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?
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!
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
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?
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.
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.
I will clarify my position …
I don’t want Sealion as the best strategy to be used by the Axis. It will script the beginning of the game. G1 and UK1 will always look the same.
I am thinking I found a way for the Axis to win 80% of the time in 1940 Global. Filmatleven. (I’ll keep ya posted after I try it another 30 times against other players.)
It does not rely in “great” or even above average dice. It would most certainly be destroyed by ungodly bad dice, but what strat wouldnt?
I am thinking I found a way for the Axis to win 80% of the time in 1940 Global.
Is this for Alpha 2 or OOB? The odds can be greater in OOB, but I haven’t found a way of getting better than 78% in alpha 2. Odds drop heavily from there if UK starts pulling from the Med.
For Alpha 2, I like this strategy, because I haven’t committed to Sealion, and Italy gets out of turn 1 unscathed if UK pulls out. If UK doesn’t pull out, then I buy the TTs.
For OOB, I haven’t been able to find a way for UK to bring the odds down low enough that it becomes a risk for Germany.
Alpha 2, of course. It’s the Alpha 2 thread, yes? lol.
The strategy takes some out of the box thinking. It’s pretty weird so far and I am almost certain, if it was attempted with the OOB rules, it would probably fail abysmally.
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?
absolutelly agree!
(I’m not totally sure, but the USSR may should have an eastern factory (tankograd) to keep fighting)
@Cmdr:
Alpha 2, of course. It’s the Alpha 2 thread, yes? lol.
The strategy takes some out of the box thinking. It’s pretty weird so far and I am almost certain, if it was attempted with the OOB rules, it would probably fail abysmally.
Is it turn 3? I’m curious to what you came up with compared to what I have.
It’s by turn 5, victory city victory. (You have to hold it from Round 4 until Round 5.)
I partially agree with the government in exile. I agree England should have it. (Canada builds but collects 33% of what Europe England makes. Since Pacific England is not affected by the fall of London, and Australia is not effective, it matters not what they can or cannot build.)
so what, 28 IPC for territories, minus Jordan, Egypt, Scotland and England so 17 IPC. Figure 18, in case they have Jordan, easier to compute, so Canada would have 6 IPC to build with, Government in exile.
