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

@Krieghund:

@Cmdr:

I assume Sea Lion because it is the best option for Germany given an all out attack on Japan.

Why is an all-out attack on Japan a given?  If the European Axis puts enough pressure on the Allies, will the US be able to do an all-out attack on Japan?  Are you just assuming that the Axis can’t do this without Sealion, or have you actually tried it?

My experience is that a good Sealion feint by Germany (along with the destruction of most of the UK’s home fleet) will put the UK on its heels long enough for Germany to take out the USSR if the US doesn’t help in Europe.  If the UK doesn’t respond to the threat by turtling, go ahead and take out England on the cheap; otherwise head for Moscow.

Italy has to do its part as well, keeping UK tied up in the Mediterranean.  I keep hearing that Italy is done for after the first round because UK destroys half its fleet.  That hasn’t been my experience, either.  Moving a couple of German fighters to Southern Italy makes UK pay a steep price for the destruction of that fleet, and Italy can hold its own after that.

You say that Sealion is the best way for the Axis to win, but you also say the Axis can’t win.  Have you even tried it my way?  How about everyone else?  Those of you that are winning with the Axis, are you going for London or Moscow?

I believe Jenn’s argument is based not on what Germany does (Sealion or no, but Sealion gives Germany the quickest income boost), but on what the US is able to do.  If the US fully commits to the Pacific, Russia & the UK can hold Germany back long enough for Japan to be neutered and the US to be able to go to the Atlantic with overwhelming income, even when ignoring them for 6 rounds.

The advocates of this theory want to see National Objectives for the US that pursuade them to put money into the Atlantic.  They believe there is very little incentive to fight there if they can completely obliterate Japan (I have no opinion on this, this is only what I’ve read here).

In most of our games USA Is forced to build on both sides of the map due to the fact that Germany and Italy will gain too much steam and together they can fend off the USA if they don’t build on that side of the board.   Left alone Italy should be making close to 60 a turn and same with Germany.  The one two punch with these countries is very devastating.

Correct, KCD.  Krieg’s arguement is that if Germany goes all into Russia that America will be forced to invest in the Atlantic.  I disagree and I do so because it has been my experience that not hitting England and taking it out early means that England is now in a superior position to reinforce Russia and thus, prevent Germany from even pushing them back to Volgorod and Novgorod like they could have if they had taken out England.

BTW, I prefer to move my Indians through China and into Russia that way with about 8 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 armor and then send double that into the middle east.  With Japan pushed back and British forces in China, China should quickly grow in strength to prevent a Japanese incursion from happening again. (Assumes the fighter was not lost.)  And with England coming in through SE Asia, that means more Russians can be diverted to Moscow so you have British forces moving into Vologrod from India and British forces landing in Novgorod by way of Scandinavia and Russia turtleing the hell out of itself.

Yes, Russia loses the 5 IPC NO for no allied units on red territories (originally red territories) but if you work it right (and why wouldn’t you?) Russia should have 3 IPC for Norway and 3 IPC NO for Norway to counter balance that.

@Krieghund:

Those of you that are winning with the Axis, are you going for London or Moscow?

Moscow, in our games.

I want to see a Krieg vs Jen game :)

I don’t see Muskva as viable, for the given reasons:

1)  England can take the Middle East with India
2)  England can hold Africa with London
3)  England can reinforce Russia with London (exchange for N. Africa)
4)  Russia can turtle hard
5)  German supply trains are really long
6)  Germany has to reinforce the west while fighting in the east

Essentially, it’s the same problem that destroyed Hitler.  Germany (all things being equal) shouldn’t be able to take out Russia before England goes.  Not with players of equable skill and dice not biased for one side or the other.

For myself i do it like Krieg. I just freak U.K long enough for me to attack Russia with a massive force. I mean, if U.K d’ont protect London after seeing transports in range and all the planes then ok go for sealion. I Understand the fact that  sealion is very a good option for Germany. But if U.K put all the possible defense in there and buy some good stuff then the battle is not won. As U.S.A i always go in both theaters. If Londonc fall its not game over but if Moscow fall then i call it a game over.

But im for a + 2 inf on Londonc or a canadian fighter who can land on U.K 1 in London. Cause i know that if U.K doesnt put all he can in London with a german player who wants London then it fall.

Put it all in London on R1.  When Germany doesn’t buy transports on R2, then buy fighters on R2.  If Germany doesn’t buy transports on R3, buy units for Africa and naval assets in Canada on R3.  By Round 4 or 5, it’s too late for Germany.

@kcdzim:

I believe Jenn’s argument is based not on what Germany does (Sealion or no, but Sealion gives Germany the quickest income boost), but on what the US is able to do.  If the US fully commits to the Pacific, Russia & the UK can hold Germany back long enough for Japan to be neutered and the US to be able to go to the Atlantic with overwhelming income, even when ignoring them for 6 rounds.

I understand the basis of the argument.  It’s been well-documented here.  However, I’m seeing only one other person that agrees with it, while several others disagree.  What I’m not seeing is explanations of why people disagree with it.  I see lots of posts of things like “that’s not my experience”, but few of them give specifics as to why.  Explanations from anyone who disagrees would be helpful.

@Cmdr:

I don’t see Muskva as viable, for the given reasons:

1. England can take the Middle East with India
2. England can hold Africa with London
3. England can reinforce Russia with London (exchange for N. Africa)
4. Russia can turtle hard
5. German supply trains are really long
6. Germany has to reinforce the west while fighting in the east

Essentially, it’s the same problem that destroyed Hitler.  Germany (all things being equal) shouldn’t be able to take out Russia before England goes.  Not with players of equable skill and dice not biased for one side or the other.

Is Germany destroying England’s home fleet?  What are Italy and Japan doing while UK is running rampant in Africa and the Middle East?  If India is moving significant forces west, Japan should be able to take it and the DEI easily.  I’m not seeing UK having this kind of power in my games.

Also, what is Germany buying and sending against the Soviets?  Sealion can be effectively threatened without buying a single transport, and the Luftwaffe can keep London at arm’s length for a few rounds after that, allowing Germany to buy quite a few land units in the next several rounds after the first.

@Krieghund:

Is Germany destroying England’s home fleet?

What are Italy and Japan doing while UK is running rampant in Africa and the Middle East?

If India is moving significant forces west, Japan should be able to take it and the DEI easily.  I’m not seeing UK having this kind of power in my games.

Also, what is Germany buying and sending against the Soviets?

Sealion can be effectively threatened without buying a single transport, and the Luftwaffe can keep London at arm’s length for a few rounds after that, allowing Germany to buy quite a few land units in the next several rounds after the first.

1.) Yes

2.) Pushing forward toward China and India

3.) India doesn’t move west right away- maybe around round 5-6.  By that time US (if going 100% Pacific) has built a massive stack in the South Pacific, threatening a counter attack on DEI, launch on Tokyo itself, solidly defending ANZAC and Honolulu.  India moves toward Russia when and if necessary- if Japan take the bait, the US makes them pay- very simple.  Your not seeing it because nobody has the balls to try the 100% Pacific approach- don’t knock til you try.  Granted you must play Russia wisely with efficient buys and such.

4.) Germany buys what they always buy- a combo of inf and art/tanks maybe a plane or two over a few rounds- in other words- efficient buys that max the most punch possible.

5.) If you go Barby, then England makes cash, you lose a VC you need- doesn’t matter if you hold them for a few rounds AND you will NOT get Africa- you make it easier for the US by round 9-10.

The full pacific monty is what I routinely pull now.  It’s just a matter of when I switch out.

A variant:  Minor Complex in Brazil, 2 infantry, fighter a round into Central Africa.  No word yet on the viability of that, but as it’s only a large initial outlay and only really 6 or 7 IPC a round (occassional 10 for a fighter) it isn’t going to have a large impact on a nation producting 82 IPC a round or more.

Anyway yes, India moves en masse into the Middle East starting on round 5 or 6 once America has unified with Australia and established a large foot hold in the Pacific.  This allows India to focus on self defense primarily, sail the BB/CA out to join the American fleet and then move into the Middle East denying 5 IPC for Caucasus, 2 IPC for Iraq, 2 IPC for C. Persia and 2 IPC for N. Persia to Italy. (Not including actual land mass value being denied.)

Also, I like putting a complex in C. Persia for England by this point, assuming England has been liberated (and by round 12, I don’t see why it isn’t.)

As for “putzing around Africa all this time” what’s putzing?  You hit Ethiopia, Tobruk and SZ 97 round 1.  It’ll be 3 or 4 rounds before Italy’s recovered from that, unless the dice go badly.  And that’s just recovered, that’s not really moving forward as they would be if you had left it.  What did you invest?  a couple aircraft the rest was already trapped there.

From there, it’s a matter of securing London (if you are not doing Sea Lion, this just gives me a bunch of guys to ferry later once I have my fleet up).

And yes, I assume SZ 111, SZ 91 and SZ 106 were hit with no losses to Germany in this plan.

The allies attack on tobruk round 1 is a little ridiculous. The Italian navy is in no position to attack the British fleet based off malta and going for cairo leaves rome/northern italy exposed and will be a temporary gain at best. In my game all of tobruk was killed with only 2 british inf deaths. Also, I tried a direct push for moscow from south and it was impossible. I had built a major in romania and it still wasn’t enough. How does one win at barbarossa in alpha 2?

General way England goes about Africa, with a full Africa campaign, IMHO and as I have seen:

3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter to Tobruk

Odds: 88.2%
Result: 3 Infantry, MI Lost 20% of the time

3 Fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier to SZ 97

Odds: Calculators cannot handle 2 hit carriers or change in ool, done by LL
Result: 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber Remaining

2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Cruiser to Ethiopia

Odds: 40%
Result: Nothing left

So I wouldn’t say a British campaign in Africa is so over powering so much as it just kicks Italy in the shin, throws some dust in its eyes and runs away.  If this is removed as an option, we may as well make England a neutral with allied leanings.

However, if you prefer, we can move the British fleet back to Gibraltar where it should never have been moved away from!  Would solve the Sea Lion problem, but would only reinforce the need to buff up Japan (which, IMHO, was nerfed WAY too hard from where it was in OOB.)

Where does one find these Alpha 2 adjustments? Are they online?

@questioneer:

@Krieghund:

Is Germany destroying England’s home fleet?

What are Italy and Japan doing while UK is running rampant in Africa and the Middle East?

If India is moving significant forces west, Japan should be able to take it and the DEI easily.  I’m not seeing UK having this kind of power in my games.

Also, what is Germany buying and sending against the Soviets?

Sealion can be effectively threatened without buying a single transport, and the Luftwaffe can keep London at arm’s length for a few rounds after that, allowing Germany to buy quite a few land units in the next several rounds after the first.

1.) Yes

2.) Pushing forward toward China and India

3.) India doesn’t move west right away- maybe around round 5-6.  By that time US (if going 100% Pacific) has built a massive stack in the South Pacific, threatening a counter attack on DEI, launch on Tokyo itself, solidly defending ANZAC and Honolulu.  India moves toward Russia when and if necessary- if Japan take the bait, the US makes them pay- very simple.  Your not seeing it because nobody has the balls to try the 100% Pacific approach- don’t knock til you try.  Granted you must play Russia wisely with efficient buys and such.

4.) Germany buys what they always buy- a combo of inf and art/tanks maybe a plane or two over a few rounds- in other words- efficient buys that max the most punch possible.

5.) If you go Barby, then England makes cash, you lose a VC you need- doesn’t matter if you hold them for a few rounds AND you will NOT get Africa- you make it easier for the US by round 9-10.

3.) Launch on Tokyo by round 5 or 6??? Even if the US goes 100% Pacific (at least for the first few rounds) it cannot take Tokyo unless you are playing against a moron. Seriously, Japan is not to be underestimated and you simply cannot make a blind statement like that (explain how you put yourself in that position by that round and get past the huge navy, airforce and men that Japan can put there or attack preemptively with, not to mention the kamakazis). IMHO if US goes 100% in either theater, the allies lose.
4.) Why do they always buy that? Its not always more important to buy the most punch possible if it takes too long to get into position. Try buying mech and tanks along with airpower. Germany can be at Moscow’s doorstep with (for example) 24 Inf, 5 Art, 7 Mech, 21 Tanks, and a bunch of airpower by ROUND 4 and hit Russia round 5 against 40+ Inf and maybe a couple planes and tanks (thats 100+ attack with 50+ units - not counting the luftwaffe! - vs 80-90+ defence with 40+ units ). Now Germany has time to prepare a welcoming party for those India troops since the US is busy in the Pacific with Japan (basically a 1 on 1) and Russia is dead leaving UK Europe alone against both Italy and a monster Germany. Oh yeah, and that’s NOT going sealion.
5.) Yeah UK makes cash, but Russia gives everthing to the Axis (its income when captured as well as its territorial income and dont forget about german objective income - 20 IPCs plus middle east) By round 9 or 10 UK is trying to stay alive after you have given the axis all of Asia, Europe and at least half of Africa = over half the board!! It depends on who you play against but a good axis player will take advantage of what you give him and ignor what you dont give him. Sea Lion can be good but not EVERY time. And above all else dont be predictable.

after trying it a few times either way I prefer going for Russia (after the initial scare to UK). it’s true the Uk can grow big but you can’t ignore Russia for 3 to 4 rounds they can grow big too, and the UK can remain hobbled by the Luftwaffe and minimal German naval purchases. another reason being that with going Sealion first you still will have a two front war with the US stepping in, whereas with Russian Bear down you can focus towards the single front UK/US.
for a Russian assault I go with mechs and tanks (odd variations) funneling through Leningrad or Stalingrad (I play with the same guys and try not to mix it up). and always with the bombing runs on those two cities, wherever the Russkies don’t have their fighters and Tacs. with the French IPCs I always grab a second Strategic Bomber.

that should read “try to mix it up”.

@Cmdr:

General way England goes about Africa, with a full Africa campaign, IMHO and as I have seen:

3 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Fighter to Tobruk

Odds: 88.2%
Result: 3 Infantry, MI Lost 20% of the time

3 Fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Aircraft Carrier to SZ 97

Odds: Calculators cannot handle 2 hit carriers or change in ool, done by LL
Result: 1 Fighter, 1 Tactical Bomber Remaining

2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Cruiser to Ethiopia

Odds: 40%
Result: Nothing left

So I wouldn’t say a British campaign in Africa is so over powering so much as it just kicks Italy in the shin, throws some dust in its eyes and runs away.  If this is removed as an option, we may as well make England a neutral with allied leanings.

I’m not sure the Ethiopia battle is that necessary, those troops in IEA cannot escape and will die to reinforcements moving up from Saf.
In my home games, the Italians are not under duress on the first turn anymore.

Lets look at Tobruk first, 3 inf, 2 art 1 MI 1 arm and 1 ftr vs. 3inf, 1 art, 1 MI, 1 arm and 2 ftrs 1 tac…/these/ odds for the British are 90% to lose…

For the sz 97 battle, if Germany can get 2 ftrs to SItaly, that lets you scramble 3 ftrs to defend the Italian ships and the UK player has a 87% chance of clearing the sz.

So germany actually has an easier time defending Tobruk than the sz, I still prefer both moves to give me the option of scrambling as the axis.

I still feel that the game could be totally balanced with very minor changes.  Make Italy neutral until their first turn.  This would mean Germ cannot hit SFrance on G1, but would also lend to the historical accuracy of the game(because Germ wasn’t able to attack SFrance until they took NFrance anyways)  The only other chance I would suggest is adding 1 more trn to Japan.  This lets them take the DEI on J2 if they want.

I can think of other changes I would like, for instance a Germ dd in Baltic and Russian dd in Archangel, but that is more to represent the fleets in those areas than balancing the game, therefore they are not suggested.

How are you getting 90% odds for England to lose in Tobruk?  The calculators disagree with you GREATLY saying England has an 88% chance to WIN in Tobruk, as listed.

Ethiopia isn’t “necessary” I just do it as a PR move.  I generally win the fight, but even if I lose and only take out one or two of them, it really hamstrings them in the south.

Ah, well then they are out of position, but I agree, I would probably not do the attack with any extra airpower there.  Then again, with all of Germany’s planes in the south, I might just withdraw the fleet into the Red Sea and use them to help with Japan.  Better than losing them, IMHO.