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

The axis player in that game wasted too much effort and IPCs on taking England and then allowed Russia to take Norway. That is an 11 IPC swing in favor of Russia.

Your goal of a kill Japan first, becase there is no real formula, will have a wide range of different outcomes.

Looking at 2 of your recent games, I see the Axis in very different positions, both with the Axis in much better shape than the 1 game you posted as your proof.

I also have been playing a Japan heavy or Japan first game since January, as others that I have seen.  My results have been an advantage to Allies, but not to the point that I would observe that there is an imbalance.

I propose that game results should be reported with what side won, and whether it was a KJF or KGF or a split of effort.

That will be a better indicator than 1 game.

The game I posted was following my concept of going after Japan first.  The rest of my games have the Americans investing on both sides of the map.

Then how many games did you win vs lose as KJF?  KGF?  Split?

The following are games of yours I pulled up off the last few pages of the online games.  I ignored games that were not far enough along, but may have missed others.  Which were KJF?

EMvJen_Game04_AA40_11Hitaly.AAM
JMite_v_Jenn_4_09_Agerm.AAM
Wolf_(Axis)vs_Jen(Allies)_G40A+2_7cJapan.AAM

Only allowed 3 attachments at a time.

Here are more.

Which games should I look at to better understand your KJF?

JMite_v_Jenn_5_08_Agerm.AAM
Bo_v_Jen_03_08Daustralia.AAM
Bo_v_Jen_03_08Daustralia.AAM

Bo vs Jen
Kry vs Jen
the latest JMite vs Jen

Can’t count the game with EM, he’s been unable to post in forever.  Anything longer than a 1 week break in posting and my train of thought gets derailed.  Too many games, lol.  If I don’t get a post up every 48-72 hours, I start to forget where I was going.

The Allies won :that brings the score to 2 to 1 the Allies.  We’ve played about 15 games and I think were all familiar with the game. 
  G1 was France,S.France, Norm. , Fin., Yugo and Bulgaria.R1 was to pull back in the east, build in the west. J1 was hit ,china set up for Phil.,Kwang and step in on vacant Russia.  U.K.1 was to take out the fleet at SZ97, land in Greece consolidate what was left of his fleet. IN.1 build and reinforce Born. ANZAC.1 build and reinforce.  Oops I forgot USA on 1 it was build and deploy,  CV, CA, dd in W.USA. sub’s turn. and 1Inf. in E.USA,  my mistake I moved C.US east and west. IT.1 was to take Gib. sink the FR. fleet try his luck in Greece take Anglo. and advance on Alex.
  U.K. and IT. had scramble orders with Fr. and Germ. help
  G2  BB CA & Tran. went to Gib.Sea zone 105. Sub’s went after Brit. fleet and convoy $ ,finished off Greece and started to prepare for operation Barbarossa.  R2 was to pull back one more in the east, and to set up def. and counter punch where Germ. was going to hit. J2 was to hit Hawaii, take it . Hit the Phil.and take it : Kwang , and take it.USA 2 hit Morocco and took it ,trying to sink the Japan fleet in Hawaii.USA 2 built more Navy and dumped it in the Pacific. CH. 1&2 was to push back on Japan and keep the road open  U.K. 2 was to deal with the Ger. subs,  put some units in Africa and start to build a new fleet.  Move the dd into the Med. from the red sea. IN.2  was to reinforce the Islands of Sumatra and Java and push towards Kwang. ANZ 2 was to go after the Islands for $  and their N.O.'s and to reinforce and add to their navy IT.2 was to take on Egy. and to rid the Med. of Allied ships and start to move toward Russia. Fr2 pulled their dd into the Med. and troop move in Africa
    G3 the BB,CA and the trans along with some planes took Morocco they built to replace their looses and organized the push toward Russia. R3 pulled back one more in the east and set up for the start of the war with Ger. J3 was about the same he came after my fleet on the west coast  and started his battles with India and Anzac for Islands and DEI. U.K.3 was all about fleets to deal with the Axis navies, the same for Anzac IT3 was working on the Med. and Africa money mainly naval units to conquer  the Allies in the Med.
  Sorry USA3 was more fleet in the Pacific and only minimal fleet in the Atlantic. I left C. U.S open it was my mistake because on G4 he landed there took my bonus and the 12$. I was able to take it back and we eventually won the war.
    I dont think Ger. planed on the U.S. it was there and he went for it. Gib. is an important key.  I think he should have spread out more in Russia for the money and if his purchases were a little different it would have been tougher for the U.S.
  Japan likes to keep the U.S. as far away as possible from their homeland at least on our boards.
  I didnt mention to any one at the table that if I were Ger. I was going to try for the U.S.  The Ger. player is always very aggressive and the last time he was Ger. he did Sealion followed by Barbarossa and was successful. I do see that if I get Ger. what I will do differently to hit the U.S.A.
  Sorry for the long post and I had to work from my memory so I cant be real specific on what everybody bought and what the  losses were at each battle. There were 5 at the table. Untill next time

Yes, Japan seems to enjoy the Dutch East Indies zones, perhaps because they keep hoping to take India before America is too much of a threat.

I find a lot of Japanese players are negligent in naval manuevering and often times allow me to park half a dozen submarines off the coast of Japan for quite a few rounds before I find something better to do with them.

I think it’s a mistake, but they claim it’s okay to lose 11 IPC a round to CRD.

I think that if the sides are evenly matched skill wise it will be difficult for the Axis to win in a long game, if their going to do it,  it has to be early on.
    More testing is needed, I cant wait for the next game. So far I like it as is

Agreed.  If the Axis run into a stumbling block at any point in time, they lose the game.  However, the Allies do not have this problem.  Provided the Allies do not lose the game, eventually, they will win the game.

By that I mean:  As long as the allies can avoid allowing the Axis to gather the perscribed number of victory cities to win the game, eventually, the Allies will be able to recover from any losses incurred and go on to win the game.  However, the Axis do not have that benefit, if they take a licking in any major engagement, they are seriously put at a disadvantage that they may not be able to recover from.

Perhaps that is how it was intended.

In any event, I still feel the game is unbalanced and something should be done to restore balance to the playing field.  Historical accuracy is nice and all, but if the sides are not balanced, the game loses a fun factor.  It’s like saying the black team in Chess only gets 6 pawns instead of the 8 the white team gets.  Perhaps it is more accurate historically, but it is hardly in balance. (Nor would the fact that black is short 2 pawns necessarily mean that they lose 100% of the games.)

Honestly, I think something as simple as a transport in SZ 33 might balance the Pacific.  Why?  Because it would allow a Japan 1 surprise strike to be highly effective since now they can take Hawaii (potentially) and thus, have a landing zone for fighters in case of American counter attack.

Not to mention, it could be used to gather the Dutch East Indies a round faster, or threaten New South Wales, etc.

I have run through several games where US spends all in the Pacific. Is it possible to counter? Yes I think it is. The problem however is that at the end of the 2nd round, the US has a massive Navy. It is totally out of whack with history. With two rounds the US could have purchased 2 CV, 1 CA and 3 BB (I know Jen likes the DDs rolling on USA2 with the IC in Mexico). Adding that to the existing fleet and it is overwhelming. Can the Axis win against that? Sure but Germany better take Moscow by G7 or G8, because Japan will be neutralized by then.

A rule that would limit production in the US before the DOW that says the US cannot place units on an IC when they total more that twice (or triple) the value of the territory. That would limit W. US to 20 (or 30) IPCs worth of equipment per turn. If the US builds an IC in Mexico, only 4 or 6 IPCs worth of material may be placed there.

The ability to drop down 52 IPCs worth of ships for the first three turns in SZ10 is the problem, in my opinion. The US just wasn’t mobilizing that hardcore in the pacific.

How about a simpler rule, the US cannot build carriers or Battleships until they are at war.

LOL, What would you have the US build then?

And Jim - I’m with you.  A good strat is a good strat,  and there is ALWAYS a counter. A game imbalance would be if no matter what you did - you won.

I’ve got a new German Strategy that’s been working in F2F games I like to call the Devil’s tongue.  I’ll post it once I finish the visual diagrams for it.  It might help quel some of the doubts - that the axis “don’t have a chance”.  Because they certainly DO have a chance.

Well my point is that if your going to limit them to 20 to 30 ipc at a single industrial complex (see the post directly above mine) then a simpler rule is to just keep them from building the big ships and it has a similar effect.

Eh.  But people seem to have heart attacks when you suggest things like that for America.  I mean, may the gods of WOTC forbid America have to spend some cash at both the W. USA and E. USA complexes!  That alone would balance things out very nicely, has in every game it’s been tried so far!

But bids are what EVERYONE defaults too.  How unoriginal, how MUNDANE, how DROLL…but if it’s the ONLY thing people can agree too, then give Japan 1 transport in SZ 33 in addition to what they have.

If that’s not enough, give them another Aircraft Carrier or Strategic Bomber (bomber Japan, Carrier somewhere out of the way to negate much of it’s benefit), but I think the Transport would do nicely.  It doesn’t seem all that powerful, but the ramifactions of what you can do with it…

LOL Players shouldn’t be penalized for doing things DIFFERENTLY than history deemed correct.

What if Americans took Pearl Harbour even more to heart?

And what difference is the “IPC Construction Limit” going to make?  They can still build the ships in the east to ship west.

By the same Logic, the USA can sit on it’s hands in the pacific, and JUST hold Sydney and Honolulu - a very undifficult thing to do, whilst pounding ALL of it’s IPC’s against Italy.  It works just as well.  Or not as well, depending on the Axis manuevers.  But wait, wasn’t that the point of the game?  to allow players to play how they want to?

Right, they can ship from East to West or West to East, but it takes time to do so!  That’s the point!

If you don’t want to go that route, then the transport in SZ 33 seems like an effective alternative.  That would give Japan 4 starting transports, coincidentally, just enough to hit Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Celebes in one round without needing to buy more transports!  Not that it’s the only option, but the transport is in range of NSW and Hawaii, forcing the allies to concider the SZ 33 fleet as a threat, instead of something that can be readily ignored since it cannot do any permanent harm.

Further, the transport gives a J1 surprise strike the lasting power needed as now 3 transports can hit Hawaii, so you have enough ground equipment to take it and leave enough airpower to hit SZ 26.  Thus, Hawaii is a valid landing zone for your aircraft if America counter attacks (not to mention, the 5 IPC NO.)

@Cmdr:

But bids are what EVERYONE defaults too.  How unoriginal, how MUNDANE, how DROLL…but if it’s the ONLY thing people can agree too, then give Japan 1 transport in SZ 33 in addition to what they have.

Jennifer, I agree with that thought about bids.

But I actually like the old A&A-europe rule where each side got 12 IPC to spend, i would like to see something like that added.

But bids are what EVERYONE defaults too.  How unoriginal, how MUNDANE, how DROLL…but if it’s the ONLY thing people can agree too, then give Japan 1 transport in SZ 33 in addition to what they have.

A bid does change things up - use the cash how you see fit.  The way you use a bid can be very original.  And it doesn’t just balance teh game, it balances unequal player.

It is THE best way to balance a game.

@jim010:

But bids are what EVERYONE defaults too.  How unoriginal, how MUNDANE, how DROLL…but if it’s the ONLY thing people can agree too, then give Japan 1 transport in SZ 33 in addition to what they have.

A bid does change things up - use the cash how you see fit.  The way you use a bid can be very original.  And it doesn’t just balance teh game, it balances unequal player.

It is THE best way to balance a game.

I disagree.  I think it is the worst way to balance the game (things worse than bidding do not even balance the game.)  Unit locations should be static from game to game, else, why wouldn’t Larry just say “Germany has 500 IPC, Japan has 500 IPC, Italy has 200 IPC, England has 300 IPC, Russia has 300 IPC, America has 250 IPC, China has 50 IPC, India has 100 IPC and Australia has 100 IPC to spend on any units to be placed on any territory they control at the start of the game.”  Eh?  It’s effectively just “bidding” we’re just taking it to one extreme to demonstrate how pitiful a method, I feel, it is at balance the game.

Heck, there are unit values for Chess, why not bid for Chess too?  If Bidding is superior then maybe someone wants to trade a knight in for 3 pawns?