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

@Cmdr:

@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.)

I expect USA to invest in only one board. Doing otherwise is inefficient use of material. USA fights to win on one board and fights delaying actions on the other board.

Yes, the Mexico NO must die. I mean seriously, Mexico? Really?

I like the Alaska / Aleutians NO. It provides a historical reason to fight there.

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 disagree with the USA NO. USA already has incentive to not let UK fall. USA does not need another NO here.

The UK NO works

A lot of effort has gone into the USA NO’s to provide Pacific battles and consequences.
The global game is big and long and I have not played enough with Alpha 2 to notice if the USA player can ignore Europe without consequence on a regular basis with various German strategies.  Having a different USA NO for the European side can compensate for it if there is an unbalanced situation.  We will see.

@mantlefan:

@Razor:

@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

And… Why is it redundant? If it is redundant, why is that bad?

What does an NO represent, exactly? What do IPCs represent, exactly?

Anyways, lets assume although it’s far from proven) that the game is unbalanced.
What is wrong with this change?
Add the following clause onto the 10 IPC US NO:
If USA declares war on an Axis power before an axis power has captured London or a North American territory, or before Germany has declared war on the USA, or before Japan has declared war on UK, ANZAC, or USA, USA does not collect this NO.

It’s redundant because players initially own their own territories.

It’s bad because it is more complicated than simply increasing the value of the initial territories.

NOs are a McGuffin to increase income. Because NO are a line item in the rulebook instead of a map item they are more complicated. For that reason there should be as few NO as possible.

@jeffdestroyer:

A lot of effort has gone into the USA NO’s to provide Pacific battles and consequences.
The global game is big and long and I have not played enough with Alpha 2 to notice if the USA player can ignore Europe without consequence on a regular basis with various German strategies.   Having a different USA NO for the European side can compensate for it if there is an unbalanced situation.  We will see.

Granted, but I highly doubt they wanted to to be exclusively Pacific battles.  If they did, they SERIOUSLY dropped the ball by giving America enough money for two sides of the board but wanting it all spent on one side!

I wouldn’t futz with England, Australia, Germany, Italy or Russian NOs.

The FIC NO could be made permanent unless Japan invades (to counter the insane American income levels.)
OR
The American NO can be left half for London being Free, Half for Gibraltar being Free. (Take the 10 IPC one from the Continental United States.  No one is going to invade there anyway.)

An N.O. for holding your home lands…… sounds like the U.S.A.   The best thing about N.O.'s is when you can take them away from your opponent  Hawaii,Philippines,Aleutian,wake,midway,guam, soloman.     or you could give some to Japan like 10 for the main island 5 for Okinowa and 5 for Iwo Jima     PREPOSTEROUS…KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS (who would object to a new game)

It was just an idea guy. Obviously the creators wanted the US to have 30 plus IPCs when they went to war. Having 10 of them locked to your territories requires you to think about defense and offence. Having heaps of smaller NOs around the globe then requires you to balance your force. I would prefer this than forcing players to spend so much on this side of the board and so much on this side as this means decisions have already been made on how you play your game. Too  many restrictions means no fun. I like this Gibraltor NO as it makes sense. Think of some more Global NOs. I even think having the UK income split between the 2 boards restricts you and takes away some of the challenge to keeping the balance of forces even, if you get my drift. I havnt played tested that scenario yet but someone might have. These are just ideas not set in stone but if we can come up with some good ones and tweak them we may have something to work with.

@Redjac:

The idea of spreading around the NO’s for America to give incentive to balance its’ forces is a good one. The details of the NO’s are up for debate, but the basic idea is sound.

Remember it took America at least 6 months go on the offensive in North Africa and the South Pacific. It took a good bit longer for America to become absolutely dominant in the Atlantic (no more German subs) or the Pacific. The delay in America capturing the NO’s should match this historical build up (somewhat).

Agreed, even if some NOs required the ALLIES to hold the territories and America comes and reinforces to hold the territories for the NO?? After all it is a team game.

30 IPC in NOs implies to me that America needs to be active on both hemispheres, not on one only.  With a potential of 80-100 IPC a round, it seems only logical to conclude the game testers split America’s build in every game in which they tested for data, otherwise, they would have seen the grossly disproportionate strategic situation in the Pacific.

What seems the better course, since it is clear to anyone who wasn’t physically present at the time the game was being designed that, America needs to have some of it’s financial power moved to the Atlantic side of the board and thus, either surrender that income or go defend it.

Logical choices include:

• London, since if England fell the American people would have rioted in the streets burning FDR in effigy most likely.
• Gibraltar, since it was the key to locking the Italians into the Mediterranean Sea, it made it very dangerous for Germany to go repair and resupply U-Boats in the Mediterranean Sea and it allowed for easier trade.
• Paris, (see London)

And no, I do not believe anyone is espousing the creation of another NO in addition to what America has, only to move 5 or 10 IPC worth of NOs to the Atlantic board and remove them from the Pacific board.  Personally, I would prefer to see 10 of them moved over leaving 20 on the Pacific board should be enough to “encourage Pacific campaigns and naval battles” as someone above mentioned.  Hell, even with the 10 moved over, America may still go “all in” for a Pacific campaign.

@Cmdr:

What seems the better course, since it is clear to anyone who wasn’t physically present at the time the game was being designed that, America needs to have some of it’s financial power moved to the Atlantic side of the board and thus, either surrender that income or go defend it.

Logical choices include:

• London, since if England fell the American people would have rioted in the streets burning FDR in effigy most likely.
• Gibraltar, since it was the key to locking the Italians into the Mediterranean Sea, it made it very dangerous for Germany to go repair and resupply U-Boats in the Mediterranean Sea and it allowed for easier trade.
• Paris, (see London)

London - I dont think there would have been riots, at the time the US wasnt even in the war. Heck if London is captured the US declares war, i dont think tying an NO to London is at all realistic.

Gibralter - That might be ok

Paris - When the allies reclaim Paris the game is pretty much over so it would be as pointless as the russian NO for Berlin.

I disagree.  The people of the United States would have seen the cause as lost once London fell. (We Ukranians of Russian ancestry were already preparing for war anyway, so we wouldn’t have cared so much what happened to you angloids.)  It would have, most likely, been a much stronger impact than the bombing of some abandoned ships in some puny harbor in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (it was not yet a state!)

Further, strategically speaking (both in game and in history) London is and was of much more importance than Mexico City was and is.

Another idea:

Give Japan 2x 3 Hit Battleships to represent the two they had in WWII.  They can be denoted (on the board) with a control marker under them and in battlemap with one of the tiles next to them.  3 Hit BBs should, further, be auto repaired to only 1 hit applied at the start of Japan’s purchase units phase regardless of proximity to a friendly naval base and fully repaired if in proximity to a friendly naval base.

Example:  Japan takes 2 hits to the Yamamoto (it floats because it is a 3 hit battleship.)  The battleship is located next to Guam at the time it is damaged.  On Japan’s next turn (provided no one hits the battleship a 3rd time before then) the ship can now absorb two hits before sinking.  Should the ship have been located in SZ 6, instead, it would then be able to absorb another 3 hits before sinking.

Japan may have up to 2 Super Battleships (3 hit battleships) originally, +1 if Japan controls Calcutta and +1 if Japan controls Sydney for a maximum of 4 at any time on the board.

Super Battleships cost 24 IPC.

@Cmdr:

I disagree.  The people of the United States would have seen the cause as lost once London fell. (We Ukranians of Russian ancestry were already preparing for war anyway, so we wouldn’t have cared so much what happened to you angloids.)  It would have, most likely, been a much stronger impact than the bombing of some abandoned ships in some puny harbor in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (it was not yet a state!)

I would retract the comment about abandoned ships. It’s not funny nor true. Especially for people who still have family members aboard one of those “abandoned” ships.

@Cmdr:

Another idea:

Give Japan 2x 3 Hit Battleships to represent the two they had in WWII.  They can be denoted (on the board) with a control marker under them and in battlemap with one of the tiles next to them.  3 Hit BBs should, further, be auto repaired to only 1 hit applied at the start of Japan’s purchase units phase regardless of proximity to a friendly naval base and fully repaired if in proximity to a friendly naval base.

Example:  Japan takes 2 hits to the Yamamoto (it floats because it is a 3 hit battleship.)  The battleship is located next to Guam at the time it is damaged.  On Japan’s next turn (provided no one hits the battleship a 3rd time before then) the ship can now absorb two hits before sinking.  Should the ship have been located in SZ 6, instead, it would then be able to absorb another 3 hits before sinking.

Japan may have up to 2 Super Battleships (3 hit battleships) originally, +1 if Japan controls Calcutta and +1 if Japan controls Sydney for a maximum of 4 at any time on the board.

Super Battleships cost 24 IPC.

Seems too complex

@Cmdr:

I disagree.  The people of the United States would have seen the cause as lost once London fell. (We Ukranians of Russian ancestry were already preparing for war anyway, so we wouldn’t have cared so much what happened to you angloids.)  It would have, most likely, been a much stronger impact than the bombing of some abandoned ships in some puny harbor in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (it was not yet a state!)

Further, strategically speaking (both in game and in history) London is and was of much more importance than Mexico City was and is.

Agreed on Mexico.

Riots or otherwise i don’t see a reasonable American NO for London. America’s reward for keeping London in the game is that America keeps an ally. That ought be more than sufficient reason to keep america engaged in the Atlantic.

If the allies can survive the atlantic without America then it would seem to indicate the atlantic allies are too strong. In which case less is more.

I agree that moving some of the US NOs to the Atlantic side of the board is a good idea to encourage US involvement there.

It seems to me that most on boards are in one of two camps.

Camp One – “The game is unbalanced towards the Allies if US goes all-in on the Pacific side and ignore the Atlantic side.”  Obviously this camp would want incentives for the US not to ignore the Atlantic.

Camp Two – “If the US ignores Europe, Germany/Italy will win, therefore the US can’t ignore Europe.”  Those in this camp already split the US income between the boards.  Therefore they should not mind if some of the US NOs are tied to territories they are already fighting for on the Atlantic side.

So moving some of the NOs should at worst have little effect on game balance, and at best improve game balance.

Though I don’t think having the moved US NOs be based on London’s lack of capture is a good idea.  If Germany does not go Sea Lion there would be no change in US income and the US could freely concentrate on the Pacific.  I think the NOs are better shifted to the North Africa/Med/Mideast areas of the board.  This area of the board can be contested by both sides and can go back and forth no matter what grand strategy is being employed, unlike an all-or-nothing Sea Lion gambit.

PS – I also think the Super Battleship idea is too complicated.

PPS – I also think the “abandoned ships” reference in regards to Pearl was tasteless.

I suppose there could be a third camp, that mantlefan may be part of, that says “If US goes all Pacific, it is a 50-50 shot that the Axis could win on the Europe side before the US can neutralize Japan.”

I guess this camp would say that the game is already balanced in the face of a US all-Pacific strat, and that moving US NOs to the Atlantic side would imbalance things too much towards the Axis since it would slow down the US too much on the Pacific side, giving the Axis a better than 50-50 shot on the Europe side.

@mantlefan:

[

People supporting your argument tell others just to “read it” Why are those supporters not reading about your claims of the Soviets in Norway and Denmark? Why are they not reading about your claims of Germany needing at least 13 rounds to take Stalingrad?

[/quote]

Why aren’t you asking these supporters directly? Jen has no more control over her supporters than i have control over your mother.

The ships at Pearl Harbor were, for all intents and purposes, abandoned by the United States Navy.  They were running on generators supplied from the docks, their engines were on cold steel (off, and cold, would take HOURS if not DAYS to get the fleet moving under their own power again, as a totality for the fleet) the ships didn’t even have enough people to be called a skeleton crew (regulations required more people on board than were actually on board at the time of the attack).  Boiled down, if the ships were any more abanadoned than they were at the time of the attack, they would have sunk from leaks in their own hulls.  I call that abandoned.

Did I say “undefended?”  No.  Of course not!  America put on a spectacular show, and many lives were lost so that FDR could justify entering WWII, but they were hardly as well defended as America’s Carriers were, by any stretch of the imagination.

The Super BBs are just as complicated as National Objectives.  IMHO.  However, the option was given to pander to those who wanted more units on the board.

A London NO makes the most sense of any NO proposal on the Atlantic Board.  Primarily because London can fall and probably will fall if Germany wants it.  Thus, America has to dedicate itself to the liberation or forever give up the NO.  IMHO.

Mantlefan: Stop complaining and prove the opposite and demonstrate it by your own public record of games you played here on this site.

Stop all this whining with one post after another basically telling others not to listen to Jennifer and just making claims with empty hands.

You are not helping the conversation one bit and just drawing attention to yourself…