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

And Cow,

USA was 100% in the Pacific to counter a 3/4 Japanese naval warship build each round. (The idea was to keep America in the Pacific.)

Meanwhile, Japanese ground forces (starting + 25% of cash give or take in reinforcements) zoomed west along Russia (he stacked and remained in the east, once those were destroyed, it was a matter of driving the tanks!) while Germany pounded every unit possible into Russia (after sinking the British fleet and tanking France round 1, of course.)

Essentially, the war in the East started round 1, the war in the west started round 2 and America was beat up on Round 3 (taking Midway, Wake, Guam, Solomons, Aluetians and Hawaii that round, swining back for Philippines afterwards.  Left America with the NO, but Hawaii is an NO for Japan, so fimatleven, you know?)

I am still and really thinking, if the Axis are going to win this, they can’t wait 4 rounds to do it.  Maybe if they could be given more NOs that they start with, or maybe if America went from 70 IPC a round to 50 IPC a round (to include their NOs) with only 25 IPC a round before the war the Axis wouldn’t need gambit play or a weaker allied player to win consistently. (By consistent, I mean on any given Sunday, you can win the game assuming the dice are normal and tactics work out for you, not that the Axis win everytime.)

Just a thought.

I still prefer the axis position.

@13thguardsriflediv:

My experience:

OOB: allied advantage
Alpha1: even
Alpha2: axis advantage

Well, I’m gonna have to revise my earlier experience.

OOB of course is still allied advantage.
Alpha1 I’m gonna say, very slight allied advantage, but axis can steal a march on them.
Alpha2 indeed is still slight axis advantage, because they can hold the initiative a bit longer, but is more balanced than I initially regarded it to be. Though a crack axis player certainly has the odds on his side.

@Gargantua:

On an even playing field, the balance of Alpha +.2 is PERFECT.

The problem is that the players are imperfect, it’s very much a SKILL based game.  No Skill = No victory.  Try to balance your teams with experienced players.

This game has almost no “skill” involved. Skill usually has to do with on the spot, or real-time reaction, hardly works on a turn based game.  You would have as much skill at this game, than someone at monopoly.  What this game is centered on, is 50% luck/chance (dice are a key feature), about 50% strategy/experience.  You might think experience means skill, but its more like experience means knowing mutible strategies and being able to apply them at the right time.  It’s more of knwoledge of the game and the mechanics along with predicitng the enemy’s moves and countering accordingly.  Knowing something is one thing, being able to implement it is a whole different factor.  The only “skill” I can see related to this game is being able to convince the people in your life (co-workers/employers, friends, families) to give you time to play this game, and being able to “hold it” till your next turn.

America needs to make 70+ as they are far away and the axis can rush out too many allied countries too soon.

USA is also needed on two sides of the board. sure you can shut down italy with sub.

as far as the skill conversation goes, I believe poker has more skill. Since you can decide to play or muck your hand. I’ve never tossed kings away like daniel negrano… but I have laid down queens pre flop and my cards accidentally flipped over when I tossed it in the muck… the guy showed me his aces and said good fold so that was a sigh of relief. I’ve busted on queens against kings and aces, I had that feeling. Then there is that whole… AK vs QQ thing. If I got QQ and I put my opponent and AK. Sure I may be a slight favorite only, but I am going to call and I am going to build table reputation if I lose by declaring the hand I put him on as AK especially if he does have AK. Yes, I am gambling and yes poker is gambling… some players don’t like to put all their chips on the line… if they can steal pots to stay alive and play flops better than the other players on the table  it works out. Poker professionals argue over this all the time. But thing is if you do win the 52ish% chance people aren’t going to all in you with a 50/50 hand thinking you’ll fold. It pays out in the long run pretty well depending on the table.

In this game your moves are broadcasted. All you do is get all your chips in the best possible pot, you don’t have a fold option.

It sounds like a contradiction, but I both agree and disagree that America needs 70 IPC or more a round.

I agree in the fact that America needs the finances to build up for war, once truly at war, and be strong enough to be an honest power, reminescent of how they were in the real world, WWII.  I also agree that America did focus primarily on the Pacific for the early part of the war, before crushing the Nazi Empire…America had more to lose in the Pacific, and that is demonstrated by putting the majority of the American National Objectives in the Pacific in this game.

I disagree, however, that America should be permitted to spend all of its money in one theater or the other.  Perhaps it needs to be split like England is. (Yea, I know, effectively 6 countries in a row, given the Alpha 2 line up…)  Or, at least, required to spend 35 IPC in the Atlantic. (Income from E. USA, C. USA, E. Mexico, C. America, West Indies).  Perhaps just the 20 IPC from E. USA?  Though, it makes more sense to have the income from each territory on the Europe map be spent in the European theater, easier to track as well.  Any income from conquered territories can be spent in the Pacific directly, and of course, any units spent in the European theater may travel to the Pacific theater.  The idea is to relieve just a little pressure from Japan, which faces Russia, China, England(2), America and ANZAC all by itself.  And it is, actually, only two turns from E. USA to W. USA for naval vessels and infantry and one turn for everything else.  America, for instance, could put a couple carriers in the Pacific and fighters in E. USA and have it all ready in the round right after, so it wouldn’t slow America down too much, you know?  Especially with (W. USA, W. Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway, Gilberts, Guam, N. America NO, Hawaiian Island Group (Hawaii, Midway, etc) NO and the Alaskan NO at the very least. That’s 55 IPC in income, equivalent to what Japan is earning, but without the need to divert some to ground forces, like Japan has.

Maybe have the split income untill the US at war, or only have the income split when america is at war. If you want to nerf the US income, then you got to restrict the axis ability to delcare war on america at any time by some degree.  Or make it easier for america to get in the war on their terms.

Nah, just make it so when America is at war, those territories on the Atlantic Side contribute only to European conflict and those on the Pacific side only in the Pacific conflict and NOs can be spent on either side.

USA being free to prosecute the war however he feels is fine. Axis are in the position to make action and get an early enough lead to win the game. USA has to stop them or win one side of the map before the axis win the other.

The option to race should still be there or you’ll lose a majority of players.

I disagree.  I believe the allies are in a very strong, almost insurrmountable position if the game is played along “traditional” strategies. (As traditional as can be expected of a game this young, anyway.)  It is for that reason I am working on ways to force the issue in a way that gives the Axis an advantage such as, a Japan 1 sneak attack, or a Japan 3 sneak attack occuring after the fall of London, etc.

If America was forced to spend at a minimum 20-22 IPC in the Atlantic each round, it would delay the entrance of war machinery by at least 1 round, giving Japan a very short, very brief, relief.  I would expect America do go the route of building warships in the Pacific and planes in E. USA or something similar so that they could still maximize their offensive abilities against Japan, after all, Japan is facing the entire world alone (and yes, I generally attack Russia with Japan these days) and thus, is the easiest to crush. (You don’t have to take Japan, even if you do not play with Victory Cities, all you need to do, as in every other version of the game, is to knock Japan back to an island nation, with no other holdings.  A strategy I prefer in most of my games since it is much easier to achieve than taking Tokyo.)

Example:  70 IPC, 22 Atlantic, 48 Pacific:  2 Tactical Bombers in C. USA; 1 Aircraft Carrier, 1 Destroyer, 4 Submarines in SZ 10.  On the next round, all those units can be in SZ 26 (Hawaiian SZ.)  However, the fighters wouldn’t be built in SZ 10, thus there are a number of sea zones and islands that the fighters would not be in range of on the next American round, that may prove just enough of a benefit to give Japan closer to even odds, without needing a bid.

game is not young.

I do like the axis position… you put the aggressive player on the axis seat. It’s much better otherwise you end up in a snooze.

Until it is 3 years old, I feel the game is young.  If the game is not young, then it is old.  Old games are like Classic, Revised, Monopoly, Chess, Risk, Jenga, what have you.  If it is not old, by definition, it must be young.

Problem is, balancing USA v Japan and balancing USA v Germany each individually, ends up disbalancing Axis v Allies.

“Germany v 80 IPC USA isn’t fair, Germany must be beefed up or USA given less IPCs”
“Japan v 80 IPC USA isn’t fair, Japan must be beefed up or USA given less IPCs”

So changes are made.

Result: both can hold, game broken (the other way than is the OOB).

The USA’s capability of going 100% one way or the other is about the only interesting decision left, now that Sea Lion seems to be predictably done all the time.

Besides, Alpha2 already slightly favors the Axis powers.

I think if you try and impose spending or placement caps, those forces will simply move to the other side of the board. I suppose this will delay some reinforcements by a round, but, if there is a constant flow, it will make very little difference in the end. Then what are we looking at, not being able to move troops out of their respective theaters?

As far as balance goes, I’m still on the fence, it seems a bit early to call once side definitively stronger then the other, but, I do see alot of the same opening moves over and over for Germany, which seems like a weakness. I do feel more comfortable playing the Allies than the Axis, however, I don’t think I’ve really found an opening strat, that I’m really happy with for Germany yet either.

@Geist:

I think if you try and impose spending or placement caps, those forces will simply move to the other side of the board. I suppose this will delay some reinforcements by a round, but, if there is a constant flow, it will make very little difference in the end. Then what are we looking at, not being able to move troops out of their respective theaters?

As far as balance goes, I’m still on the fence, it seems a bit early to call once side definitively stronger then the other, but, I do see alot of the same opening moves over and over for Germany, which seems like a weakness. I do feel more comfortable playing the Allies than the Axis, however, I don’t think I’ve really found an opening strat, that I’m really happy with for Germany yet either.

The limitations of the United States really hits home with the new N.O.'s in the Pacific.  If they lose those bonus’s, Japan can threaten the USA.

Not really happy with the German openers?  I successfully did a turn 3 Sealion with Germany and that was with a failed France invasion, Italy had to mop up lol.  Russia attacked hard turn 4, but didn’t have the planes or tanks to launch a successful campaign.  He lost most of his infantry hoping to gain ground.  Game won with a 100% USA in the Europe board, I killed her fleet twice by dumping mass amounts of subs in the water.  Italy helped out too with it’s subs as well.

Germany is really flexable, Russia bites, Germany can kick it’s teeth in, America grabs France, Germany can roll right through it and gain France IPC again.  Honestly, Germany is best played with guts lol.  If you try to plan a lot, much like a USA player, I think you’ll get frustrated with her!

Look, there are a number of things that are in need of balancing.

If you force America to spend the cash equivalent of all income earned for territory values on each side of the board, neither Japan nor Germany would need to be beefed up.  I could also see increasing the land value of E/W USA by 2 or 3 IPC as well, if that goes in.

Something has GOT to be done about 5 f’ing turns for the allies between Japan and Italy. For kricks sake man, at least let Italy go before USA and after England.  Give them a chance to respond to can openers if possible…

Dealing with can openers is an aspect of the game. In terms of balance, give the game a bit of time to develop.

I’ve yet to see British sea counters to a German Sealion. Once this happens consistently, the game will settle a bit, the Americans will have a better shot in the Atlantic and will be able to focus some serious naval force in the Pacific while maintaining a transport shuck in the Atlantic. That will balance the game. American worries Italy while the British pound France as the Russians reel from a German assault, trading land for time as the Japanese war machine slowly grinds to a halt in the Pacific.

That’s the way it should be, and that’s the way its going to be. Heading all out in one theater isn’t an option anymore people. Get used to it. Heading all out in the Atlantic means Japan wins by J4. Heading all out in the Pacific means Germany wins by G6 or G7. The Allies cannot focus on one front. The rules don’t allow it.

@cts17:

That’s the way it should be, and that’s the way its going to be. Heading all out in one theater isn’t an option anymore people. Get used to it. Heading all out in the Atlantic means Japan wins by J4. Heading all out in the Pacific means Germany wins by G6 or G7. The Allies cannot focus on one front. The rules don’t allow it.

Actually… in our game the UK navy in the Med. turned tail and took off to India.  That gave a building block for a massive UK naval fleet in the Pacific to push back the Japanese back home.  Gave America time to spend all in the Europe board.  Allies still lost that game though, German Subs are deadly!

The rules actually allow anything to happen.  1 Infantry can attack 2 tanks and get lucky enough to win, you just don’t know how it will come out till you try!

@Cmdr:

Something has GOT to be done about 5 f’ing turns for the allies between Japan and Italy. For kricks sake man, at least let Italy go before USA and after England.  Give them a chance to respond to can openers if possible…

Agreed. The best option is use OOB turn order but making ANZAC play after USA and China after UK

Yes, “can openers” are part of the game, I get that, they have always been. In classic, it was America opening the door for Russia - for instance (yea, all the way back then!)

But what is nuts is now you can set up 3 attacks on a territory to break it open.  America, China and England can pound a hole, then ANZAC can drive through it. (Say opening up Manchuria so that ANZAC can drive a solitary tank from JEHOL to Korea and destroy a Major Industrial complex.)