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.
UK Pacific should at least be allowed use of remaining euro board factories
Her strategy is a Japanese victory, with a likely ALL Axis ground units in Europe to India push.
You could even come around the horn from Nenestia with a German division, and drive south through Russia. Japan just has to take Hawaii and the obvious hong kong / Manilla. One might think it’s just a middle eastern strategy for economic gain… when suddenly it becomes SO much more.
Personally I find it much easier to win as the allies. It’s the Axis that can’t make mistakes. As long as the economics are kept in your favour - through your own intervention, and you remember what your strategic objectives are - and you keep it that way. You win hands down.
Her strategy is a Japanese victory, with a likely ALL Axis ground units in Europe to India push.
You could even come around the horn from Nenestia with a German division, and drive south through Russia. Japan just has to take Hawaii and the obvious hong kong / Manilla. One might think it’s just a middle eastern strategy for economic gain… when suddenly it becomes SO much more.
Ahh. I know this one. But I have not been able to get Japan’s 6 cities before turn 7 at the earliest.
Well that’s my guess anyways.
Otherwise it’s a sealion / Egypt capture, Perhaps a blitz through turkey G3 with an Armor stack. No J3 DOW. And a German Pincher movement G4 into Novogorad and Volvograd, with Italian can-opener support in the caucusus. The theory relies on a few strict mobility mechanics, and giving up some eastern german territory but it’s plausible.
You could also modify the strategy, with an exchange of Novogorod or Volvograd, for Ottawa using your sea-lion remnants. You only need to hold for a turn, and it’s not likely the Americans will be in a positions to strike IMMEDIATELY against a significant landing force of 8 or more ground units. Italians could support it too, or be responsible for the attack entirely.
Easily blocked if you see it however, and have the foresight to do something about the problem.
I think Alpha+2 is almost perfectly balanced.
The only bad part, in my opinion, is that Italy looses too much too easy. GB is able to sink most of the Italian fleet AND push him out of Tobruk in her first round. Italy is seriously crippled before it can do anything, and GB is still powerful in the Med after that.
Me and my group, we are thinking about putting the north Italian tactical bomber into South Italy. Hence the Italian can scramble one Aircraft more, if he wants, and GB has to choose between pushing him out of Africa or sinking his Fleet, or be very weak in the case of trying it all.
Moving the Tac is the smallest change possible to balance it more without changing too much of the Setup and thus, the game.
I would love to demonstrate my strategy to Gargantua. If he feels it is a push for Calcutta then he can prepare for it as he sees fit. smile However, if he changes his mind and figures he was wrong about a push for Calcutta - if it appears it is not a push for Calcutta - then he can adjust accordingly.
I do not want to give away my idea until I have polished it’s implementation. There is a counter to every strategy, almost, and I need to figure out what those are so I can figure out the counter to the counter.
Cryptic, but honestly, until I work it out, I don’t want to outline what the idea is and be made a fool with something as simple as just saying “well, if you NCM something here, you can stop the plan dead in its tracks.” I just need time, is all. As I did when I ironed out my Kill America First plan in Revised, I will write it up for the forums scrutiny - adjusting to repair holes as discovered by the community or scrapping it outright if there is no way to repair the strategy. However, I do feel that there is a way to make the game untennable for the allies, given non-radically outrageous dice (either pro or con, pro of course would be great for you, but says nothing about the strategy. Good dice beat good tactics every day, bad dice defeat even the best tactics almost every day.)
I will say it requires Operation Sea Lion to be set up, if not prosecuted by the Germans. You don’t HAVE to set up Sea Lion, but it does force the Americans to consider investing money in the Atlantic, which means less threat in the Pacific.
Interesting thread…
Right now I tend to agree with Gargantua on these issues. I think people need to play a few quality games before making a judgment.
Sorry Jen, I know you got some experience, but I’m not buying into some “Master Opening”. KAF for Revised…didn’t you steal that from Caspian Sub guys??? Is that the same as the z42 progression/Canadian Sheild hybrid??? Jen seriously…30 more games???..next your gonna tell me you’ll finish them all be next week right??? Haven’t we all heard this before from you??? Take your time, read all the rules carefully- there are quite a few changes- and play a few “quality” games, not mass number crunching :roll:
I currently have a few games in Alpha +2 going. Right now, I don’t see the any overwhelming advantage for Axis or Allies.
On Sealion…yes its possible under the right circumstances…if your Germany and the initial battles go your way you should pull the trigger…doesn’t guarantee a win…remember if you do it on G3 you bring the US into the war earlier!!! G4…although possible is some circumstances is suicide from what I can see…though I need to re-explore it a little more.
Japan seems to take longer to get their 6VCs because they have to go one direction then the other to sack the VCs they need.
Because Axis starts first, I divide the Axis openings into “Barbarossa” and “Sealion variants”. Well anyway I’ll give a full report on balance and strats later, still more playtesting to be done as I know we are all doing right now. :-)
the balance is not bad. I’ll still argue its slightly in an axis advantage. I stated before that I would like to err on the side of an allied advantage, but on further review I’ll make a case the other way:
An axis bid will only provide for a more effective sealion campaign. a low bid of just seven will get Germany another transport. Since the axis hold the innitiative, an axis bid is much more dangerous for the allies than the reverse. Since I’d like to see fewer Sealion campaigns maybe the set-up is right. Then the allied player’s bid can nuetralize a Sealion play.
How many of you have actually played a game where germany didn’t build ships on G1 or G2? Have any of you gone for Russia’s throat from the start? Seems all of this balance discussion take only into account a German Sealion approach. Every game I look up on the forum shows a German ship build on G1. And for the most part Japan leaves Russia alone. odd……
No, my Kill America First games came out before Csub published Canadian Shield, etc. Heck, I even helped CSub get their stuff formatted into PDF files which is why I have the collection. However, my KAF stages from the Carolines and does not require Germany to assist whereas, CSub staged from Japan and Europe to take E. and W. Canada in one move. Very large difference. Their version pretty much ended the Axis if the Allies got wise and countered it. Mine gave me the option of KAF but also put me in a great position to take Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii instead - targets I would probably want anyway.
As for a master strategy, as I said, I have to test it out against a few people. Right now, from the one game I’ve used it in, it appears very devastating for the allies and is not so much a “win” as a win steal maneuver akin to M84 style wins. (One in which I have no respect for the win and view the winner as some vile disgusting beast that evolved from human feces, but a win all the same.)
As I said before, fimatleven.
No, I always see Germany build ships. Finland/Norway seems to be too important to give up and without ships, you wont be able to get units there in a cost effective manner. Besides, the threat of Sea Lion is enough to give Africa to Italy barely a throw from giving it uncontested because now England has to put 100% of their money into home defense, leaving nothing for Africa. That alone is worth putting G1 money into a carrier, destroyer and submarine.
I played a game against Kungfujew and Kobu where he threw almost every available dollar from G1 to G finish against Russia, same as Italy. Allies held on though.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21412.0
Kungfujew is what I would call a “medium” skill level opponent. So the fight was pretty decent, but there were alot of maneuver’s I would have done differently. His campaign has some very interesting sucesses, and was more or less successful - he DID bankrupt Russia (I earned I think 8 IPC’s at the end of one of my OWN turns) but by the end he failed on a few hinge pin points.
Good game to review, it overlays the importance of the German navy, maintaining the luftwaffe, sacrificing to max out Axis builds in Russia, keeping italy alive, How to fight hard and fast with the allies through superior coordination and smarts. How to make a difference as China.
There was a “turn” where I thought he might have a chance to win it. The biggest thing I learned that’s never left me, is that Russia is a Long way away for Germany… but it’s an even LONGER way away for the allies to help support it.
Oh, and Paris is a TRAP for the Allies. Bypass it.
How many of you have actually played a game where germany didn’t build ships on G1 or G2? Have any of you gone for Russia’s throat from the start? Seems all of this balance discussion take only into account a German Sealion approach. Every game I look up on the forum shows a German ship build on G1. And for the most part Japan leaves Russia alone. odd……
I have two games played on the forums on the scrapheap when I went hard Moscow with a Romania IC buy. Those were warmups for a successful face to face game where Russia was taken apart on both sides. The long term viability of Germany/Italy was debatable though.
Hmm, I usually end up getting severely bogged down against Russia. I cannot take anything away, but neither can he, meanwhile we both end up dumping like crazy on the front lines.
Of course, I usually do a fleet buy on G1, for no other reason than to be able to reinforce Scandinavia if I need too (and I generally do.) Guess this would be cheaper with a minor in Romania and a minor in Norway…24 IPC vs 30 IPC for the fleet.
Have to think about it. Little worried it would ease up on England too much.
I agree, havent seen or played one game where the german player did not buy fleet G1, and i believe its because its simply the best opening. If you do not put early pressure on the brittish it will be too easy for them to stop Italy before they can grow to a decent ipc level. And Germany fighting alone is a lost cause unless you are close to breaking Russia.
I believe Larry Harris did try to fix this in alpha2, a G1 barbarossa now seems a viable strategy in itself. The problem is in my opinion that the mediterranean setup is too volatile. Theres a very fine balance between succes and disaster for the italians. That means Germany have to put pressure on UK if they want Italy to gain critical mass.
I would like sealion & barbarossa to present equal oppertunities for Germany, and i think the key to resolve that is to rearrange the mediterranean setup (again) and lower the ods for sealion a bit.
Apart from this i do agree that the game seems well balanced most places. Some of these balance issues are perhaps also a matter of taste. There might be some people out there who just love building german ships, but personally i like it when the game offers more than one option.
Oh, that was a reply to:
the balance is not bad. I’ll still argue its slightly in an axis advantage. I stated before that I would like to err on the side of an allied advantage, but on further review I’ll make a case the other way:
An axis bid will only provide for a more effective sealion campaign. a low bid of just seven will get Germany another transport. Since the axis hold the innitiative, an axis bid is much more dangerous for the allies than the reverse. Since I’d like to see fewer Sealion campaigns maybe the set-up is right. Then the allied player’s bid can nuetralize a Sealion play.
How many of you have actually played a game where germany didn’t build ships on G1 or G2? Have any of you gone for Russia’s throat from the start? Seems all of this balance discussion take only into account a German Sealion approach. Every game I look up on the forum shows a German ship build on G1. And for the most part Japan leaves Russia alone. odd……
The Germans have to play in such a way as to make Italy Viable. Growing Italy is as important to Germany as growing the Germany.
A naval build with air support - meets this end.
