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

I generally see England go down if Germany wants it.  However, it is not so much a can we make Germany go after England so much as can we get America to invest in the Atlantic when they otherwise would not need to?

Moving the Big American NO to England would be a way to do it.  It takes an NO that would NEVER be captured because it’s almost impossible and makes it one that has a high probability of being captured.

Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

Sorry for not filling in what the UK did the other nite I think it was more mistakes than anything else and I think it affected his rolls.  On UK1 it was a dd a sub and a trans and an Int & Art. (purchase)  Italy’s BB CA &2 trans were sunk, the 2dd,CA,sub&1trans were left alone, they eventually took Gibraltar. The German minor in S. Fra. helped Italy gain control of the Med. they eventually came out and landed in Panama.  It was one of those things.  He also didnt listen when Japan took Hawaii then New Zealand  and I said he’s going for ANZAC and his answer was no he wont take,  he’s going to go after the USA, he was wrong. Anyway its just a game. The person who was Japan played his first time as Japan, I’ve pulled it 4 times and I think he was paying attention and his time was due he had’nt had a win in a long time.  The week before he was Germany and he went Barbarosa and we were successful (I was Japan) and that was his first time as Germany          I think it was lack of team work and some lack of common objectives  I also have noticed that rolls are linked to your frame of mind (good mood and positive frame of mind) and you’ll do better and visa versa.

Hello everyone new to the site . But 20+ years A+A expierience.  I have played alpha 2 now several times both axis and allies winning.

I would suggest the following changes free for critique.

Germany - would not change much . Maybe shift a couple more(2-3) infantry toward france for G1 from Germany to West germany . Germany seems in the singular spot of having to capture a well defended capitol round 1 or lose the game.

Russia - would not change much here . I would like to see the 4inf. pop up for it or Japan for breaking the treaty.

Japan - lots of changes .  I would remove the NO for French Indo-China and allow Japan to attack UK and Anzac as they pleased . With the restriction that if they attack India east/west or Australia/New Zealand then they provoke war with the US or attack US as per usual. I would give back transport to carolines .  This would allow Japan the much needed IPc’s by contesting the DEI early and denying Anzac the solomons.

UK- I would remove the inf. and plane from normandy and add them to London.
The fleet by Egypt I would break up . The destroyer to SZ91?(by Gibraltar) with the cruiser there.  The cruiser I would leave . the Tac bomber to egypt . The Carrier to india . The transport to south africa. The carrier would give abit more fleet vs. japan . This would also allieviate Italy of all it’s fleet dying . They would still most likley lose the western fleet.

Anzac - as is

UsA - Needs a 10 NO if Gibraltar and all French north africa are in allied hands. In Place of some of there home NO’s .

China- as is

Italy - I agree about air base in North Italy.
France as-is
Commander Jennifers idead of OOB order is good as well/

Honestly, I would start off with

Eliminating Mexican NO for US and
Adding a 5IPC NO for US (at war) for Allies controling Gibraltar, Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia at the same time. (Historically first landing on that hemisphere)

That’s a 10IPC swing to the Atlantic right there.  If US still went Pacific heavy (which I don’t believe it would) then I would try Jen’s NO proposal.

I agree with questioneer on NO in Africa for US . Also maybe move brti. inf. in France to Normandy , going along with my previous move of ftr and inf.(from Normandy) to London.

Also my  friend suggested taking a German Inf and art from south germany to Lybia.

We are going to playtest these and my above suggestions this thur-friday.

@ehenry:

Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.

IMHO USA shouldn’t even get Mexico to begin with. Mexico should become part of USA led forces at the beginning of turn 4, after USA declares war on germany or vice versa. That’s 3 less IPCs for America, which isn’t a ton, but then they can’t build a minor IC there. Alaska is more risky for a minor IC, because Japan can hit it from SZ 6 in 1 turn.

@Cmdr:

@ehenry:

Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.

Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.

I’d like to see it rolled into the Hawaii and Alaska NO, lump them all into one called US territory and allies. Then replace it with a North African NO (perhaps Morroco, Tunisia, Egypt and Gibraltar).

@ehenry:

@Cmdr:

@ehenry:

Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.

Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.

The only problem with this is that America would actually need the money, if they played “honestly” that is, if they invested on both sides of the board.  If they invest on one board only, then yes, they should have the 10 IPC NO removed and the Mexican NO made solely Alaska + Aleutians (so Japan can snipe it.)

@M:

IMHO USA shouldn’t even get Mexico to begin with. Mexico should become part of USA led forces at the beginning of turn 4, after USA declares war on germany or vice versa. That’s 3 less IPCs for America, which isn’t a ton, but then they can’t build a minor IC.

Or a navelbase.

@questioneer:

Eliminating Mexican NO for US and
Adding a 5IPC NO for US (at war) for Allies controling Gibraltar, Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia at the same time. (Historically first landing on that hemisphere)

I think USA should get a 5 IPC NO when Gibraltar strait and Suez canal is controlled by the Allied. This represent the benefit from open shipping lanes and international trade.

Also UK should get 5 IPC NO for controlling Gibraltar strait and Suez canal, because if they dont, the convoys need to go around the tip of South AFrica, and that is twice the distance. Just imagine all the fuel.

I like the idea of having a NO for Gib and Suez that affects the U.S.  There should be some offset if a player only plays one side of the board.

Adjusting the NO’s on the Pacific side for the US improved the game. We may need a small adjustment like this for the European theater.

Another idea might be Axis subs in the Atlantic.( ie the US loses 5 or 7 ipcs for Axis subs in the Atlantic,  similar to the UK NO)

Good thinking, now we are gettin somewhere, man.

US ditch the Central NO and Mexico NO.
New US NO’s:

• US get 5 IPC NO when Gibraltar strait and suez canal is controlled by the Allies.

• US get 5 IPC NO if no german sub is present in the Atlantic.

• UK get the same NO’s as USA. Easy to remember and to keep track on.

• USSR get 5 IPC NO with sz 125, Archangelsk and no Allied units in Russia. This represent the Lend/Lease, but is hard to get, so the Brits send fighters in every game. Russia need one more Lend/Lease NO:

• USSR get 5 IPC NO when the Allies control Persia, and no Allied units in Russia. Historically half the Lend/Lease stuff went through Persia, so this is a strategically spot.

Also the Axis should get a 5 IPC NO for control of Persia. This is for the oil. One NO for Persia only is better than the current with 2 IPC for Northwest Persia + 2 for Caucasus + 2 for Iraq etc etc. Simple is better.

It’s + 5 for caucusus.

So pretty much make the US have heaps of smaller IPC value NOs instaed of the 10 IPC NOs. This way if the US wanted its full value it would have to seriously balance its offensive to get them all, and be everywhere at once. Could there be an NO for them in Russia or India, or maybe if the Allies have the oil nations Iraq, Persia etc the US get a bonus as well but they have to hold all of them not just one.

Have one US NO that is worth 10 IPCs for controlling all original territories then the other 5 IPC NOs up to the value of 30 IPCs or whatever, can be spread around the globe.Lets build on this.Be positive.

@TheDefinitiveS:

Have one US NO that is worth 10 IPCs for controlling all original territories

Nobody should get a NO just for control of their own home territory, that is redundant