Huh. Thanks Wittman. Maybe TripleA confused me on that one. Can’t recall if it actually happened or if I was concerned that it might happen. Either way, I know now.
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
Quebec has a naval base. You can avoid any possibility of dealing an italians and avoid a casualty or two from nuetrals and get strait to germany. I am not crazy.
heck you can fly in air from quebec. It is exactly 4 spaces.
greenland has an airbase on it already as well… though that’s silly now that I think about it since quebec gets to uk.
-
I don’t know what to say about this game.
The way it it stands assuming you buy strait inf with uk and assuming germany maximizes his land troop drop offs. Assuming uk doesn’t lose his initial fighters on his little island. Germany should be able to get UK in both low luck and dice games. Another quandary that exists is if uk’s initial transport survives (sails to quebec and comes back with 2 guys a round later).
So if that is the best strategy for Germany and Germany is expected to take over UK. I don’t see what the problem is with usa making more money. Considering the other nerfs in units and unit placements allies took.
~
If larry harris wants more than one standard strategy… perhaps russia needs more NOs involving the heart of Europe so that if germany does get uk and exhaust 3 rounds of resources… russia’s income will be on par on the offensive. -
if russia is going to make that solid push for germany, he’s going to need armor. germany takes uk and the infantry artillery combo is too good. russia either has to throw down complexes or a major close to the action or put out some armor or both.
~
making russia vs germany an even fight in the event that uk falls… while making germany vs russia favoring germany if he decides to push for russia. is difficult to balance in all honesty.
~
cracking infantry stacks is much harder now with the cost of tanks being at 6.
~
maybe we should make all national objectives worth 5. That seems fair. Germany’s tactical advantage over russia of being able to strike anywhere and hold berlin is just a bit too cheesy… it forces russia into a defensive position no matter what almost.
~
russia deserves his transport back… screw that sub. if uk is gone on G3 or G4 it’s only fair russia gets a round that is free of counter attacks from baltic seazone. -
Iceland, Gibraltar and Nova Scotia are the possible staging areas to reinforce London by air.
Gibrlatar is preferred for reinforcing by sea since your sea units can reach SZ110 and perform a blocking function. Sea units from Iceland and Nova Scotia can only reach 109 (they can drop off men but cannot block German sea units).
Iceland and Nova Scotia give the advantage of not being harrassed by other Axis forces (Italy). Gibraltar is a better strategic position (maintains the Allied foothold in the Med, acts as staging for attacks to London, Southern Europe/Italy, Africa).
Gibraltar is my preferred option as long as the English navy in the Med is able to take a toll on the Italian navy. If they kill off each other that should be good enough.
-
If America is hit Round 1 then it is at war. Yes. It cannot sink the Japanese fleet and the Japanese fleet would be DANGEROUSLY close to landing in W. USA, Alaska, New South Wales, New Zealand, etc. Especially with transport builds on Round 1. (Why waste money on warships, you own the Pacific!)
America COULD move planes to England. However, since Germany is not buying any transports until Round 2, they will have MORE than ample time to deterine if they can still do Sea Lion or go Barbarrossa instead. America is, of course, building ground units to hold N. America and not putting significant ships in the Atlantic anyway. Otherwise, the game will be over and Japan will win on Round 3.
Keep in mind, there are only three allied warships in the Pacific now. 1 ANZAC cruiser, 1 British Destroyer, 1 British Cruiser. Everything else is rusting at the bottom of the ocean. Meanwhilse, Japan has everything except potentially the cruiser in SZ 37 (Malayian Sea Zone.) That’s a TON of equipment that has to be matched and then overcome. America only has half a dozen fighters and a scattering of other aircraft at this point.
Odds are HUGELY significant that America will augment it’s airforce and build ground units Round 1. It cannot do anything else. The remnants of the fleet will go to the Spanish Main (around Havana north of Brazil, south of Alabama) to protect it from the certain death it will face against the Japanese armada in SZ 26. (Hence why I did not include them in the list of Allied warships in the Pacific.)
ANZAC will stagger ships to prevent Japan from hitting NSW on J2, but that’s a formality, ANZAC is doomed and it knows it. There will be no reinforcements, there will be no American aggression to distract Japan and there will be no British build up. (How, they have lost the Dutch East Inidies and any chance of getting their Pacific NOs.)
Russia will not attack, Germany will be on their door soon enough. China will survive in the short run, but they’re toast.
If America does dump planes on England. (I think they can by round 3 after Germany builds transports, maybe, but they’d have to stage them in Canada and that would certainly tip off the Germans) but they’d have no defenses on the United States and that wil fall then.
-
cmdr jennifer… usa will likely send what it currently can to uk while taking the rest of south america while buying land and air units. No one cares if you get a couple of little islands, the burma road will still take you awhile and you just speed up usa two turns. as far as taking south america goes.
As far as sinking all the usa ships, it’s not that big of a deal to usa.
asia is fine so there is no hurry
europe is fine if uk holds so there is no hurry there eitherI can see scrambling if japan isn’t sending overwhelming odds and even if you lose those fighters that still leaves a bomber and a fighter at the very least to go to UK with 2 infs. Which is 2 boatloads of guys.
As far as taking WEST usa goes… that kind of crap only matters if you can hold. USA sees what you can drop well in advance. build infantry/artillery in central usa and it is as easy as that to counter. If you want to stick all your air in the ocean and I can’t hold west usa… there is only so many boatloads of guys you can drop. it’s just that easy to counter from central america.
Don’t have to buy the full 10 infantry west usa jesus christ. Also sending air only to uk is not a bad idea. it does screw up the sea lion real bad. Also it gets uk rolling so much faster if germany is going toward russia. since all he has to do is buy carriers and usa will fill it with air… bam instant naval protection. Bam transports. Bam start poking away at europe.
-
jennifer you can tout your game results with inexperienced players as much as you want. Not fooling me.
But if you think your strategy is that good then maybe usa should go back to +15-+30.
-
I only play people on this forum these days, nearly all of which are hardly “inexperienced” any longer.
However, if America is sending what it can to England, it is not taking S. America nor is it building anything to stop Japan from taking and holding W. USA. If it is taking S. America and preventing Japan from owning the Western Half of N. America, it is not sending what it can to England. In either event, America is neutralized and Japan can focus on ANZAC then England, which is the point.
The Burma Road is closed on J1, reclosed on J2 and permanently closed on J3. It is such in every game I have ever seen to date (Alpha 2 rules, OOB it was closed permanently on J2). Any entertainment that it may remain open to allow the purchase of Artillery confounds the fates of the universe. Any thought it can be kept open once China has been reduced to less than half a dozen infantry and a fighter is beyond comprehension of even a confounded fate, it boggles the minds of everyone, I fear. Japan needs no investment on the mainland to effect this result.
England, with barely 15 IPC income itself, is not going to pose any threat to Japan. With minimal investment (60% of what England can build or roughly 9 IPC per round) should be more than effective to lock England in Calcutta preventing any reinforcement of China. (This does not count as investment as mentioned above, because this effects England, not China. Thus no investment is made into China.)
ANZAC, the pittance it is, is also collecting 15 IPC but starts out even weaker than England. Crushing it like a bug shouldn’t take too long, and once that is accomplished - even if W. USA is not taken, results in Axis victory for Japan shall surely have 6 Victory Cities. Hong Kong, Honolulu, Manila, Sydeny, that Chinese one and Tokyo.
Remember, the idea is to win the game, not take the capitols. If Germany can pull the United States Air Corps out of N. America, then Japan can dedicate more ships and planes to crushing ANZAC/England faster. Since China has no real ability to be a threat early in the game, all Japan has to do is stop them from having the Burma road open prior to build units phase. That shouldn’t be an issue. You have 28 ground units in China at the start of the game. China has 16. Japan has the ability to produce 13 ground units a round, China has the ability to produce 4, England 5. That’s a losing proposition for the Allies regardless of how you feel about a J1 sneak attack. To add even more, Japan has enough fighters that throwing them away isn’t an issue. I’ve attacked 2 infantry and a fighter in China with nothing but aircraft specifically to destroy that fighter. I would have similar interest in doing that to England.
Meanwhile, if America does stick to the Pacific, Japan has only to prevent naval assets from being developed while Germany crushes Russia. (Which will have at least 4 or 5 less IPC with Japan in the Soviet Far East.) That only requires 60% of the income of the united allied income, which Japan should be more than capable of creating with all islands under its control. (Probably ANZAC too, that’s +20 IPC in NOs alone.)
-
Just play USA and see for yourself. You don’t have to hold WEST USA just have to counter (especially if japan is going to have like 3-4 loaded carriers in range… why bother. just trade over the territory and AA gun ftw. Usually you can hold west usa for a round with just a few men unless he sends the transports over. In which case you place central usa.
Why are you trying to hold against 12 guys when you only place 10? why bother just fight over west usa for a bit back n forth. it’s not hard. and getting south america while sending to uk is easy enough a simpleton can do it.
yes there are many inexperienced players on this forum.
-
depending on what you send… assuming you send all your japan forces to usa… holding west usa is idiotic . all you gotta do is counter attack whatever boats he sends by building in central usa.
setup the counter with your buy. all starting pieces can begin pushin down R1. this method is way faster.
-
That’s just it, though. You can reclaim W. USA if you like to think of it that way, but then you have to counter 10 ground units a round from Japan. (Because I will eventually have a train of 5 transports because I can produce 10 units in Japan a round.)
However, thats at minimum 30 IPC and more realistically 45-55 IPC a round out of your 60 IPC income (fine, 65 IPC, maybe.)
Or you plan to hold it, taking at least 25 IPC a round for 3 or 4 rounds (about how long it would take Japan to set up a decent transport train to attack it and trade with America. However, this is cheaper because it is spread over the first few rounds and more efficient since Japan won’t bother attacking against a well staged America.) The drawback? You do not have the equipment to save London and England will fall. Meanwhile Italy is gobbling up Africa since England cannot invest to stop them and Japan is sending annoyances down to ANZAC/UK Pacific to prevent them from growing. (They’re weak as shit, just keep them weak as shit.) From there it’s really only a matter of keeping China at 3 or 4 territories (simple enough) and staging in Yunnan. You dont have to take Calcutta, England will cower there to stop you. However, just having a large force near will stop him from expanding.
Then Germany with all of Europe and an infantry in Egypt for the NO should have more than enough power to crush Russia and win with NOs. (Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Berlin, Rome, France, Cairo, London).
What I am getting at is that if the Axis powers move quickly and efficiently there is nothing the Allies can do to stop them from winning the game. This is very similar to AARe in which the allies had to play extremely carefully to stop the Axis from winning before the allies grew to sufficient power. The main difference here is that you can stop teh allies from collecting more than you if you move appropriately.
-
Hey guys, just thought you ought to know about the proposed tank changes for the NEXT major game balancing version of GlobalAA40.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4592&start=80
-
Nevermind, the proposed change didn’t stand the light of day for more than 27 hours… I knew that it stunk to high heaven.
-
That’s just it, though. You can reclaim W. USA if you like to think of it that way, but then you have to counter 10 ground units a round from Japan. (Because I will eventually have a train of 5 transports because I can produce 10 units in Japan a round.)
central usa can make 10 units. east usa can make 10 units. setting up to counter west usa is only done on round 1 if you put all 3 boats in range and have them fully loaded. Round 2 usa counter and drops 10 inf/art on central with tank buy on east usa (since he made mad money round 1 he should be able to do a full buy in central).
Either way if you want to pursue America which you have a strategic disadvantage at Asia will be looking good and america is too far away to get in the action, diverting your forces is the most effective thing usa can do.
~
allies just have to get through the early game,without losing their capitols. besides you act like a 5 transport train to west usa is cheap as dirt and usa doesn’t make enough money to throw down 10 inf round 2 in central usa with a few tanks in east usa, like it doesn’t mean anything, and that china and pacific UK and ANZAC can be written off like they don’t matterJennifer I admire your creativity, but this is a little much. I don’t know how else to say it. You put ships in the ocean, USA sees it USA buys. You ships move forward to USA. USA sees it, usa already bought the counter and now usa sprinkles a little extra to be safe.
I merely suggested USA’s proper play is to setup starting pieces to get more money as the rounds go by and not to be derailed by Japan.
-
tanks should be 3/2/2/5 anyway. I hardly see tank play.
-
I agree. Weaker tanks would bog down the game to inf stacks.
you mean it hasn’t already for your games?
-
point well taken; you got me good.
Man ANZAC does suck, we need to +1 battleship and stick it someplace like below south america. Just so they can feel like they will get into the game someday.
-
I don’t see that too often. Japan is kind of a powerhouse. you can get away and push south and have enough air to drop america if he gets in range most of the time. especially now that kamikaze can go off anytime. It’s a real confidence booster as well… extra rolls for a close fight is rough.
What I am doing as Japan is kickin the crap out of china/india and ignoring USA’s existence until I am done with that… then I hope I have enough air leftover and ships to counter any advance… in the mean time I try to find nuetrals to take to boost my income over USA’s then it is a matter of time. Either hold out till Germany does it big or get the last few VCs on the pacific.
~I think that is what the problem is. USA has to fight two fronts from a really long distance… like in WWII. Perhaps split USA’s production. they split UK to solve that issue. Also I really don’t like attacking south american nuetrals… I don’t remember america bombing brazil to pay tribute to the war.
-
@Cmdr:
I think there are some minor changes that need to be made to make the game more palattable.
One: They have got to figure out a way to break up the turn order better. It’s ungodly waiting for, essentially, 5 countries to go and even worse trying to use all 5 at the same time. I feel it really slows down PBF and most likely, desk top play too.
One_Solution: I feel a proper solution would be thus:
- (Axis) Germany
- (Ally) Russia
- (Axis) Japan
- (Ally) England Europe
- (Ally) England Pacific
- (Ally) ANZAC
- (Axis) Italy
- (Ally) America
- (Ally) China
- (Ally) France
Note, this also makes it more comfortable to play France which, by about Round 1, is essentially useless. Okay, maybe Round 2 or, at best I feel, Round 3. I’ve had multiple opponents express wonder as to why France is sandwhiched between Italy and Germany in the turn order and I, personally, have contemplated just telling my opponent(s) what to do with the French guys - if anything - just so they can post Germany right away.
Also, I do not feel the change in the turn order would change the balance at all. It is essentially the same turn order, except that America and China are back at the bottom of the turn order. In other words, go back to the out of the box turn order for the countries. The English and the Americans are still consecutive in the Pacific and only a minor Axis power lays between them in Europe. I have not seen a benefit to the new order of play, only a mind-numbing detriment.
Possibly, I would consider (with some seriousness) swapping England 1 and 2 and ANZAC with China, America and France. But I fear there would be backlash against Italy in the form of nerfing her navy.
What about all of the Axis players going at once and then all of the Allies going?
-
@Commander Jennifer and others…
To shorten the game, has anyone considered having all of the Axis players go together followed by all of the Allied players…?