum.
Nice try. :lol:
-
If you think allies have the advantage your axis players suck.
Ok tell that to better players here on the forum.
Nice try. :lol:
completely agree… I’ve played many games and the Axis do have the advantage simply because they are in position.
Suggested Topics
