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

No.  Due to the conveluted nature of a strategy game of this magnitude.

If you had to rigorously prove that each and every contingency supported your statement, you would:

A) go insane
B) never get every contingency covered
C) never have anyone read your treatise as it would now be the maximum permitted length of at least 3 or 4 full posts
D) have some twit say “you didn’t take into account that I magically know exactly what you are going to do three rounds from now, so I know to buy this item” types of arguments (which are strawmen, technically speaking.  In a game, you would NEVER know what will happen three rounds from now, you can guess, you can make assumptions based on how the board currently looks that round, but you’ll never know exactly what is going to happen.)

However, the converse is not true.  If you state that a hypothesis is false, all you have to show is one instance of it being false.  This is why it is the preferred method of mathematicians (and later scientists, the lazy b@stards taking our ideas and calling it their own…scientific method my arse, it’s the mathematical method! we came up with it first!).  For instance, the statement that the addition of any two integers is an even integer is false because it can be shown that the summation of an odd integer and an even integer results in an odd integer.  However, have you tried to prove that all integers when added to themselves are even?  Yea.  Good luck!  No offense intended, we had to do it as a rhetorical exercise to demonstrate the benefits of “proof by contradition” and why it was vastly superior to other types of proofs in some circumstances.

This game is one of those circumstances.

If one truely believes my statement that America is too powerful and thus should be dinged in some manner to make it possible for Japan to win the game through superior game strategy, then I want a “proof by contradiction.”  One such argument has been made: Retreating the Japanese navy to the Atlantic Ocean.  We have no details, but the hypothesis has been laid out and now we have something to test.

I thought of jumping in, but then realized that I had to read 42 pages…

@jim010:

I thought of jumping in, but then realized that I had to read 42 pages…

You don’t-start at pg. 37 from Jen’s comments- good starting point right now.

I’m guessing this is the strat you will be using against me?

Guess I’ll have to start reading those REALLY LONG posts…  :cry:

… I’m going to need alot of stamina …

Who knows?  I might go all into the Atlantic.  Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no?  lol

Sorry, I meant Questioneer.  I have never played you.

@Cmdr:

Who knows?  I might go all into the Atlantic.  Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no?  lol

@jim010:

Sorry, I meant Questioneer.  I have never played you.

@Cmdr:

Who knows?  I might go all into the Atlantic.  Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no?  lol

Yes, but you will one day…I have faith this will turn into a tournament or the official league game and then you’ll want to go get rated and we’ll eventually play.

…then you’ll want to go get rated…

I already come highly rated.  :wink:

@Cmdr:

@eudemonist:

I strongly believe waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a death sentence right out of the gate.

Between Kwangtung, Phillipines, Borneo, Java, and FIC, you’re talking about a 30 ipc swing in territory alone, makes up for the extra U.S. objective money. On top of that, add maybe four bucks from disrupting ANZAC convoys (and four bucks hurts a LOT when you start with ten) and another couple from interdicting off Malaya.  You lose 10 ipcs from not getting the peace bonus, but convoy damage you can inflict offsets some of that, you’re halfway to controlling the DEI, you’re taking away a 5 ipc USNO, and you can stomp on India and Australia’s navy while they’re still tiny.

For a modest income boost early in the game, you are handing the Americans 75 IPC + the ability to drop 10 units a round into the Pacific?  This does not seem wise.  In fact, I have play tested it and I happen to know this is not wise.  America can recover from early losses, Japan can never recover from a single loss, anywhere.

Handing them 75ipcs?  I guess you’re talking about their bonus 25?  I think, if you look at the math, attacking J2 instead of J4 actually only “hands” them 25, as they would collect the bonus at the end of US3 anyhow.  The VERY MOST you could hand them would be 50, with a J1 attack.  Hyperbolic math does not help your case.

Did I mention we’re talking about a thirty IPC swing in territories, which makes up for that 25?

I have also playtested it quite a bit, and have reached a very different conclusion than you.

@jim010:

Sorry, I meant Questioneer.  I have never played you.

@Cmdr:

Who knows?  I might go all into the Atlantic.  Only problem there is it’s really easy on Japan to get a VC win without America very heavily invested in the Pacific…but it sure would throw whoever I play off their game, no?  lol

Yes, I am playing that strat with you.  I’m actually glad you know ahead of time to see if you can do something about it- makes for a good playtest. :-)

@jim010:

…then you’ll want to go get rated…

I already come highly rated.  :wink:

Endorsed by 9 out of 10 Doom bots!

Endorsed by 9 out of 10 Doom bots!

The 10th Doombot was defective and had to be destroyed.

Yes, I am playing that strat with you.  I’m actually glad you know ahead of time to see if you can do something about it- makes for a good playtest. :-)

After looking at this, it will be hard to come up with a counter.  It’s more of a philosophy than a strategy, so there will be no set moves.  I doubt any 2 games will look the same.  I’ll see what I can do.

One thing that may worth considering here is that shifting some US NOs over to the Atlantic may be better for the overall fun factor of the game.

Even if the “US 100% Pacific” strat isn’t broken, but merely viable, do we want it to be viable?  Isn’t one of the design goals to have the US be at least somewhat active on both boards?  In previous versions of AaA, KGF (to the point of basically ignoring Japan with the US) became a common and effective strategy.  G40/Alpha2 took great pains to make sure ignoring Japan with the US is no longer viable.  I would assume that allowing the US to instead go KJF and ignore Europe is equally undesirable.

@jim010:

Yes, I am playing that strat with you.  I’m actually glad you know ahead of time to see if you can do something about it- makes for a good playtest. :-)

After looking at this, it will be hard to come up with a counter.  It’s more of a philosophy than a strategy, so there will be no set moves.  I doubt any 2 games will look the same.  I’ll see what I can do.

It does make it harder.  Much akin to handling the 3 on 1 games of yester-year where it was more overall strategy and less “do this, then that…”

I find any overly detailed strategy becomes easy to thwart, primarily because it’s overly detailed!  Just kill one step, and you kill the micro-managed strategy.

That would work if the strategy can be countered.  The India Crush could not be countered.

It might only go to show that this may be the first time a movement philosophy made a game imbalanced for one side, since exact moves are not really what unlocks the key to winning. This only shows that some ideas can’t be understood unless you play the game by adopting this ‘Philosophy’.

I hope Jim can somehow crack the code like he did with Sealion.

Well, in the old days when there were only 6 German territories (Germany, S. Europe, W. Europe, E. Europe, Finland/Norway and Ukraine) detailing exact moves was a lot more simple.  Now adays there are seventeen sea zones; SZ 4, SZ 5, SZ 7, SZ 8, SZ 15, SZ 16, SZ 17, SZ 18, SZ 19, SZ 20, SZ 21, SZ 22, SZ 23, SZ 25, SZ 26, SZ 33 and SZ 35 all as sea zones from which SZ 6 may be attacked, and that doesn’t even factor in the possibility of a Naval base in Alaska or French Indo China.

It is MUCH harder to detail how and where to set up your attacks now.  There is so much flux to deal with, it’s more than a flux capacitor can handle!  (Fine, I didn’t need to add that comment.  I wanted to though!)

Not to mention, with Airbases and aircraft carriers at naval bases, there is a HUGE attacking force that can come from all over the board to attack one sea zone, making it all that much harder to keep an eye on every possible attack situation and contend with it.  It’s one of the reasons I think Japan will get pushed back to SZ 6, it just cannot handle all these ships attacking from different angles with different units coming to help.  Hell, a strategic bomber on Hawaii can attack SZ 6 and land on Guam.  The same bomber on Guam can get to India or vice versa.

So really, giving a detailed list of how to move your units around the board would take WAY too long to write out, let alone, the only people reading it would be hunting for the one inconsistency to take out (probably out of context) in an effort to make it as if someone said something they did not or to impune the character of the person making the detailed post.

Yes, there really are people out there that will take a quote out of context and use it thusly.  I know, hard to believe, but they exist.

@Cmdr:

There is so much flux to deal with, it’s more than a flux capacitor can handle!  (Fine, I didn’t need to add that comment.  I wanted to though!)

oooo flux jokes.

There’s so much flux, you couldn’t solder with it!

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23121.new#new

Empirical evidence.  It is round 8.  Japan is contained.  Italy is a monster, but they are on the way out.  America has put 8 new destroyers in SZ 101 leaving a build of 3 destroyers to replace losses along the picket of Japan.  Part of the Japanese fleet has retreated to the Red Sea, but has been marginalized by British and Australian forces. (neither side can win, which means the allies win, in this situation.)  New Britian has been an absolute THORN in my side, having lost 6 ground units to clear it, but that is no longer an issue and Australia should be getting both their NOs this coming round.

Russia has (miraculously according to some) survived Germany and in the invasion of it’s far eastern territories by Japan.

China is still here with their fighter.

England has been lost to Germany, but again, so what?

Italy controls the Middle East, but that won’t last long, as you can see. (Latest map attached for convenience.)

American forces are in China.  (4 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 3 Armor and 3 Strategic Bombers.)  I could have taken Okinawa and Formosa, but saw no need.  I probably should have taken Formosa at least, but eh.  I didn’t see it until NCMs, so…

Anyway, proof of concept.

Edit: Removing the term “miraculous.”  There was no miracle.  The comment was meant to drive home the point that those who claim Russia cannot survive alone against the Europeans are incorrect.  Germany/Italy control zero Russian territories as of the end of Australia Round 8.

Bo_v_Jen_03_08Daustralia.AAM