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

My opinion is that the axis has an advantage in alpha 2. I think that the axis can easily win, when they only need 6 victory cities in pacific map. I think that the setup is fine, but victory conditions should be as they are in global original, 14 victory cities for axis victory. All germany need to do is capture great Britain and draw Us attention to Europe. Japan receives so much IPC and can then easily capture the 6 cities. so we play with the original victory conditions

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.

Another change, I think would be beneficial to the balance of play, would be to move the Airbase in S. Italy to N. Italy.  I would, personally, also like to move the fighter to N. Italy and thus free up the German air force to counter the new scramble rules for England.  I feel this was a serious misjudgement by the play testers originally.

In the Pacific, I would like to see the British cruiser in SZ 39 exchanged for an Aircraft Carrier.  It has more utility and would give England more options for play, in my opinion.

Lastly, I think Japan needs a transport in the Carolines.  It was removed when we went into the Alpha versions and I do not think it helped to balance the game.

Axis advantage in this one.

Chime in and give your view! In other words, do we need any more changes to the rules and setup to make it a finished game? If so, what do we need? Tech rules rewrite, different unit placement, etc?

One word … bid.

I don’t see an Axis advantage in any of them, I just see lessening Allied advantage as each incarnation comes out.

Barring dice, things aren’t great.  In a low luck game, I’ll make the claim I’d win most of teh time as Axis (the loss due to the luck that is invovled in small close battles that can affect things).

I agree, here are a myriad of small battles that can skew the game, and LL does have it’s own massive skew (turns the distribution into a bi-modal curve with skewing more battles to losses and more battles to wins with far less draws.)

However, I still feel, the Axis do not stand a chance barring a really bad Alliance move, like under-defending London on UK 1.  (That too should be fixed, just put 5 more guys on London, save the risk of losing Sea Lion and force Germany to put more effort into it.)  Taht would be the ONLY buff to the allies I can think of.  In exchange, maybe move the Med fleet to India.  There should be no significant British pressence in the Med at the start of the game…puh-lease, if there should be a carrier there, give me a link showing me what HMS carrier was in the Med in 1940, otherwise, it’s a “crappy” placement, IMHO.

@Cmdr:

I agree, here are a myriad of small battles that can skew the game, and LL does have it’s own massive skew (turns the distribution into a bi-modal curve with skewing more battles to losses and more battles to wins with far less draws.) Usually, I would just go in with enough that it is not an issue, but there are a couple of battles at the start where I’ll win them all, but may take a couple of casualties that may hurt.  All in all, LL makes it much more predictable, and really shows the flaws.
However, I still feel, the Axis do not stand a chance barring a really bad Alliance move, like under-defending London on UK 1.  (That too should be fixed, just put 5 more guys on London, save the risk of losing Sea Lion and force Germany to put more effort into it.)  Taht would be the ONLY buff to the allies I can think of.  In LL, I WILL take London - no question. In exchange, maybe move the Med fleet to India.  There should be no significant British pressence in the Med at the start of the game…puh-lease, if there should be a carrier there, give me a link showing me what HMS carrier was in the Med in 1940, otherwise, it’s a “crappy” placement, IMHO. I agree that the game is getting more and more fanciful with each ‘revision’.

I am not seeing how you can take London for sure in LL, but I can see how it would force England to give up any pretext of holding Africa until America and Russia enter the fray.

Yes, LL does take the “swing” out of the game, but it is much more final.  2 Infantry + 1 Bomber vs 1 Infantry is an automatic win in LL, not in Dice.  That gets less significant as the size of a battle increases.  LL means very little when dealing with 75 Infantry, 30 Artillery, 50 Armor, 10 Fighters vs 150 Infantry, 10 Artillery, 40 Armor.

Final number for an attack on London is:
for Germany best case (if UK scrambles in sz111 and 110) - 12 inf, 4 art, 8 tanks, 1 fht, 4 tac, 1 bmb, 1 BB, 1 CA

vs

for London best case (if UK scrambles in sz111 and 110) - 24 inf, 3 tanks, 3 fht, 1 tac

Germany wins with 5 units 65%.  This is with EVERYTHING British that makes it to London.  In Low luck, it is 91%.

If UK does not scramble odds drop to 59% - 78% in Low luck.

Again, this is with UK leaving EVERYTHING alone with the sole purpose of turns 1 and 2 of getting everything back to London.

Thats a bloody aweful lot of Germans, are you making any attacks in that time?

In either event, it reinforces my opinion that England needs more infantry in the initial setup.

The only attacks made are on Paris and Yugo turn 1.  Not much else to hit in that time.

Question:  Are you attacking Paris and Yugoslavia because you have too, or because it is convenient?

Thought:  I am asking because I wonder if you need attack either place on round 1.  Yes, it means France will buy 19 IPC worth of gear and collect 19 IPC (presumably if Italy does not attack either) and you are already yielding England the fighter in Normandy.  However, would that 19 IPC actually hurt Germany in the long run?  Would the damage caused by not taking Paris on round 1 be offset by the greater punch Germany would have on Round 2?

If Paris is not taken, then Germany doesn’t have the $ to buy the 9 TTs.  Buy round 4, there will be too much in UK to make Sealion feasable.

It has to be round 3, and that means France must go on turn 1.

Only 2 games of global played thus far, both were axis wins. America splitting its production makes it useless in terms of amassing threat on either side.

I usually take London on turn 4 with 25+ units surviving. Dropping 5 units and an AA gun on Scotland turn 2. 18 more units on Scotland turn 3, and 18 more units on London for a total of 41 land units plus an air force that may be missing 2 planes from a scramble in S. Italy turn 1. London usually has like 35 units, which is 12-14 hits round 1. UK battle is typically 2-3 combat rounds.

I let Russia enter Germany for two turns, as they can’t spend the money anywhere close to the front. With the 13 IPCs from Scotland/London/National Objective it is easy to build 3 ships a turn and land units to drive Russia back.

Germany (66-73IPCs) with London almost outproduces Russia (37)and half of US production (39), then you have Italy (25-45IPCs)that also helps in Europe.
Japan (64-68IPCs) with DEI and China outproduces India (7 IPCs) Anzac (3-6IPCs) and America (38 IPCs).

The problem America has, is that it has to build two fleets to overcome large Japanese and German fleets in our games. Gibraltar is a no go zone for the US as Germany usually has 1-2 carriers, 4-5 subs, 1 DD, 1 BB and CA and 9 air units parked off London. It has been focusing on Japan early and Europe later, maybe it can focus on Europe first, but Japan is able to get 6 cities going Anzac first when Germany goes London first.

Japan’s starting land units in Asia, (31 land units I think) is enough to beat China down and withdraw to the mainland victory cities after turn 5, which permits Japan to spend its first 4 builds securing Anzac and Hawaii by turn 7 for the win unless the U.S. ignores Europe early.

I’m not counting my 3rd game of global in which the axis won, when an inexperienced America put his whole fleet on Hawaii turn 1, he thought I wouldn’t declare war on the US J2(whole Jap fleet plus 2 built subs), but when I did, I smashed the starting fleet hitting 12 times (he had 12 pieces since he did not scramble the 3 air units on Hawaii as I landed 10 land units vs 4 land and 3 air units. It was a coin toss that I won with 2 artillery and 1 armor left). Not only did I hit 12 times, he hit me 5/12 which was 2 hits on BB’s and 3 air units. I then convoyed US for 14 (sub off alaska) and sent rest of fleet to smash Anzac’s NO’s by seizing New Britain (carrier, 2 DD, BB,3 transports). Japan’s first turn build, 2 Transports, 2 Subs. I chose air units for casualties at Pearl Harbor, since I had 4 air in reserve to land on carriers during the non combat phase. I was saving forward deployed subs for the planned blockade of W. US. (the net result is that I convoy raided to the point that he effectively got 1 IPC for National Objectives for a Production of 52 IPCs while he had the Philippines, which would be 7 less IPCs in later rounds) He surrendered when his fleet (3 turns of building) sailed to the Pacific and the German armada moved to invasion position of E. US. later in the game. Japan smashed China and had India at 21 IPCs by turn 3. Could this game have been prevented, yes…a DD in sz 16 or 25 turn 1 or a sub off Philippines and Kwangtung to prevent their turn 3 capture. Also 12 hits at pearl was a joke, 3/8 2’s hit, 4/5 3’s hit, and 5/5 4’s hit for 12 hits total from 18 units. Average would have been closer to 7-9 hits. I planned on removing a carrier plus 1 more plane and 2 DD’s if I has lost the expected 5 more units I planned on if the US had had a second combat round + scrambled.

I think the Balance is really good.

What does your G4 Sea Lion look like?

How many transports?

How many planes?

England can muster ALOT of support in that amount of time…

i just take uk round 3 or R4 with Sealion.

not taking down uk is like really bad for germany. the game is based on germany gettng uk.

Shuffle guys R2 to a spot near uk. Shuffle guys R3 to same spot. Hit UK R4 with overwhelming odds. UK done.

it seems 90pct of games here are Sealion games.  If Sealion is the optimal course of action, that is a problem for me.  Are you guys forcing Sealion or is the UK player making poor decisions to invite it?

Are the Axis winning half the time even after a failed Sealion?  That is a BIG problem IMO.

One thing I have found to be a problem in my experience is the colapse of Russia from the east.  Japan needs to keep a pile of infantry in Manchuria anyways, so why not just DOW on Russia?  They can be in Timguska by round 6 without sending anything but the units they start with in Manchu and Korea. (and the tank in Jap) I would like to see the 12ipc’s be placed on the board immediately like the Paris Rule with French units.  Would be a better deterent.

Sorry to dissapoint you Cow, but tactical bombers can only be used on air & naval bases, not on IC’s. So bombing is not really a strategy.

I agree that Sealion is still too easy to pull off. It seems the balance between UK london & UK Med forces is not really perfect yet.
I would say UK london should be stronger and UK Med & Africa forces should be slightly weaker.

I agree that Sealion is still too easy to pull off. It seems the balance between UK london & UK Med forces is not really perfect yet.
I would say UK london should be stronger and UK Med & Africa forces should be slightly weaker.

Agreed.

Capital sack rules: I blame you! Sea Lion would not be a real problem if Canada and South Africa could continue the war (buying units) after the fall of London