How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.

I’d say it would be beneficial to max-dmg all complexes, shipyards and airbases upon capture.  Force you to rebuild what was destroyed when you took the land. (What self-respecting army isn’t going to sabotage its own war making ability before losing it to the enemy.)

However, that’s a house rule.

I am wondering about balance against a Sea Lion coupled with a Japan 1 surprise strike.

Played it too little to be able to form a final judgement but without a doubt it’s a HUGE improvement over the original out of the box game and set-up. Scrambling rules are great, so is the MIC in Germany, the minor ones in the US, the restrictions on movement for the US while not at war etc. Also the British can attack the Italian fleet and cripple them while at thye same time incurring losses themselves OR they can concentrate off of Gibraltar and basically deny Italy it’s ‘easiest’ NO of having no enemy warships in the Med for the rest of the game.  Love Alpha 2 so far!

My group of fairly experienced AA gamers have played Alpha +2 five times so far.  Here are my observations.  Germany must decide to either attack the UK or Russia, it cant attempt both and hope to win.  Japan has three choices but again must decide on which course to take and do it as quickly as possible, 1) Go for India  2) Go for the US Fleet and island groups(to deny the US some NO’s) or 3) Go for the easiest 4 VC’s (Hong Kong, Philipines, Sydney and Honolulu).  Both the Germans and Japanese must substantially achieve these objectives by turn 3, any later and they will eventually lose.

Some general rules we follow…
1. US concentrates on building a very strong pacific fleet and at least 2 additional transports…even at the expense of building in the atlantic if necessary. Once numerically superior to the japanese fleet (at least 2 - 1 in BB’s and CV’s) then go hunt it and kill it.  Then all new buys to Atlantic.
2. UK builds infantry and moves aircraft to UK to counter sea-lion or if sea-lion not threatened a factory in Cairo and tanks in South Africa.
3. UK India - Infantry only until US gets involved.
4. Anzac - airfield western australia on turn 2 and fighters thereafter…which are then ferried to India every turn.  These are used to consolidate any british territory gains in mainland asia in later turns (landing in freshly UK captured territory).
5. China - Infantry only and everything into Yunnan.
6. Russia - Infantry and one fighter each turn.  Slowly retreat towards Moscow and then let the German impale himself on a huge stack of infantry and aircraft.  It will be a costly exercise for the germans and leave them very thin on the ground.

In all of our games so far the allies have eventually won out and this with IPC’s of 70 for the japs and occasionally the germans at times.  The big problem for the axis is holding onto their gains.  Eventually the US will turn the tables in the pacific and retake all the japanese held territories.  Once the jap fleet is destroyed its game over for them.  In Europe, if the UK hasn’t fallen and the Germans have had no success in Russia, then they too are simply marking time and if the Italians are held in North Africa then they remain simply an inconvenience in the med which will also be dealt with.

We like the game and it is our favorite version.  We are taking turns at playing the axis and trying new strategies all the time but it looks like its a fairly tough ask to win as axis especially when playing experienced players (who dont fall for too many tricks).   Im going to give a J3 US fleet attack and simultaneous multi-island grab a go in my next foray.  I figure I can take out the entire US pacific fleet and inflict some serious NO pain to the US, in a reasonable exchange.  I may then have just enough time to take Sydney, Philipines and hold onto Honolulu for at least 1 turn to secure the victory.

Taking india is cakewalk broski. UK takedowns are 70-100% in low luck games.~

I can’t see how global is better than AA50 or the NWO mod WaW. ~

Why on earth do you like the VCs? most groups I go to play without VCs. Hell I even support that. Berlin or Moscow or we play another game.

How many people really enjoy pacific? It’s so lackluster. Naval cost lots of money and once one side is sunk that’s it. there’s no coming back. Not to mention attacking is rough, there’s no retreating because you can’t repair, so you’re all in no matter what. It’s so stupid.

Even in aa50, I never go pacific and I usually win. So now I am supposed to go pacific to deal with the japs or he gets 6/8??? Screw that. That’s stupid.
~
I would like to add that low luck favors the axis hardcore just like in AA50 but even more so.

I am sorry if you did not buy the limited edition 50th anniversary edition, but you really missed out. It’s a plateau that is hard to go down.

Hard to test this game out without many live games. Eventually this will be available for triple A. Hopefully yall have the balance figured out by then.

Well, I do have to agree in some aspect that it’s still ridiculously easy to take India and London by round 4 or 5 in the game and thus remove England as a power all together.

@Cow:

How many people really enjoy pacific? It’s so lackluster. Naval cost lots of money and once one side is sunk that’s it. there’s no coming back. Not to mention attacking is rough, there’s no retreating because you can’t repair, so you’re all in no matter what. It’s so stupid.

It’s a world war two game.  The pacific kind of saw a major war fought in its theatre.  Naval warfare is a whole other ballgame to landwarfare and really adds an element of authenticity and “Fun” to the game.  That’s why the alphas are trying so hard to make sure a war has to be fought in the pacific from a gameplay/game advantage point of view, so as to avoid the KGF’s and JTDM’s of all the other axis and allies games before this one.

I for one do enjoy the pacific battle, and that’s why I tend to avoid playing online games since the most “efficient” strat for both sides in games up untill now have been to ignore the pacific.

I love naval warfare in these games.  Land battle is so blah…necessary to win, but hardly exciting!

then bust out the pacific board and play that instead of playing global. :|

I understand the pacific was real. I played bad company 2. You were the old bad company from WWII era doing your thug thizzle for an isle. representin o fo sho.

In reality the only thing an island is good for is growing spice.

you can’t shove pacific down people’s throat in a global game. I am german and japanese and I know that europe mattered more. I mean how many people know about the holocaust compared to the rape of nanjing? Guess what? The europe half has more sales than the pacific half.

The only time Pacific is fun is when you’re japan. USA going pacific is so boring. Not only do you have to take the islands, but you have to figure out how to take japan itself which is making 10 inf a round on japan.  So stupid.

IN RL Japan got atom bombed, that’s why very few people actually like pacific campaigns. If I can 80 ipc for an atom bomb so I can blow up japan. I’ll consider going pacific.

Atom bomb: cost 80 ipc. DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FIGHTER. charge a fighter with an atom bomb on west usa. this fighter must fly over japan which is a special move except you roll no attacks you just blow everything up except for an industrial complex and an AA gun. AA guns may fire on the atom fighter as the fighter leaves. All units are removed from japan at the end of turn. The atom bomb fighter cannot be Kamikaze attacked. Only 2 may be made per game.

one must be able to put his palm over japan and in one swoop fly all the japan pieces off the board into his opponent’s face. If that cannot happen there is no reason to go pacific, ever.

I just played my first game of Global and I have to say, at least it’s historically more accurate.  I love seeing Japan not going for Moscow and the fact that the allies actually have to focus on both sides of the map.

In my game Japan went for an early US attack (J2) because I left most of my initial fleet on Hawaii, but Japan lost the attack due to unlucky dice (though the US only got out of it with a damaged battleship).  UK and ANZAC built up a fleet at Hong Kong, and Japan basically gave up in China because it needed to focus on rebuilding its navy.  Japan was actually able to take out the UK fleet (including the Med fleet) and the US couldn’t quite catch up to it in time to stop repairs.  In the end Japan made a suicide attack on the UK/ANZAC fleet because we were out of time and came out of it with 10 fighters, 10 tac bombers, 3 damaged battleships, and 2 cruisers.  But while the US had clear naval superiority, it would take a while to actually take Japan because of the huge army there.

In Europe, Germany and Italy successfully took out France, the British north Atlantic fleet, and the Balkan peninsula round 1.  Germany then proceeded to make massive fighter and tank buys and steamrolled Russia (invading G4 with some really helpful Italian tanks going in I3), eventually taking Leningrad and Ukraine, and they would have gotten Stalingrad if given one more turn.  Moscow though had a stack of around 60 infantry, and Russia was able to kill off most of Germany’s non-tanks (despite being unlucky and losing several stacks of 10+ infantry with very few German losses).  The US built a huge Atlantic invasion fleet after the Japanese fleet beat the UK fleet the first time, thinking it would be able to catch up to and destroy the remaining Japanese fleet, and it took Gibraltar, eliminated the Italian navy, and took out Rome, but German troops then went into northern Italy.  The UK made an attempt to take Normandy/Bordeaux, but they lost it in the German counterattack and settled for Norway.

All in all, I’m really impressed with how much the game (or Alpha + .2) feels realistic, like it could have actually happened this way.  It seems like even when the US achieves naval superiority in the Pacific, though, it still takes forever to actually take out Japan.  And while it’s fairly easy for the US to take Gibraltar and Rome, Germany can easily stop any more Allied capture/liberation of Europe for a while while still killing Russia.  Building tanks in Russia and infantry in France/west Germany will take a while for the Allies to counter.  It also seems like if China is allowed to hold onto the Burma road they can get truly massive amounts of infantry/artillery, though this could probably be countered by Japan focusing a bit more on China instead of pulling out.  Italy feels like a minor power, because despite its objectives once the US can devote some IPCs to Europe it’s hard to keep Rome.

In my opinion, what the game crafters need to do is invent a unit for England that cannot move or attack but can defend and be taken as casualties.

I see this unit as follows:

From England 1 until America declares war on Germany, England has 6 Home Guard Units on England.
Home Guard:

• Move 0
• Attack 0
• Defend 1
• Cost - Cannot be purchased (so when they are dead, they are dead.)

These six units alone would almost certainly require Germany to wait until round 5 to be assured success in the amphibious assault on England, assuming England puts every IPC they can into the defense of England.  However, it would not be enough so that England can ignore putting everything in England to stop a German attack either.

In regards to Atlantic vs Pacific, has any Allied players seen what happens if you ignore Japan entirely, letting them take the Pacific/Australia and holding them at India?  Thereby freeing up America to put extra nails in the European coffins?

It problably not work.  You’d have to invest something into stopping Japan from getting 6 Victory Cities, but maybe it would?

Also, if I am going to surprise strike with Japan, I’m going to do it on Round 1 and get the Philippine fleet, the Hawaiian fleet and the British battleship off Malaya.  With moderate luck (as in not getting bad dice) I should have enough left in SZ 26 (Pearl Harbor) to make an American counter attack there ill-advised and either sink the rest of the Americans on Round 2 or run them out of the Pacific entirely.

Building up extra units to counter ANZAC/England at that point shouldn’t be all that hard, while you keep the rest at Pearl (SZ 26) available to strike New South Wales or LA (W. USA) as needed.  I think SZ 26 (and 33) are like the center 4 squares of a chess board. To wit, one must control those two sea zones to control the Pacific.

If UK gets civilians, usa gets atom bomb, and hitler gets V2 rockets to widdle away at your civilians over time before doing complex damage.

Anyway if usa is not forced to go pacific. Italy can be a real country that doesn’t get sunk. Then again germany can land a couple figs then another couple figs on italy to help scramble for it…. it’s still silly you usually get sunk still.

No, the idea isn’t to come up with a bunch of random pieces for each country.  Let that be reserved for AA G40 Enhanced.

The idea is to figure out some way to make Germany wait a couple of turns, after America is allowed into the war, before invading England is a virtually assured success.  Having the do nothing units (even if we drop their defense to 0) at least forces Germany to score more hits before taking London.  Essentially, if England puts every IPC they have into home defense, they should be able to defend their home like any other country can.

I’m a big fan of naval action in the Pacific as Japan or the US (although it’s definitely more exciting as Japan). The additional mobility of naval units adds a layer of complexity as you maneuver your units around trying to avoid getting skunked. You really have to be thinking 3 rounds ahead to avoid getting trapped.

Yea, it’s hard for the allies to take Tokyo but once the Japanese navy is gone the mainland is going under too. Then all you need is a moderate fleet parked in sz6 to prevent Japan from ever building anything again. At that point you don’t need to invade, just shift forces over to the Germans.

G40 does a pretty good job of balancing the Pacific and European theaters. I like it that the UK/US can’t focus exclusively on one side or the other which always bugged me about other versions of A&A.

The balance between the Allies and Axis seems decent in the few games of Alpha 2 I’ve played so far (both sides have won one game).

It sure seems like Alpha2 rules, NOs, starting positions, etc. are pretty darn close to balanced and very playable. Dramatic improvement to OOB. Except for one glaring thing that everyone seems to be in agreement with. If Germany wants to take London by turn 3 (4 at the latest), then there really is nothing that the UK can do about it and that is with completely letting Italy run free. If the UK takes out the majority of the Italian fleet on UK1 (and that is not always a done deal depending on how Germany plays it) then a turn 3 take of London is very easy indeed.

I’ve never been a proponent to thinking any of these set ups have been “broken” but to think that you can knock out a major power (yes I’ve heard that some think the UK is actually a minor… ) and propel the conquering country into a position that economically is in a vastly superior position EVERY time seems like a problem. I believe that a well balanced game has optional strats that might work at any given time depending on the skill of your opponent. Right now, even the most skilled UK player doesn’t have a chance at holding their capital. That’s a problem.

Cmdr Jennifer’s solution is a sound one and very compelling. I’ve also heard some talk of allowing Canada to be a capital in exile and finally some sort of bid format to bolster the UK’s early position.  All of these seem reasonable to me and does not make Sealion impossible, but not the primary German strat.

In the 3 games I’ve played, Germany has Sealioned successfully on turn 3 each time and with Japanese pressure in the Pacific has forced the US to  build int he Pacific early. Italy has gone two completely different directions depending on UK1 moves.  The only play that has been marginally successful at preventing Germany from taking London on turn 3 was a complete UK move to Gibraltor and then up the coast on UK2. Even then, it was not enough against a determined Germany and Italy completely went crazy, By turn 3, the Axis already had more income than the Allies, more units, and in better positions.

I hear that the Allies are winning some Alpha2 games, but I have only heard of that when Germany forgoes Sealion and goes straight at Russia.

Anyone else find anything different so far besides some very bad luck at dice making a difference?

A successful Sealion in no way assures the Axis of victory.  Germany still needs to be played very well to prevent the Russian hoards from running amok.  The US player however, must be able to effectively manage 2 campaigns, one in Pacific and one in Atlantic.

How the hell do the Axis out produce the Allies by turn 3?  Impossible IMO.  Someone on the Allies is not doing their job.

The alpha 2 game modifications make a well ballanced enjoyable game.  If you do not like the games where Sealion is the prefered German strategy, simply house rule it out of the question.  Jennifer’s home guard house rule should do.  UK Govt. in exile from Canada would be another scenario but the primary goal of this exiled govt. should be the liberation of London above all else (perhaps 1/2 buying power untill London is reclaimed).

By round 3 I have:

Germany:

• Sweeden NO +5
• Russia NO +5
• London NO +5
• Egypt NO +5
• London NO +5
• TT = 40-45 IPC, say 40
  Total: 65 IPC

Japan:

• Dutch East Indies NO +5
• 7 Pacific Islands NO +5
• Either Hawaii or NSW NO +5
• TT = 50 to 55 PC, say 50 IPC
  Total: 65 IPC

Italy:

• Med NO +5
• N. Africa NO +5
• Iraq +2
• NW Persia +2
• C. Persia +2
• 3 of 4 NO +5
• TT = 24 IPC
  Total: 45 IPC

Total Axis income by Round 3/4 = 65 + 65 + 45 = 175 IPC

Allies, on the other hand, have about 37 IPC for Russian TT, no NOs.
0 IPC for England Europe
4 IPC for England Pacific TT, no NOs. (- convoy raids)
20 IPC for ANZAC (assumes Japan went Hawaii instead of NSW)
70 IPC for America including NOs
4 IPC for China
0 IPC for France

Total: 98 IPC less any convoy raids.

175 IPC for the Axis less 98 IPC for the Allies = 77 IPC advantage for the Axis.

Assumes Sea Lion success and non-crazy dice.

Unless I missed something.  I don’t think I did.  I sort of looked at how my games usually turn out and extrapolated.  With England being almost a certainty for Germany, it seems only logical to assume that attack, thus, the game really becomes:

Germany, Italy and Japan
vs
America, England (Pacific), ANZAC and Russia
with neutrals
England Atlantic, France, Game Neutrals

And of those, only Germany, Italy, Japan, America and Russia earn real incomes.

Sid, It’s quite possible the allies were not doing their job as I was playing them!   :-o I definitely was too timid with UK Pacific and Anzac, not declaring war until attacked by Japan, and with UK Europe, brought the med fleet back out into the Atlantic to protect London… did not help.

With London falling (zero income for UKE) and with Japan taking out Hong Kong, Singapore, all of DEI, Philippines & Guam with the NOs as they are structured, the Axis was doing better economically. Admittedly, Russia (and China for that matter as Japan went all tt to get the islands) still had much to say, but UKP, was not earning enough and had no navy, and the US really was stretched at that point, and Italy was way too strong that the Middle East would fall within 2 rounds.

Was typing this as Jennifer posted… her tally is even more aggressive than what was accomplished, but not terribly far off

Do most Allied players have UKP or ANZAC declare war on turn 2?  Have UK take out the Italian fleet although that gives an almost guarantee to Sealion working (if the German fleet attacks went well)?

Just curious to improve my Allied play. Thanks

@Cmdr:

By round 3 I have:

Germany:

• Sweeden NO +5
• Russia NO +5
• London NO +5
• Egypt NO +5
• London NO +5
• TT = 40-45 IPC, say 40
  Total: 65 IPC

Japan:

• Dutch East Indies NO +5
• 7 Pacific Islands NO +5
• Either Hawaii or NSW NO +5
• TT = 50 to 55 PC, say 50 IPC
  Total: 65 IPC

Italy:

• Med NO +5
• N. Africa NO +5
• Iraq +2
• NW Persia +2
• C. Persia +2
• 3 of 4 NO +5
• TT = 24 IPC
  Total: 45 IPC

Total Axis income by Round 3/4 = 65 + 65 + 45 = 175 IPC

Allies, on the other hand, have about 37 IPC for Russian TT, no NOs.
0 IPC for England Europe
4 IPC for England Pacific TT, no NOs. (- convoy raids)
20 IPC for ANZAC (assumes Japan went Hawaii instead of NSW)
70 IPC for America including NOs
4 IPC for China
0 IPC for France

Total: 98 IPC less any convoy raids.

---

175 IPC for the Axis less 98 IPC for the Allies = 77 IPC advantage for the Axis.

Assumes Sea Lion success and non-crazy dice.

CJ, you forgot to add the Russians.

Germany:Sweeden, London, French TT’s

Japan:Dutch East Indies, 7 Pacific Islands, Either Hawaii or NSW

Italy:Med Cleared, N. Africa cleared, Iraq, NW Persia, C. Persia, and I assume Egypt (since Germany gets the Egypt NO)

Germany seems fine.  They can take Sweden, France and Sealion on turn 3 (if they do nothing else including sending planes to help save the Italian navy).

Japan takes DEI, and Hawaii I’ll assume on turn 3 so as not to put USA on wartime econ.  Although I’ve never done this, it is intriguing.  I may be wasting my time chasing India.  Ignore Calcutta and dominate the Pacific by owning Hawaii, Phillipines, DEI and slowly send units back to take NSW and contain Calcutta……Hhhmmmm.  One IC on the Asian mainland can handle China and probably Calcutta…Hhhhmmmmmm.  This does seem to be allowing Calcutta to mass some fighting capacity.

Italy is where I am incredulous.  How does Italy Advance that far in the Middle East while clearing the med, North Africa and taking Egypt?  All by 3rd turn?

Once Germany has London, what do they do with it?  Produce three units as USA advances?  If they are relaying units from the europe, thay are not sending them East.  The Russian Bear should have a stack of 20 (?) infantry in Eastern Poland.  He starts the game with 3 fighters if he buys one more he can surely use the his Inf as shock troops (losses) as he advance the 2 TT’s needed to seize Berlin.

In my opinion, sacking London makes a big splash but England can and must make it hard enough to take that Germany is starved for troops after the conquest.

This game is much improved but IMO it is still a race to see if Russia can absorb enough German punishment for USA and allies to come to the rescue.  Of course I detest victory conditions, we usually go to total victory or quit when it becomes apparent.

This is my 2nd post on this forum, I could be just full of sh*t…LOL

I have been playing A&A since the late 1980’s though.