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

@Cmdr:

I1:

British remnants and French fleet in the Med Sunk
Syria Taken (or Jordan depending on garrison.)

I dont know who you play against Jennifer, but if the UK player gather his fleet in z92 turn 1, there is no way you can take it out with the italians.
In fact its more the other way around then, if the italian player moves anywhere turn 1, you will have the option of crushing his fleet turn 2.

woah if japan hits hawaii turn 1… that puts usa in war… and that sets back japan’s offensive. and usa can land air in UK before germany can take uk down on R3 (plus 2 ground units with the starting transport off east usa).

USA collects bonuses can hit south america etc. How are allies losing if you throw usa in war so soon?
~

Only reason I been consistently winning is because my opponents keep trying new things, but I already know USA at war round 1 is not good. I don’t care what you sink and good you sink it. It’s not worth the 60 bucks you let america get combined with the opportunity cost for a swift asia.
~
R2 UK takedowns are really dicey for germany, that’s just luck. Starting to think usa should collect more money to balance out against luck or allies bid. and R3 is like wow… idk with usa in the mix i just don’t know

Is uk losing his 3 fighters trying to protect a set of ships in a desperate gambit? If that answer is yes, then you are doing it wrong. If you scramble with uk it must be in a battle you have probable odds of not losing a fighter.

Agreed.  Bringing USA into war on J1 coupled with a transport build on G1 should signal the intent of Sea Lion.  USA should sell out to get ships and aircraft in London to protect vs. Sea Lion.  Gibraltar is crucial to getting aircraft to London in 2 turns.

ever heard of greenland?

Yea u could go Greenland but by staging out of gibralter the us has put it’s self in a great position to both reinforce London but also pressure a good amount of Europe

For saving uk as a capitol you would want to strictly go by greenland to avoid any italian forces. They can’t attack usa round 1 without usa reinforcing uk. makes the sea lion strategy extremely luck based.

Gibraltar is better positioned strategically and it comes with air and sea bases, allowing fighters, Tacs and sea units to land in London in two turns.  This is the most efficient way to reinforce London.  You would have to buy air and sea bases as USA for greenland and it is still 6 spaces from London meaning you have to land in Scotland first.

Gibraltar is the best option.  Greenland is a definitley second choice, IMO.

England will have to keep the Italian heat off Gibraltar in the Med (even if it costs the fleet).

you can launch sea units off east canada and air units off greenland seperately.

there is no buying airbases or naval bases.

greenland already comes with an air base…. or am i thinking of iceland. Frick new territories.

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 either

I 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