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

On an even playing field, the balance of Alpha +.2 is PERFECT.

The problem is that the players are imperfect, it’s very much a SKILL based game.  No Skill = No victory.  Try to balance your teams with experienced players.

I would say the axis have a slight advantage.  Good axis play will have Russia bottled up in Moscow by turn 6.  Russia can hold out for awhile after that, but with little income and being isolated from her allies this gives me some concern.  But the jury is still out.  I would hope that the final version would err on the side of a slight allied advantage and balance with an axis bid.

With only a few Global Alpha +2 games played, we have found that the balance is very close…such that after 10 turns we’ve still had no clear advantage overall; Japan can get EMENSE, but still have very little impact on the Western side of the map, Italy can ‘control’ all of Africa, but still not be able to match-up with US earnings, etc.

What is interesting (in our group anyway) is that the balance leads to longer games and thus less chance that the original players can continue playing past 8 or 10 turns.  Not a problem if you can store the game (or record it) and come back to it, but often re-gathering may not be possible.

Typical human duality:  we crave balance and a good challenge (for both sides), but are frustrated by the result of the balance (much longer games).

Good strategy prevails.

A game conclusion can be met within a sitting - through a number of measures.  Most often, that measure being that a player can admit when he’s beat.

Timed turns and premeditated planning before game day, may be what it takes to get a turn out, and quickly.  Also, a lunch/dinner provided but not turning into a game break, is reccommended.

@Gargantua:

Good strategy prevails.

A game conclusion can be met within a sitting - through a number of measures.  Most often, that measure being that a player can admit when he’s beat.

Timed turns and premeditated planning before game day, may be what it takes to get a turn out, and quickly.  Also, a lunch/dinner provided but not turning into a game break, is reccommended.

Dont forget the coffee!

Germany is stronger militarily, which means the USSR is relatvely weaker in this version.  I would like to see more Soviet units on the boards, say in central Asia that can be moved up.  Otherwise, Germany steam rolls the USSR back without any chance of the USSR pushing back.

@Gargantua:

On an even playing field, the balance of Alpha +.2 is PERFECT.

The problem is that the players are imperfect, it’s very much a SKILL based game.  No Skill = No victory.  Try to balance your teams with experienced players.

Well said, and I agree precisely. :-)

I think it is near perfect.  The Alpha +2 set-up makes it a different game.

My opinion is that the axis has an advantage in alpha 2. I think that the axis can easily win, when they only need 6 victory cities in pacific map. I think that the setup is fine, but victory conditions should be as they are in global original, 14 victory cities for axis victory. All germany need to do is capture great Britain and draw Us attention to Europe. Japan receives so much IPC and can then easily capture the 6 cities. so we play with the original victory conditions

I think there are some minor changes that need to be made to make the game more palattable.

One: They have got to figure out a way to break up the turn order better.  It’s ungodly waiting for, essentially, 5 countries to go and even worse trying to use all 5 at the same time.  I feel it really slows down PBF and most likely, desk top play too.

One_Solution:  I feel a proper solution would be thus:

• (Axis) Germany
• (Ally) Russia
• (Axis) Japan
• (Ally) England Europe
• (Ally) England Pacific
• (Ally) ANZAC
• (Axis) Italy
• (Ally) America
• (Ally) China
• (Ally) France

Note, this also makes it more comfortable to play France which, by about Round 1, is essentially useless. Okay, maybe Round 2 or, at best I feel, Round 3.  I’ve had multiple opponents express wonder as to why France is sandwhiched between Italy and Germany in the turn order and I, personally, have contemplated just telling my opponent(s) what to do with the French guys - if anything - just so they can post Germany right away.

Also, I do not feel the change in the turn order would change the balance at all.  It is essentially the same turn order, except that America and China are back at the bottom of the turn order.  In other words, go back to the out of the box turn order for the countries.  The English and the Americans are still consecutive in the Pacific and only a minor Axis power lays between them in Europe.  I have not seen a benefit to the new order of play, only a mind-numbing detriment.

Possibly, I would consider (with some seriousness) swapping England 1 and 2 and ANZAC with China, America and France.  But I fear there would be backlash against Italy in the form of nerfing her navy.

Another change, I think would be beneficial to the balance of play, would be to move the Airbase in S. Italy to N. Italy.  I would, personally, also like to move the fighter to N. Italy and thus free up the German air force to counter the new scramble rules for England.  I feel this was a serious misjudgement by the play testers originally.

In the Pacific, I would like to see the British cruiser in SZ 39 exchanged for an Aircraft Carrier.  It has more utility and would give England more options for play, in my opinion.

Lastly, I think Japan needs a transport in the Carolines.  It was removed when we went into the Alpha versions and I do not think it helped to balance the game.

Axis advantage in this one.

Chime in and give your view! In other words, do we need any more changes to the rules and setup to make it a finished game? If so, what do we need? Tech rules rewrite, different unit placement, etc?

One word … bid.

I don’t see an Axis advantage in any of them, I just see lessening Allied advantage as each incarnation comes out.

Barring dice, things aren’t great.  In a low luck game, I’ll make the claim I’d win most of teh time as Axis (the loss due to the luck that is invovled in small close battles that can affect things).

I agree, here are a myriad of small battles that can skew the game, and LL does have it’s own massive skew (turns the distribution into a bi-modal curve with skewing more battles to losses and more battles to wins with far less draws.)

However, I still feel, the Axis do not stand a chance barring a really bad Alliance move, like under-defending London on UK 1.  (That too should be fixed, just put 5 more guys on London, save the risk of losing Sea Lion and force Germany to put more effort into it.)  Taht would be the ONLY buff to the allies I can think of.  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.

@Cmdr:

I agree, here are a myriad of small battles that can skew the game, and LL does have it’s own massive skew (turns the distribution into a bi-modal curve with skewing more battles to losses and more battles to wins with far less draws.) Usually, I would just go in with enough that it is not an issue, but there are a couple of battles at the start where I’ll win them all, but may take a couple of casualties that may hurt.  All in all, LL makes it much more predictable, and really shows the flaws.
However, I still feel, the Axis do not stand a chance barring a really bad Alliance move, like under-defending London on UK 1.  (That too should be fixed, just put 5 more guys on London, save the risk of losing Sea Lion and force Germany to put more effort into it.)  Taht would be the ONLY buff to the allies I can think of.  In LL, I WILL take London - no question. 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 agree that the game is getting more and more fanciful with each ‘revision’.

I am not seeing how you can take London for sure in LL, but I can see how it would force England to give up any pretext of holding Africa until America and Russia enter the fray.

Yes, LL does take the “swing” out of the game, but it is much more final.  2 Infantry + 1 Bomber vs 1 Infantry is an automatic win in LL, not in Dice.  That gets less significant as the size of a battle increases.  LL means very little when dealing with 75 Infantry, 30 Artillery, 50 Armor, 10 Fighters vs 150 Infantry, 10 Artillery, 40 Armor.

Final number for an attack on London is:
for Germany best case (if UK scrambles in sz111 and 110) - 12 inf, 4 art, 8 tanks, 1 fht, 4 tac, 1 bmb, 1 BB, 1 CA

vs

for London best case (if UK scrambles in sz111 and 110) - 24 inf, 3 tanks, 3 fht, 1 tac

Germany wins with 5 units 65%.  This is with EVERYTHING British that makes it to London.  In Low luck, it is 91%.

If UK does not scramble odds drop to 59% - 78% in Low luck.

Again, this is with UK leaving EVERYTHING alone with the sole purpose of turns 1 and 2 of getting everything back to London.

Thats a bloody aweful lot of Germans, are you making any attacks in that time?

In either event, it reinforces my opinion that England needs more infantry in the initial setup.

The only attacks made are on Paris and Yugo turn 1.  Not much else to hit in that time.