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

there’s not that many choices jennifer. there are only so many objectives. NOs/Africa/UK/Russia.

your r1 is standardized based on what you are trying to achieve. just like revised and aa50, there are only 3-4 openers that I respect, because they are min maxed.

@GoSanchez6:

I know this off topic Jennifer but what is the Die Flottenmorderein mean in scandinavian.

It’s German for “The Fleet Killer” in feminine (Die vs Das or Der, always forget the masculine form in German…whatever. lol)  I seem to have an uncanny ability to destroy my opponents fleets, despite what the calculators say. (It probably has something to do with casualty selection.)

I was given the title officially after sinking yet another fleet of EMs, but others have concurred.  Of course, this was back in the days of Revised…

@Cow:

your r1 is standardized based on what you are trying to achieve. just like revised and aa50, there are only 3-4 openers that I respect, because they are min maxed.

Look above.  There are certainly more than 3 or 4 openers.  What, I believe, you are saying is that there are only 3 to 4 grand, over-arching tactical choices the Axis can aim for (2 or 3 for the allies, perhaps.)  To that, I would agree.

A) Russia
B) England
C) Africa
D) Turtle

1. Italy
2. Japan
3. Germany

But there are, I would over-exaggerate, uncountable openings to get to those conclusions - some better than others - some decided by the dice despite the best tactical minds behind the countries.  Factually, there are countable ways, each opening can be associated to a value in the set of all natural numbers, therefore, even if there was an infinite selection of openings, it would still be a countable set, but I digress…the fact is, there are a lot of different openings.  I have even opened one game without attacking the British navy what-so-ever and ignoring Africa/Med.  I beat Russia and had England on the ropes but Japan fell and from there it was only time before Italy did…but it certainly was not a standard opening!

yeah and that’s why you lost.

if ABCD are your only options, then there are 1 best way to do each of them. you should do that since you act first.

yes, contrary to your belief, there exists a way that yields the highest possible odds for what you are doing while giving up the least amount of opportunity.

It’s just like economics where if you keep adding workers to your factory your marginal product eventually goes to zero, to put that in game terms, instead of sending 6 fighters and 2 infs to kill 1 inf… you may just send 3 and use the remaining figs to somewhere else.

so not sinking uk ships r1 made you give up 50 tuv worth of naval sinking which lead to uk getting boats and men sooner for you to deal with… so uk go to thwart your capabilities with russia that much sooner.

ok got it. you smart.

I only choose between 2 G1s for revised. A) hold karelia B) don’t hold karelia… depends on what russia buys… I assume russia kills ukraine and west russia R1, because he should as it’s the best opener, there is, in terms of total unit value and in terms of unit count kills. It’s a very good trade.
~aa50 openers for G1~
In AA50 there is the conservative opener. EP and Ukraine drop 1 inf 1 tank from france to libya… hold ukraine so you can 8 guy egypt if uk tries to hold it. the end.  Not rocket science. africa is the key to pumping total # of units on europe (since italy can pump out 4-5 guys a round instead of 3 inf… you last a lot longer with those extra guys).

You also force russia to maximize what he has in caucasus since you can send 6 tank 2-4 inf + 1 art (depending on ukraine r1 casualties).
~

If no bid was placed in egypt you can 2 sub 1 fighter for SZ 2… skip SZ 12 and plan on winning egypt with the bomber and 5 guys… you should win with zero bid there. 1 inf bid turns that attack into a overcards vs pocket pair odds… 38-50% is kind of cool.

I wouldn’t knock you for trying.
~

karelia is more for gamblers unless a russia bid was put there. hell I usually put a tank in belorussia… if someone wants to gamble fighters on an AA gun and hope my inf don’t score more than 4 hits SURE THAT’S FINE.

I’ve done it before, but I seen how that goes when you lose and it’s way worse than losing in SZ 12…
~
There is the baltic states stack

this opener only varies depending on how one chooses what to do with africa A) screw it B) do a maybe maybe not C) serious africa. The way I do it is give up france 1 inf 1 tank libya from france move 2 inf down to 8 drop possibly on egy… r2 egypt backs away or it’s dead on G2… if he backs away, I can drop 2 guys ukraine and possibly swing tanks down to hold it sometimes… which is hilarious if all of russia’s stuff is up top . you can sometimes R3 caucasus. hilarious.
~

So that is 4 viable openers. All of which vary maybe slightly depending on if you hold france or put 3 inf poland.

~ oh wait this is a dice game. there is the industrial complex on france thing… which only works if you can stay 45ipc+ and if your AA guns shoot down usa and/or uk’s industrial bombings so you can make more than 10 guys.

so now we have 5 legit aa50 G1s… which is better than revised. although I liked revised in the sense that I could play crazy aggressive as allies in almost every game,  russia typically gets 2-4 tanks a round till japan shows up then it is inf / art. uk threatens france/poland/germany from up top top, while usa on the belly, and russia on the mouth. it’s a rush games are chop chop 7 rounds is the avg game length. sometimes it is sad as hell and allies can’t hit germans and japs can’t hit russians… those games go 9 rounds…  unless I am axis and instead of racing uk shuffles guys into russia in which case I have to bring germany to caucasus and force action by busting it, otherwise both sides could make about the same amount of money and have a giant stalemate which is really lame… stalemate ends when one side can get bombers and bombs the other side, which can take awhile because bombers are expensive and aa guns / low dice rolls can set you back… takes 3 rounds at least to get your bomber worth in damage… but honestly i seen this happen in aa50 too… just not as frequently… I don’t meet too many extreme turtlers and usually you can bust through somewhere or out produce the guy

global has 5 too. G1 can choose between sea lion, head towards africa, russia R1 attacks, setup to do Russia R2, hit and run on france to give to italy.

because of the political situation by default you’re always hitting uk naval, more or less relentless depending on what you’re doing.

Well, the situation was more Germany pounded hard on France then TOOK Russia but did not sink any British ships. It was nothing in the Pacific but a standard, boring ass kill China first game in which the American fleet eventually - as it ALWAYS does - overwhelms the Japanese. (The only surefire way I have found so far to stop America from owning the Pacific early in the game is to sink them all before they can build up.  Then hit Hawaii, Wake, Guam, Philippines, Solomons and Aleutians to deny ANZAC/America all the NOs possible.)

IDK jenn… it’s still rough to do pacific as japan if usa is pouring all his resources into it.

Did usa do some italy play? How are you taking russia’s capitol with uk in the mix? Doesn’t russia just fight germans in the bottom while uk goes up top (norway/finland/march down to help russia)? naval base scotland and uk can drop down and handle that northern IC… russia has to just handle the bottom.

Russia has less money, less air… but he is closer to his major IC to make cheap infantry/artillery mixes… should be able to handle the bottom. as long as he only buys armor the round before he attacks or for a counter attack.

just got to weather that early storm. let usa deal with italy. you can do italy with 20-30 bucks a round… maybe a huge initial buy. it’s not that taxing. when italy gets bankrupted you’re done with him.

as far as pacific goes. meh.  pacific isn’t required round 1-3, it’s just optional for usa… not in danger of losing the game. Lose a couple NOs woopy do… I am just happy when usa actually gets a battle most of the time.
~
It’s a fair fight usually in the end… except usa does have a slight advantage with anzac naval being able to nut cracker or merge for defense… comes a point when anzacs are buying land units only. out of takever paranoia.

@Butcher:

If you’re going to conduct Sealion, just have Japan invade the turn before Germany invades the United Kingdom.  Problem solved.

What do you mean here by having Japan invade first?  Invade who? US? where?  and do you mean on J2 before a G3 Sealion?    A step by step explanation please…because I cant see how that can be achieved (a US mainland attack) by Japan until J3 at the earliest and then with little chance of success.

I believe he means to hold the Japanese attack until just before Germany conducts Sea Lion and then attack.

I think it might be better to do it right after Sea Lion.

@Cmdr:

I think it might be better to do it right after Sea Lion.

Totally agree. Cause, if your Sealion goes wrong for whatever reason, it is too late to back off, the USA is at war…

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.