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

@JimmyHat:

<snip>I was wondering what will be best for the UK to do to assist in this strategy. </snip>

Basically - avoid being invaded successfully :D
And then harass Germany/support Russia IMO.

@Xandax:

@JimmyHat:

<snip>I was wondering what will be best for the UK to do to assist in this strategy. </snip>

Basically - avoid being invaded successfully :D
And then harass Germany/support Russia IMO.

Indeed. UK needs to survive.

Also, spare a few subs as USA to help the UK out in the Atlantic. (call it the 95% Pacific Strat ;)  )

Does the Axis know if you are going to go all-Pacific? If not, place your USA purchases in a way this is not all too clear at first. For example: aircrafts in E-USA, ground troops in Central USA (up to 1 turn before you want to leave) and naval units in W-USA. Being on each ends of the board makes it easy to over-see the amount of units that will gather then next turn.

Greetings,
I’m new to posting on the boards but I have an idea about the USA. It could be done in a somewhat historical fashion.
1. All US forces are frozen at starting positions except West Coast. The US can build in the PAcific and move only between US west coast and Europe board freely (don’t remember SZ numbers for shortest route). If the US moves forces from West Coast to Hawaii Those forces are now frozen (remember the US fleet was moved to Pearl as a warning to Japan or something like that).
2. US DOW triggers:
    A. Japan DOW on UK/ANZAC
    B. Japan takes all of China.
    C. Japan attacks USA.
    D. USA combat move turn 4.  Note no NO’s on T3.
3. Japan loses FIC NO after taking 3 China territories (Jap agression in Asia causes US embargo).
4. If Japan DOW USA before turn 4, conduct a special sneak attack turn. ALL US forces outside of the WEST Coast defend at a 1.

This would actually encourage Japan to actually attack the US before T4. It somewhat forces them to if they are agressive in Chian (loss of NO).
And it also give Japan the ability to do a Pearl Harbor.
FYI: We play this game with 5-6 people in a club and it is a whole different game vs 1 on 1. We use Alpha +2. As of now we have had more victories as Axis than Allies, but overall think it is somewhat balanced depending on players.

@Cmdr:

In exchange, maybe move the Med fleet to India.  There should be no significant British pressence in the Med at the start of the game…puh-lease, if there should be a carrier there, give me a link showing me what HMS carrier was in the Med in 1940, otherwise, it’s a “crappy” placement, IMHO.

I’m sorry, I know this is so many pages back, and I apologise if someone already answered this, but um, Taranto? British Aircraft from HMS Illustrious bombed the Italian Fleet at anchor in its main base in Taranto in 1940. The British Mediterranean Fleet was actually quite large, having several battleships and actually more than one aircraft carrier, as HMS Glorious and the older carrier HMS Eagle were also there. What did you think the planes that attacked Taranto were launched from destroyers?

@Lord:

@Cmdr:

In exchange, maybe move the Med fleet to India.  There should be no significant British pressence in the Med at the start of the game…puh-lease, if there should be a carrier there, give me a link showing me what HMS carrier was in the Med in 1940, otherwise, it’s a “crappy” placement, IMHO.

I’m sorry, I know this is so many pages back, and I apologise if someone already answered this, but um, Taranto? British Aircraft from HMS Illustrious bombed the Italian Fleet at anchor in its main base in Taranto in 1940. The British Mediterranean Fleet was actually quite large, having several battleships and actually more than one aircraft carrier, as HMS Glorious and the older carrier HMS Eagle were also there. What did you think the planes that attacked Taranto were launched from destroyers?

The Mediterranean was a traditional focus of British maritime power. Out-numbered by the forces of Regia Marina, the British plan was to hold the three decisive strategic points of Gibraltar, Malta, and the Suez Canal. By holding these points, the Mediterranean Fleet held open vital supply routes. Malta was the lynch-pin of the whole system. It provided a needed stop for Allied convoys and a base from which to attack the Axis supply routes.

Note: Regia Marina was the Italian Navy.  Thus, it is said, the Italian navy had MORE ships than the British navy in the Med in 1940.  So while there may have been a carrier present in the Med with which to launch an airial attack, the Italians had more ships than the British with which to absorb said attack.  This is not represented on the game board.

The warships of the Royal Navy (Regia Marina) had a general reputation as well-designed. Italian small attack craft lived up to expectations and were responsible for many brave and successful actions in the Mediterranean.

So essentially, if we are to leave the British fleet in the Med, perhaps to be more historically accurate we should add more Italian destroyers.  Thus the Italian fleet would “out-number” the British AND would be more representative of their “well-designed” and “brave” reputations?

More than 60 U-boats were sent to disrupt shipping in the sea, though many were already attacked at the Strait of Gibraltar controlled by Britain (of which nine were sunk while attempting passage and ten more were damaged).

Perhaps Germany should have a few U-Boats in the Med too?  If we are going for realism.

Okay, so it’s probably a bit ridiculous to just add 2 Italian destroyers and 1 or 2 German U-boats, it would unbalance the game, I think.  Unless it was rebalanced.

If you want it to be more realistic, then move the British fleet from SZ 98 to SZ 96, they were there to protect Malta, not Egypt.  Add 2 destroyers and a cruiser to the Italian fleet in SZ 97, but remove the Battleship.  Italy out numbered the British, but they were “well known” for their “highly effective small warships”.  Further, add 1 or 2 German U-Boats in SZ 92 to represent the German campaign in the Med.

The state of the Malta defences was poor, verging on non-existent. This stemmed from a pre-war conclusion that the island was indefensible and should not be defended.

Given that information, remove the British infantry from Malta to represent the “poor” defenses.  However, since it was the “lynch pin” in the Med (providing a way station between Egypt and Gibraltar) it is plausible to think there should be more aircraft present, so add a fighter. (Note, this fighter is more intended to counter the increased Naval units of Italy which has traded 1 battleship in for 2 destroyers and a cruiser.  Italy + 7 punch - 4 Punch = 3 Punch, England + 3 Punch, it’s a wash with combat values, but Italy gets an added hit which should make the Italian fleet a bit more survivable.)

Above the single line, quotes are my thoughts, unquoted text comes from internet searches.  Below the single line quoted text comes form internet searches.

@Cmdr:

The Mediterranean was a traditional focus of British maritime power. Out-numbered by the forces of Regia Marina, the British plan was to hold the three decisive strategic points of Gibraltar, Malta, and the Suez Canal. By holding these points, the Mediterranean Fleet held open vital supply routes. Malta was the lynch-pin of the whole system. It provided a needed stop for Allied convoys and a base from which to attack the Axis supply routes.

Indeed, Malta was extremely important, and every effort was made to sustain it.

Note: Regia Marina was the Italian Navy.  Thus, it is said, the Italian navy had MORE ships than the British navy in the Med in 1940.  So while there may have been a carrier present in the Med with which to launch an airial attack, the Italians had more ships than the British with which to absorb said attack.  This is not represented on the game board.

The Italian Navy had six battleships in the Med in 1940, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham had 5, HMS Malaya, HMS Barham, HMS Valiant, HMS Warspite and HMS Ramillies, as well as the Battlercruiser HMS Renown, and the carriers HMS Glorious, HMS Illustrious, and HMS Eagle. The Italian fleet was clearly outmatched entirely. In fact, it failed miserably in just about every major fleet action, even where it outnumbered the British.

The warships of the Royal Navy (Regia Marina) had a general reputation as well-designed. Italian small attack craft lived up to expectations and were responsible for many brave and successful actions in the Mediterranean.

Such as? The Trieste was sunk with one shell from HMS Barham in literally seconds. As was the Fiume at Cape Matapan. The only “successful action” I can think of was the attack by Italian Frogmen on HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant at Alexandria.

So essentially, if we are to leave the British fleet in the Med, perhaps to be more historically accurate we should add more Italian destroyers.  Thus the Italian fleet would “out-number” the British AND would be more representative of their “well-designed” and “brave” reputations?

I can agree with this.

More than 60 U-boats were sent to disrupt shipping in the sea, though many were already attacked at the Strait of Gibraltar controlled by Britain (of which nine were sunk while attempting passage and ten more were damaged).

Perhaps Germany should have a few U-Boats in the Med too?  If we are going for realism.

This I can agree with as well, though it was not until September, 1941 that the first U-Boat, U-371, entered the Med.

Okay, so it’s probably a bit ridiculous to just add 2 Italian destroyers and 1 or 2 German U-boats, it would unbalance the game, I think.  Unless it was rebalanced.

If you want it to be more realistic, then move the British fleet from SZ 98 to SZ 96, they were there to protect Malta, not Egypt.  Add 2 destroyers and a cruiser to the Italian fleet in SZ 97, but remove the Battleship.  Italy out numbered the British, but they were “well known” for their “highly effective small warships”.  Further, add 1 or 2 German U-Boats in SZ 92 to represent the German campaign in the Med.

The British Fleet was not there to protect Malta, it could not. The German and Italian aircraft based in Sicily would chew it up. The main British Fleet in the Med was confined to the Eastern Med, to protect Egypt, as well as Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Cyprus and to give encouragement to Turkey and Greece. The British would conduct raids in the central Med but they could not stay there long because of the close proximity of Axis aircraft. As for the dispositions you mentioned, I quite like that idea.

The state of the Malta defences was poor, verging on non-existent. This stemmed from a pre-war conclusion that the island was indefensible and should not be defended.

Given that information, remove the British infantry from Malta to represent the “poor” defenses.  However, since it was the “lynch pin” in the Med (providing a way station between Egypt and Gibraltar) it is plausible to think there should be more aircraft present, so add a fighter. (Note, this fighter is more intended to counter the increased Naval units of Italy which has traded 1 battleship in for 2 destroyers and a cruiser.  Italy + 7 punch - 4 Punch = 3 Punch, England + 3 Punch, it’s a wash with combat values, but Italy gets an added hit which should make the Italian fleet a bit more survivable.)

Above the single line, quotes are my thoughts, unquoted text comes from internet searches.  Below the single line quoted text comes form internet searches.

I quite like your ideas. I might adopt them as House Rules, I’d only throw one German sub in though, Germany has enough subs in the Atlantic to begin with, and I’d keep the British Fleet in the Eastern Med, covering Egypt and the Middle-East.

Claremorris:

Yes, I believe I mentioned the flaw in the Italian armor on their cruisers.  The ship you mentioned was a cruiser, hence, it died to one shell hit (allegedly, I claim no ownership on your statement).

However, it is clear by a google search (German Warships Med) that the sole purpose of the British fleet in the Med was to protect Malta and the shipping lanes from Gibraltar to Egypt (of which, Malta was the lynch pin).  So I have to disagree with your disagreements until such time as you give me some references to support your claim.  As I said, use the search parameters above and you’ll get the same information I did to make these statements.

As for whether or not the British fleet “could” protect Malta, I have no comment.  I can only say they were sent there specifically to protect Malta, despite their ability or inability to do so.

As for German submarines, perhaps just moving a submarine from the Atlantic to the Med might be a solution?  Perhaps one of the submarines that can hit SZ 106 but not SZ 91, that way you might give England the boost they need to win against a G3 Sea Lion as well (unless England does not build with the intention to stop Sea Lion.)

Two birds, one stone?

@Cmdr Jennifter,

I just played a game where my opponent went all in after Japan first with the first 5 or 6 turns of US spending.  I lost the game though I was able to sack Moscow with Germany.  The problem was Italy got beat in Africa because I never built the Baltic fleet as I choose the Romanian complext G1.  Since my opponent knew I was not going to Sea Lion he sank half of the Italian Navy UK1 and built troops to fight in Africa from UK1.

Japan and America did Naval dances in the Pacifc and I eventually ran away from him to try and help out in Cairo but it was too late as at the point America could spend 100% of its points in the Atlantic.

The highlight for me was the Romanian Complex helped me blast Moscow to the ground even though he had over 70 units sitting in Moscow when the final battle took place.

So I got beat like you said would happen :( I am not sure I played as good as I could of but does appear that attacking Japan first as the Allies is a good way too go.  I was probably too focused on getting Victory cities and not focused enough on winning the economic advantage.  Though I would also argue that stomping Italy to the ground is also a good way to good for the Allies :)

I believe that is the fundamental flaw, Frank.  Japan can zig and zag to avoid losing their fleet, but eventually, they will lose their income and be forced to pull back.  Germany can either go after Russia or England, but in either event, they cannot get enough Victory Cities to win before America comes in to help, or so it has been my experience thus far.

I think Frank has also learned why the Romanian IC is bad.  It telegraphs your moves so that UK knows it doesn’t have to worry about a sealion and can hit Italy hard.

You might have been okay Frank if you had bought fleet G1 and perhaps pushed your offensive on Russia back a turn.

@JimmyHat:

I think Frank has also learned why the Romanian IC is bad.  It telegraphs your moves so that UK knows it doesn’t have to worry about a sealion and can hit Italy hard.

You might have been okay Frank if you had bought fleet G1 and perhaps pushed your offensive on Russia back a turn.

The carrier/2 tran build makes England nervous and does give Germany the utility to reinforce Scandinavia.  I’m not a super fan of it yet, but I see merit in it.

@Cmdr:

Claremorris:

Yes, I believe I mentioned the flaw in the Italian armor on their cruisers.  The ship you mentioned was a cruiser, hence, it died to one shell hit (allegedly, I claim no ownership on your statement).

However, it is clear by a google search (German Warships Med) that the sole purpose of the British fleet in the Med was to protect Malta and the shipping lanes from Gibraltar to Egypt (of which, Malta was the lynch pin).  So I have to disagree with your disagreements until such time as you give me some references to support your claim.  As I said, use the search parameters above and you’ll get the same information I did to make these statements.

As for whether or not the British fleet “could” protect Malta, I have no comment.  I can only say they were sent there specifically to protect Malta, despite their ability or inability to do so.

As for German submarines, perhaps just moving a submarine from the Atlantic to the Med might be a solution?  Perhaps one of the submarines that can hit SZ 106 but not SZ 91, that way you might give England the boost they need to win against a G3 Sea Lion as well (unless England does not build with the intention to stop Sea Lion.)

Two birds, one stone?

From wiki;

"Malta, as part of the British Empire from 1814, was a shipping station and was the headquarters for the Mediterranean Fleet until the mid-1930s. Due to the perceived threat of air-attack from the Italian mainland, the fleet was moved to Alexandria, Egypt shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War. This decision contributed to the continuing ability of the Fleet to sustainably fight against the Axis forces.

There weren’t any warships in Valetta harbour, only submarines used Malta. As for the sea lanes, the Royal Navy failed to keep them open, only at great risk and great loss did Churchill send a few convoys direct through the Med. Otherwise traffic to Egypt was redirected around the Cape. So Malta was important, but its defence was not the most important, and much less the sole purpose of the Royal Navy’s presence in the Med.

As for the German subs, I’d be up to try that. Though that would mean one less sub to throw at the British ships around the UK on G1.

@JimmyHat:

I think Frank has also learned why the Romanian IC is bad.  It telegraphs your moves so that UK knows it doesn’t have to worry about a sealion and can hit Italy hard.

You might have been okay Frank if you had bought fleet G1 and perhaps pushed your offensive on Russia back a turn.

You might be right about that but I wanted to give the Romanian Factory a try for myself.  I was amazed at how much it allowed me to just own Russia.  That being said it was too much for Italy to overcome after losing half their Navy and then have the UK building troops in the SA complex all on UK1.  The Baltic Fleet would have changed all that.

I am starting to think the game might still favor the Allies a bit.  Not saying it is anything like OBB but there are some hard Allied warplans to beat.  I have seen stomp Italy first be very effective while the US then bounces back over to Japan to make sure they can’t win the game.  At that point the Axis are playing with 2 strong countries but 1 next to broken one.  At that point it is hard to win the game on either side of the board victory city wise.  I have also seen reel in Japan first work really well as also.

That being said I may have been playing with too much of a focus on winning victory cities and not the economic advantage.  Maybe it would be better to focus on economics first and victory cities second.

I think it favors the allies a lot!  There are two nearly completely broken allied strategies thus far:

Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans
Pacific Domination

@Cmdr:

Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans

?? Explain please

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans

?? Explain please

9 or 10 Strategic Bombers hitting Germany, W. Germany each round capping damage as they go.

• 2 Bombers for France
• 3 or 4 Bombers for N. Italy
• 2 Bombers for S. Italy

As you gain more territories against the Axis and have landing zones.

Couldn’t they just buy fighters or something

Yes, but America would also send fighters, so Germany ends up losing fighters in the intercepts and taking damage to the complexes.

Where do fighter escorts stage for a bomb run on Germany?  Carriers off Denmark?