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

game is not young.

I do like the axis position… you put the aggressive player on the axis seat. It’s much better otherwise you end up in a snooze.

Until it is 3 years old, I feel the game is young.  If the game is not young, then it is old.  Old games are like Classic, Revised, Monopoly, Chess, Risk, Jenga, what have you.  If it is not old, by definition, it must be young.

Problem is, balancing USA v Japan and balancing USA v Germany each individually, ends up disbalancing Axis v Allies.

“Germany v 80 IPC USA isn’t fair, Germany must be beefed up or USA given less IPCs”
“Japan v 80 IPC USA isn’t fair, Japan must be beefed up or USA given less IPCs”

So changes are made.

Result: both can hold, game broken (the other way than is the OOB).

The USA’s capability of going 100% one way or the other is about the only interesting decision left, now that Sea Lion seems to be predictably done all the time.

Besides, Alpha2 already slightly favors the Axis powers.

I think if you try and impose spending or placement caps, those forces will simply move to the other side of the board. I suppose this will delay some reinforcements by a round, but, if there is a constant flow, it will make very little difference in the end. Then what are we looking at, not being able to move troops out of their respective theaters?

As far as balance goes, I’m still on the fence, it seems a bit early to call once side definitively stronger then the other, but, I do see alot of the same opening moves over and over for Germany, which seems like a weakness. I do feel more comfortable playing the Allies than the Axis, however, I don’t think I’ve really found an opening strat, that I’m really happy with for Germany yet either.

@Geist:

I think if you try and impose spending or placement caps, those forces will simply move to the other side of the board. I suppose this will delay some reinforcements by a round, but, if there is a constant flow, it will make very little difference in the end. Then what are we looking at, not being able to move troops out of their respective theaters?

As far as balance goes, I’m still on the fence, it seems a bit early to call once side definitively stronger then the other, but, I do see alot of the same opening moves over and over for Germany, which seems like a weakness. I do feel more comfortable playing the Allies than the Axis, however, I don’t think I’ve really found an opening strat, that I’m really happy with for Germany yet either.

The limitations of the United States really hits home with the new N.O.'s in the Pacific.  If they lose those bonus’s, Japan can threaten the USA.

Not really happy with the German openers?  I successfully did a turn 3 Sealion with Germany and that was with a failed France invasion, Italy had to mop up lol.  Russia attacked hard turn 4, but didn’t have the planes or tanks to launch a successful campaign.  He lost most of his infantry hoping to gain ground.  Game won with a 100% USA in the Europe board, I killed her fleet twice by dumping mass amounts of subs in the water.  Italy helped out too with it’s subs as well.

Germany is really flexable, Russia bites, Germany can kick it’s teeth in, America grabs France, Germany can roll right through it and gain France IPC again.  Honestly, Germany is best played with guts lol.  If you try to plan a lot, much like a USA player, I think you’ll get frustrated with her!

Look, there are a number of things that are in need of balancing.

If you force America to spend the cash equivalent of all income earned for territory values on each side of the board, neither Japan nor Germany would need to be beefed up.  I could also see increasing the land value of E/W USA by 2 or 3 IPC as well, if that goes in.

Something has GOT to be done about 5 f’ing turns for the allies between Japan and Italy. For kricks sake man, at least let Italy go before USA and after England.  Give them a chance to respond to can openers if possible…

Dealing with can openers is an aspect of the game. In terms of balance, give the game a bit of time to develop.

I’ve yet to see British sea counters to a German Sealion. Once this happens consistently, the game will settle a bit, the Americans will have a better shot in the Atlantic and will be able to focus some serious naval force in the Pacific while maintaining a transport shuck in the Atlantic. That will balance the game. American worries Italy while the British pound France as the Russians reel from a German assault, trading land for time as the Japanese war machine slowly grinds to a halt in the Pacific.

That’s the way it should be, and that’s the way its going to be. Heading all out in one theater isn’t an option anymore people. Get used to it. Heading all out in the Atlantic means Japan wins by J4. Heading all out in the Pacific means Germany wins by G6 or G7. The Allies cannot focus on one front. The rules don’t allow it.

@cts17:

That’s the way it should be, and that’s the way its going to be. Heading all out in one theater isn’t an option anymore people. Get used to it. Heading all out in the Atlantic means Japan wins by J4. Heading all out in the Pacific means Germany wins by G6 or G7. The Allies cannot focus on one front. The rules don’t allow it.

Actually… in our game the UK navy in the Med. turned tail and took off to India.  That gave a building block for a massive UK naval fleet in the Pacific to push back the Japanese back home.  Gave America time to spend all in the Europe board.  Allies still lost that game though, German Subs are deadly!

The rules actually allow anything to happen.  1 Infantry can attack 2 tanks and get lucky enough to win, you just don’t know how it will come out till you try!

@Cmdr:

Something has GOT to be done about 5 f’ing turns for the allies between Japan and Italy. For kricks sake man, at least let Italy go before USA and after England.  Give them a chance to respond to can openers if possible…

Agreed. The best option is use OOB turn order but making ANZAC play after USA and China after UK

Yes, “can openers” are part of the game, I get that, they have always been. In classic, it was America opening the door for Russia - for instance (yea, all the way back then!)

But what is nuts is now you can set up 3 attacks on a territory to break it open.  America, China and England can pound a hole, then ANZAC can drive through it. (Say opening up Manchuria so that ANZAC can drive a solitary tank from JEHOL to Korea and destroy a Major Industrial complex.)

At this point why not just use a bid???  I don’t think Axis “guaranteed” wins are proven at all.  There is a lot of talk here but very few game results to prove it.

To avoid excessive possibilities for canopeners and allow timely responses, how about this turnorder?

Germany
Soviet Union
China
Japan
UK Europe-Pacific
France
Italy
United States
ANZAC

Krieghund’s already essentially said that there will be absolutely no changes to the turn order.  Go buy a copy of War and Peace, you’ll have time to read it while the Allied player does his/her turn.

Here’s some ideas:

1)  Whoever owns Paris, controls all French units and territories.  You buy for France, you Combat Move for France, you Conduct Combat for France, you Non-Com Move for France, You Place units for France and you Collect for France. 
1a) This ends the need to wait for France to say “I do nothing” so you can get back to your turn.
1b) It turns France into an ANZAC style nation.
1c) Italy can “can-open” for France and France can “can-open” for Germany giving the European axis the same insane “can-opening” ability as the Allies get.

2)  The United States must place AT LEAST the same IPC worth of equipment on a campaign board as territory it controls on said board before exceeding the value of territories on the other board.  (IE:  You cannot build more than 22 IPC on the Europe board before building some on the Pacific board, unless you own more than 22 IPC worth of land on the Europe board or some of your territories have been captured.)
2a)  This ends the kill Japan first ALWAYS strategy. (And why not, right now, you have 5 nations against Japan!)
2b)  America can still spend 45 IPC in the Pacific each round, that’s pretty much Japan’s income for the first few rounds anyway!  Just now they have to spend 34 in the Atlantic side each round.
2bi)  It is my personal opinion that the designers were either on drugs, mad with American Exceptionalism, or designed the game in a way that they expected America to invest on both sides of the map.  Which option you think is your favorite explanation is up to you, I’m laying my money on the “they were on drugs.”

3)  England needs 3-5 “Commandos” or whatever.  Maybe just make it + 2 Infantry so a new unit does not need to be invented.  The infantry start in London.
3a)  Germany can still succeed in Sea Lion, but it’s no longer as certain as it is now.
3ai)  This is to help make up for France going to the Axis early. (After all, why would Germany attack Normandy if they suddenly control it after taking Paris?  Likewise, S. Italy won’t take S. France.)

4)  Notes:
4a)  With France remaining “free” with just a nation’s control marker on them to signify who controls them, the entire issue of whether or not S. France should be German is moot. Germany will have to put a complex in either Yugoslavia or Greece if they want direct access to the Med.  I like this, personally.
4b)  This will effectively give Italy two national objectives on Italy 1, unless the British fight to stop them.  They will have N. Africa (taking Alexandria should give it to them) and a Med with only Axis warships in it. (Because the French Cruiser/Destroyer become Axis upon the fall of France.)  They may even get the one for Gibraltar, Greece, Egypt and/or S. France if England is not careful.  This turns Italy into more of a Pacific England/China nation.

These four adjustments may balance a game that right now requires the Axis to use unconventional tactics and pray for good dice in order to win.  I’ve done it a few times with a sneaky Japan + Sea Lion, but that only works once, then your opponent sees it coming and adjusts for it.

I think it’s pretty solid overall.

To Jen:

I agree with your point for the most part. If the US dumps everything into pacific they can still squash Japan pretty easily, even when ANZAC and INdia have been eliminated. But need we address this with some complicated build rule?

How about we drop back some of the starting American naval presence from the Pacific? Take as much as you like untill they are delayed by a turn.

The Pacfic campaign favours the allies but not by all that much. A delicate beginning change might be the answer…

…or bid.

In the end we will have to settle for a slghtly unbalanced game.

We have every other time.

But I gotta say, if its going to favour one group over the other I would rather it favour the Allies. Why? Ask Imperious Leader sometime about the importance of historical accuracy.  :wink:

@Canuck12:

…or bid.

How much do you usually bid?

most games have bids between 5-10 IPC, I expect this game to be not much different.

Canuck,

The America build rule I described is akin to the England build rule.  Both England Atlantic and England Pacific are England, they move simultaniously (as in they cannot can-open for each other, etc) but draw two piles of money to be spent in their specific baliwak / sphere of influence.  The American rule is slightly more forgiving in-so-much as England can only spend the National Objectives for the half that earned it, while I envision America using any NO on either sphere of influence (because America should be able to be wishy-washy if it wants to be!)  At least, that is how I see it, what do you (community) think?

If we removed American equipment, I think we might do more harm than good.  For one, we’ll have the twits bitchin and moanin about historical accuracy in a strategy game (may the gods of olympus be damned if it screws up the game, sheesh) and/or we might overly weaken something due to position on the board, etc.

As for my current thoughts on bids?

• Germany needs 12 bid for 2 submarines to assist in sinking the British fleet around England. (Counter to scrambling which unbalanced the Atlantic round 1, IMHO.)
• Italy needs 18 bid for 1 fighter, 1 destroyer to protect against the British Med Sea Fleet.
• Japan could use 18 bid as well, for more infantry in Asia (Most probably in the south near Yunnan/Kwangtung)

What does that mean?  Yes, you’re correct, that means I think that the Axis, as the game stands now, are 48 IPC in the red when balanced against the Allied powers.  Yes, I do believe it is that drastic.  Why else do you think I suggested such drastic changes in the above post?  If we delay America’s NO collection one round, force them to spend in both maps and give France over to whoever controls Paris (yes, that means England or America could invade and collect for N. Africa, Normandy, S. France, whatever if Germany/Italy own France and yes, that means that Germany/Italy could not collect for French Territories or build at the Minor Industrials in France (major being downgraded on being conquered, the switchover occurs after the collect income phase, but the complex could be upgraded by the Vichy-French or the Free-French later)).

Okay. Noted.

You may be right. I dont think it’s THAT unballanced. Proabably needs ONE of the three. But that’s beside the point.

What’s important is: Sucj a majot change is not happening this late (in Larry’s mind) in the Alpha process. So perhaps we should take the spirit of your argument and attempt to make some simpler changes so that we cna be a little more constructive to the real process.

Inf in China… yeah maybe. Maybe a ship in the Med, maybe 1 more sub or maybe we knock off 3 ships from the US Pacific fleet. Historical accuracy went out the window with a British AC in the Med. We’re close now and I think that the split income thing is just too complicated. Keeping 2 seperate incomes AGAIN? and besides, what happens when the Current US fleet has weekened Japan to the point where they’re on the run and the US doesnt need to feed the fire anymore? now you have to drive your ships all the way around?

Throw up the Idea on Larry’s site. See what he says. He always responds. Maybe he will like it. Either way it’s getting more constructive.

The easiest change would be the America build rule change.  Effectively treating E. USA and W. USA as seperate nations as per London and Calcutta.

It does not change the play order, does not open new prospects or strategies, has no major impact on the game, other than it forces America to participate on both sides of the board. (One could build aircraft in the east and carriers in the west and still get it all into the Pacific just as England can put carriers off the coast of Egypt and Calcutta can send fighters there to get it all in the Atlantic.)

I’d want to house-rule it locally for a while, to tweak it, but I think reducing what America can dump directly into the Pacific would go quite a ways to helping…as it stands now, the only time I have seen the Axis win is if they attack round 1/2 and get slightly to vastly above average dice.  There’s just way to much money going into Russia and the Pacific to wait.