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

You guys need to get your head out of the way the old games were played.  A capital falling is less of a deal these days.

The game isn’t over JUST because Russia dies either.  If the Allies hold Paris, Rome, or Egypt the Axis is SOL.  Same goes for the Pacific,  is the game over because India gets conquered?  No.  And nothing seems WRONG to me at all.  The game is well balanced.

People fail to realize that because of the scale of the game, Capitals falling - aren’t as end game as they used to be.

I’m struggling to understand your point of contention.  You are saying that you don’t want to see sea lion, and it’s the best axis strategy - nothing allies can do, but then you also say that if U.K. plays it right, sea-lion is “Disasterous” for Germany.  Is that not a total contradiciton?  And an admission that the game is dependant on your player strategy?  And not the setup?

What’s the hope you guys are looking for?  Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible?  Wow thanks for reducing the game options.  That’s what makes global great,  the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win,  not engage in a scripted out roll fest.

And that doesn’t seem wrong to you?  The Axis lost the game because they conquered England?

It depends on what it cost the axis to take england in the first place.

And I never said the Axis CAN’T win because they took england.  Infact I believe they are more likely to.

But, it doesn’t mean that thegame is over.  And taking england does not constitue an isntant “game win”  It’s quite an investment by germany to take out England - and depletes them of MANY of their precious resources needed elsewhere.

As the overall allies you need to have a plan in place to prevent the fall of England - by winning the battle, or making it so costly that it’s not worth it.  OR  Also have a plan in place to LIBERATE England if it falls. As quickly as possible.

@Gargantua:

You guys need to get your head out of the way the old games were played.  A capital falling is less of a deal these days.

The game isn’t over JUST because Russia dies either.  If the Allies hold Paris, Rome, or Egypt the Axis is SOL.  Same goes for the Pacific,  is the game over because India gets conquered?  No.  And nothing seems WRONG to me at all.  The game is well balanced.

Are you talking individualy or global?  India Crush was proven to break Pacific.

People fail to realize that because of the scale of the game, Capitals falling - aren’t as end game as they used to be.

Maybe.  Russia falling is pretty indicative of where the game is going, barring extreme scenarios.

I’m struggling to understand your point of contention.  You are saying that you don’t want to see sea lion, and it’s the best axis strategy - nothing allies can do, but then you also say that if U.K. plays it right, sea-lion is “Disasterous” for Germany.  Is that not a total contradiciton?  And an admission that the game is dependant on your player strategy?  And not the setup?

He said it should be disasterous, not that it is.

What’s the hope you guys are looking for?  Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible?  Wow thanks for reducing the game options.  That’s what makes global great,  the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win,  not engage in a scripted out roll fest.

I want Sealion to be a 40 - 50% that early in the game.

And that doesn’t seem wrong to you?  The Axis lost the game because they conquered England?

It depends on what it cost the axis to take england in the first place.

@Gargantua:

And I never said the Axis CAN’T win because they took england.  Infact I believe they are more likely to.

But, it doesn’t mean that thegame is over.  And taking england does not constitue an isntant “game win”  It’s quite an investment by germany to take out England - and depletes them of MANY of their precious resources needed elsewhere.

As the overall allies you need to have a plan in place to prevent the fall of England - by winning the battle, or making it so costly that it’s not worth it.  OR  Also have a plan in place to LIBERATE England if it falls. As quickly as possible.

I’ll grant you that its not automatic.  Not using the TTs properly, ineffective Japan etc.  I get that.

But with all things being equal, there’s issues.  Its the best chance Axis have to win, so it is the opener that will be used

Problem is with the new victory conditions.  How do you invest into keeping Germany contained with UK out of the game/liberate them and with keeping Japan from getting its 6 VCs?  I haven’t seen it done yet in Alpha 2.  Its Axis best chance to win, and it shouldn’t be.

I agree.  If London falls on Germany 2 or 3 (granted, 3 is a better option), it seems plausible that the game cannot continue.  Why?

The cash, as I said before.
The transports are not wasted, they can be used to protect N. Africa (Landing in Morrocco for instance, with the Shipyard in Gibraltar, Germany’s still in a strong position with the fleet, now even threatening Washington DC and Ottowa) and to hold Scandinavia from Russia.

With no threat from the sea (and really, what possible threat do the allies pose from the see with no England to unit fleets and no air bases to hold planes and, of course, no place to set up D-Day) Germany has nothing to do but hit Russia and counter American fleet builds.

I do not think Germany even needs to take Russia.  They just have to counter build and, IMHO, that means building 2 infantry for every 3 Russia builds. (Since Russia has no NOs to collect because of a submarine in SZ 125, this shouldnt be hard.)

So we are talking 60 IPC for Germany, per round, vs 40 IPC for Russia per round give or take.  America is either building like mad in the Atlantic and thus losing the game because of VCs in the Pacific, or building significantly in the Pacific and thus not building enough to sink the Germans and liberate Africa/England.

All in all, I would LOVE for someone to prove me wrong, we can start the game on G4 after England falls, before Russia declares war using SOP builds, movements as a guide there are plenty of games to look at for reference on what should be where; but I do not think it possible for the allies to win any longer.  Especially if you start with a Japan 1 Sneak Attack on Euro-American ships.

Starting G4 after england falls doesn’t work.  Because there are literally dozens of decisions and conditions Britian makes and adheres to until that time.  That the finale all depends on.

It’s only fair to playtest from start to finish. Give the United Kingdom the CHANCE to defend itself however it wants to.

As for winning in the pacific, YES  India crush for OOB was a solid maneuver.  But with the new Global Victory Conditions and Alpha +2 rules, one only needs to stall Japan Long enough (Hold Hawaii and Sydney) to Prevent a Japanese Victory.  Again there are decisions to be made on how to allocate local British resources.  Not saying that it’s easy to defeat Japan, but I don’t think it’s unbalanced.  The Japanese have to focus or they will lose.  Personally I believe for the Axis, victory on the Pacific board is easier and more likely than the Europe board.

I’m just talking about the global board here.

Jim I do think I owe you a game.

You had a solid OOB strategy for Japan in the past, but due to my deliquance, we didn’t finish that game, and I at the time also disagreed with you and was proven incorrect.

Perhaps it is time we battle again, this time for real.

Alpha + 2,  roll a dice to determine tech  1,2,3 NO 4,5,6, YES, I’ll also give you the German -3 interdiction ability because I am a big believer in it.

You’re the Axis, I’m the Allies.  Let’s see if your strategy leads to as much of an unbalanced game as you believe.  May the better General win.  Start the game anytime, and send me a PM.  It’s on! :P

Gargantua, I’ll play, but not tech as it is too variable.  But you’ll need to wait until I finish a game, as I have 3 going.

What is -3 interdiction?

@jim010:

Gargantua, I’ll play, but not tech as it is too variable.  But you’ll need to wait until I finish a game, as I have 3 going.

What is -3 interdiction?

He’s referring to the optional rule that allows German subs (and german subs alone) to disrupt convoys @ 3 IPCs per sub rather than 2.

I’ll play without that then.

Straight up Alpha 2.  Since I have many games going, it will be slow, though.

Thats fine.  Slow’s ok.  Start whenever you like.

I think you should consider your -3 interdiction!  It really adds a strategic element, alot of fun for something simple.  But play how you like.

I’m OK with no Tech.

Looking forward to Battle SOON!

@Gargantua:

You’re the Axis, I’m the Allies.  Let’s see if your strategy leads to as much of an unbalanced game as you believe.  May the better General win.  Start the game anytime, and send me a PM.  It’s on! :P

Watching with interest

@Gargantua:

You guys need to get your head out of the way the old games were played.  A capital falling is less of a deal these days.

The game isn’t over JUST because Russia dies either.  If the Allies hold Paris, Rome, or Egypt the Axis is SOL.  Same goes for the Pacific,  is the game over because India gets conquered?  No.  And nothing seems WRONG to me at all.  The game is well balanced.

People fail to realize that because of the scale of the game, Capitals falling - aren’t as end game as they used to be.

I disagree. If Moscow has fallen, it’s game over unless that Axis is doing something terribly bad. Probably by then the Axis will have huge economic advantage and destroy one enemy great power totally. Of course, this is not the same in case a minor power capital, but even then is a huge setback (even if it’s Sidney). France is an exception for obvious reasons.

Note that if London falls against 2-4 land units and a mass of planes (bad luck or bad planning) is still game over in most of cases. In fact, the only case when a capital falls and is not yet game over is the planned G3/G4 Sea Lion, and just because Germany spends almost the same that wins by taking the capital … and this only in teory (I’d love to see if USA can retake and hold London, because trading London would be even worst)

The problem is always the same: the rule that prevents powers without capital from building new units. Without it, it would be still very bad losing the capital but at least the loser would have a chance. It’s totally ricudulous in case of UK: if Canada and Australia are at war with Germany still (they don’t become neutrals), why they cannot build units?

@Gargantua:

What’s the hope you guys are looking for?  Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible?  Wow thanks for reducing the game options.  That’s what makes global great,  the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win,  not engage in a scripted out roll fest.

I agree that the game should allow Sea Lion, but not one that means the end of the game. By now, G1 AC + dd purchase is good for your general strat, doesn’t forces you to go Sea Lion but can be the start. This means that UK MUST buy many infs to hold England just because of the fantasy world capital rules. As UK, I would like have the option of risk a bit, like say, buying enough to defend against a G2 attack but not enough to a G3 Sea Lion … the germans could try Sea Lion or not, but any case, UK could still build from Canada and SAF if things go bad… as it would be in real life. Also, multiplayer games MUST be taken into account, because this is a game too big to be played 1 to 1 many times

The worst decisicion that Larry taken in alpha series is get rid of the exilied capital rule that he gave to UK.

Agreed with Gargantua. Successful Sealion is certainly not the end of the game. How many of you have been playing out games fully, and how many? Is Russia again just buying infantry when they see Germany build a navy? Is the UK running scared from Italy? US wringing their hands instead of planning for invasion? If you aren’t playing to meet and beat the Axis strategy, then yeah, you are going to lose, and no, the setup shouldn’t be altered to accommodate timid Allied players.

The global balance is closer than it’s ever been. I’m not ready to say it’s finished, but it’s good and close.

a lot of good points funcioneta.

I really would like to see Sealion become a secondary strategy as well.

I agree, Sealion should not be the default strategy.

I have tried to play against a succesful T3 Sealion. And though its not game over for the allies, it certainly is uphill from there. I would say against good axis players its a very hard win and you need a lot of luck for it to happen.

If Sealion is 40 - 50%, then I’m happy.  I’d likely play other strats.  I’d only do Sealion if I was up against a superior player, then.

I do see potential of getting the numbers that low, but UK would have to ignore Italy turn 1 … and Germany wouldn’t have even bought its TTs yet.

Of course, this is not the same in case a minor power capital

What you need to realized, is that U.K. London IS an allied minor power, or at best, medium power.  They can easily become bankrupt quickly, like India or Anzac.  Hence not the end of the game if london falls -depending on how it falls.

It’s totally ricudulous in case of UK: if Canada and Australia are at war with Germany still (they don’t become neutrals), why they cannot build units?

Australia CAN and DOES build it’s own units.  Thus it IS seperated.  So is U.K. India  a Seperate power.  How many seperations do you need or want?  Too many interferes with the nature of the GAME remaining a GAME.  If you lose your king in Chess - you lose the game, it doesn’t matter if every other piece is still on the board, otherwise it wouldn’t be a game.

And technically, U.K. India is it’s own POWER - that does fight on after the fall of London, with south african and canadian units.  without the capture the capital rules,  what would happen to all the french income?  a minor in FIC?  Vichy Rules?  Ugly either way…

You don’t see Germany divided into minors like Romania, Finland, Denmark, Bulgaria.  You see it as a whole,  with a single seperation that is Italy.  But without a global effort it’s meaningless.  Germany doesn’t get the automatic Vichy bonus like other A&A Variants either.  And sea-lion was a reasonably realistic option for hitler if he committed to it fully.

Why isn’t China divded into quarrelling states?  Red, Nationalist and other?  Because it’s no good for game balance.

Realize that this is a GAME, and for the sake of said GAME, the rules are perfect.

The balance is good.  The strategies, and player experience are what vary most.

Functionetta I’ve notice you have a game balance complaint for EVERY version of Axis and Allies, often before you have even played a game of it.  Maybe do your homework before you make comments, or take a step back whilst people who’ve played the game and learned from experience make community contributions.

@Funcioneta:

@Gargantua:

What’s the hope you guys are looking for?  Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible?  Wow thanks for reducing the game options.  That’s what makes global great,  the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win,  not engage in a scripted out roll fest.

I agree that the game should allow Sea Lion, but not one that means the end of the game. By now, G1 AC + dd purchase is good for your general strat, doesn’t forces you to go Sea Lion but can be the start. This means that UK MUST buy many infs to hold England just because of the fantasy world capital rules. As UK, I would like have the option of risk a bit, like say, buying enough to defend against a G2 attack but not enough to a G3 Sea Lion … the germans could try Sea Lion or not, but any case, UK could still build from Canada and SAF if things go bad… as it would be in real life. Also, multiplayer games MUST be taken into account, because this is a game too big to be played 1 to 1 many times

The worst decisicion that Larry taken in alpha series is get rid of the exilied capital rule that he gave to UK.

I definitely agree. Ahistorical rules will give the game ahistorical results. He refuses to take that next step though and keeps trying to come up with artificial fixes.

And Gargantua, Canada is not the same as Romania and hungary and the china’s. If we have australia, no Canada is ridiculous. The only reason we have one and not the other is that some idiot had the marketing idea to make the game into two separate games released and made at different times (which is why we have so many problems b/c they didn’t work together). the thinking was that australia had more influence in the pacific than canada had in europe. But in terms of the world, they each had the same influence. Canada as a power would solve so many problems. And while you’re right that we can’t just make random divisions, that might result in bad game balance, we also can’t make random divisions that result in good, yet artificial game balance. Ex. India. Another crap example of the two separate games theory. Why is everyone ok with this? It’s total bs. We’ve never used India that way b/c it’s not historical. It wasn’t a separate power. India really didn’t care who won the war, they wanted independence. The U.K. was at war with the axis. Not UkE and UKP. They would have not fought on any more than africa after England’s capture. They would have fought some, just like the rest of the empire, but not more. They should stop producing income and be included with the rest of the U.K. in an exiled capital/ free British rule of some sort. This is the worst possible way to represent a divided income and fighting after sealion that Larry could possibly come up with. Ok, maybe not the worst, but it’s a half-ass cheap way that causes many problems. Kind of like our government trying to manipulate things w/o understanding the consequences.