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

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 matter

Jennifer 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…?

To shorten the game, has anyone considered having all of the Axis players go together followed by all of the Allied players…?

The game is not balanced for that.  The Allies would overwhelm the Axis, I would think.

I like this idea, as Third Reich works this way, though.

It depends on who you play with.
~
once people get the spaces down, know where everything is, and develop a decent strategy… things will go faster.

I have no idea what is everyone is upset about.

I just want a better game.~ anyway if USA can just make what it made in pacific alone + what it makes in europe alone. I think the game will be fine.

USA and Russia typically beat germany/italy. while in pacific Japan typically wins. nothing wrong with that. It’s just a race.
~
If that’s too imbalanced for whatever reason, split USA’s income. I mean sure one can argue they can build land units and move it to the other side.central usa goes to whoever has that side on their board.

before we can make any adjustments we need to know if germany is meant to take over uk or not. if uk should hold by buying max # of units on their capitol without sending away their air… then we have a completely different game than uk trying his best to not get taken and losing anyway every time. game is totally different without a player

Can America stop Japan from invading?  Yes.  I always said yes.  However, they give up something else to do it and what they give up would most likely make the game much easier for Germany and Italy.

Let us assume Sea Lion was successful, as it is almost impossible to stop and, in point of fact as of Alpha 2, the only way to stop it is to turtle on England and hope for good dice.

Let us further assume Japan has set up the 10 transports it needs by this time (Round 3) because, let’s face it, you need the transports anyway to get Anzac, America and England - I suppose you could just build 3 minor ICs and almost have the same ability to put ground units into Asia Minor, but that reduces your mobility and I don’t like sacrificing mobility if I can help it, and here I can help it.

So America is facing a situation, they can put 3 units a round into W. USA until the war starts for them, thus reducing their naval purchases or they can mobilize in an effort to undo sea lion - which I suspect most players do since one cannot stop sea lion (objectively speaking.)  This results in America trading W. USA which is unreliable at best since they cannot build 10 units in W. USA if they just liberated it.

Conceited or Conceding?

The idea behind a J1 strike is that if they do not do the strike on round 1, when their opponents forces are spread thing and Japan can bring most of their units to bear was to make the Pacific easier.

The idea behind Sea Lion on G3 is two fold: A)  England cannot defend against it - period.  B)  America HAS to spread itself thin or leave Russia on its own. (The third option is a strawman arguement, you cannot leave the Pacific to Japan because Japan will win by Victory Cities.)

The overall strategy is to negate America as a force. America is WAY too powerful in this game to begin with.  I personally believe that is because we do not play her as the game testers expected us too and that is, by splitting her income across the Atlantic and Pacific.  So conquering her outright is virtually impossible.  I am of the opinion it is better odds that England will survive a G3 Sea Lion attempts more often than Washington D.C. will fall.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt it.  So if we cannot take America, how can we stop them from being overpowered?  Well, if we strike early, we can destroy their navy.  If we take England we can force them to pay attention to the Atlantic (otherwise, Russia is pretty much toast, right?).

Perhaps a J1 attack is unwise.  Perhaps leaving the American fleet alone (and that damnable British Battleship) might be the better route.  By round 2 and 3, a Japanese attack seems unbeneficial.  All of your opponents are out of range and/or heavily reinforced requiring you to determine which if any attack gives you better position and your opponent has maximized their utilization of airbases.  All in all, if Japan is going to attack before America declares war on them, I feel it has to be round 1.

I think J2 or J3 is better. if you buy some carriers so you can bring your air force, attack US fleet when they have gathered it on Hawaii. in J1 the fleet is to small. in J2 the American has almost always placed it in Hawaii. then you can crush them harder. i think Japan has an advantage there.

@Gisle111:

I think J2 or J3 is better. if you buy some carriers so you can bring your air force, attack US fleet when they have gathered it on Hawaii. in J1 the fleet is to small. in J2 the American has almost always placed it in Hawaii. then you can crush them harder. i think Japan has an advantage there.

I’ll have to take a look at that.  The fighters on the carriers in SZ 6 have no greater mobility than without the carriers on Japan, the real question is if I can get the carriers close enough to retrieve the fighters and sink the Americans.  I want to say they’ll just cower in LA instead of Pearl though.

While I agree that a lot of pressure can be placed on the American’s early. Let us not forget, that under certain conditions, it is possible for the U.S. to upgrade any of its minor factories. While I think this is wasteful, it can be a tactical decision based on first impressions of the Japanese players first round position and builds.

If you plan to sail your fleet over to the Pacific from the Atlantic, then Upgrading W. US seems wise. This enables a large build on round 2, when the starting Atlantic fleet is in position to reach W. US sea zone 10. This should give you a fleet that rivals Japan when they attack turn 2 or 3. I never move to Hawaii, without placing a blocking destroyer in sz 25 or 16, unless I feel secure. Blocking DD’s are why the US should build 1-2 a turn in a Pacific campaign. In some games, I’ve used as many as 4 blockers to enable a strong board position or to prevent counterattacks on islands I wish to support with air units on a following round. Blockers typically draw out a sea unit as most people are loathe to trade planes for DD’s. Permitting a counterattack of that sea unit later rounds.

If you plan to hit Europe, and suspect an invasion of W. US, you can upgrade Central round 1, and build a large take back force, assuring continental independence. A Major on Central serves two purposes, defense of W.US and it enables the creation of large land force that is able to shift to the E.US if Germany forgoes London for Washington on turn 3’s maneuvers.

As I struggle with finding game balance in A2, I find more and more axis techniques that really challenge the allies in such a way, that defeat seems inevitable. When I iron out “Operation: Stützpunkt” (Operation: Fulcrum), I’ll post an axis win based on a 3 turn Neutral USA, no sea lion, 9-10 turns, and an 8 city victory.

I believe that EM (Emperor Mollari) showed me a much better solution for America.

1)  To upgrade a minor IC to a major IC it costs 20 IPC (I believe, correct me if I am wrong)
2)  American Industrial Complexes upgrade to Major complexes as soon as America is at war and do so at no charge

Thus, a cheaper solution is to put a Minor complex in Mexico.  It is close to the fleet off W. USA and Hawaii and only costs 12 IPC.  Sure, between the two you can only put out 6 units, but at 6 IPC for the cheapest one, that’s 36 IPC in units (probably more, you want more than just Submarines, right?)

you can attack the uk battleship without going to war with USA. In fact the draw backs to going to war with UK early on are very small. I believe instead of a 10 bonus you make a 5? but you get kwangtung +1 and bship sunk … yeah anyway.

if you want me to spank you all night long in a game, we can play one, loser has to drink a glass of water.

@Cow:

you can attack the uk battleship without going to war with USA.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh….  wut?  :?

japan just loses the +10 bonus for fighting UK / ANZAC, it doesn’t throw usa in war.

War on UK or ANZAC puts you at war with both.

Soviet union and USA are exclusive, you only go to war with that country when you declare war on them. you start at war with china.
~

oh yeah strat bombing with tactical bombers + bomber round 2 can get nuts. if uk doesn’t get a bomber kill 5d6+2 in bombs over uk.

I don’t particularly like doing that in dice games, because the amount of rolls involved, but germany should have more than enough air with his starting fighters/tactical bombers/bomber (11 I believe) vs your 4 should you intercept… he does have the numbers to eat your lunch box.  if you get two aa gun hits germany has 9 1s vs your 4 2s (his fighter 1s wipe you immediately so the odds don’t favor you). If you do intercept and luck out and get 1-2 bomber kill. germany still does 2-3d6+2.

What likely is to happen is germany loses 2-3 air units while uk loses 1-2 and takes  around 10 industrial damage.

So in other words… if uk scrambles fighters round 1 and loses them… uk gets bombed hard and sea lion is easy as hell.
~
That’s another reason to do sea lion. in dice games as germany he’s going to scrable to try to protect something he thinks he can defend… in which case you retreat after the first round of combat usually, but if you get lucky and somehow kill uk’s fighters… dawg that’s GG. you bomb for 5d6+2 if he can’t intercept… if he buys a fighter to defend that’s no where near as good as 3 infantry on defense so your sea lion is easy.

That’s the thing I been saying… you can’t scramble to protect your naval as uk unless you know you have overwhelming odds to defend what you scramble against.