Italy Stomp Needs Attention in Alpha +3

That is my thought as well.

Frank,

Couldn’t agree more! I’m a big believer in a KGF strategy w/the Allies while crushing Italy first and reinforcing Hawaii. I’ve found the same thing w/my play test group. Check out our standard US Turn 1 moves, which is pretty much our standard US Turn 1 moves now…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23530.15

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23676.15

@Frank:

A lot of people are saying a weaker Russia would balance the game.  Do you think this would do the trick.  I think it would at least go a long way.

I still don’t see how people can claim a weaker Russia would balance the game.
The problem is still not killing Russia, but killing Russia “fast enough”. By making the game faster (weaker would all things equal mean faster kill), you do not balance it - you just remove any other need than going after Russia fast for the win.

The key to this strategy is actually very much in tune the strategy of going full Pacific (as per Jennifer’s posts) and therefore only substantiates the claims from that strategy.
And that is that a (near) 100% involvement by the (combined) USA is enough to turn over the power balance for either side of the map fast enough that neither Axis board-side can win. Axis just need to be contained for Allies to win.

A weaker Russia would kill off this game IMO. The issue with a combined USA is the key IMO.

I don’t think making the US spend a certain amount of IPC’s in one theater solves the problem. The US can always move units from one theater to the other. They can do this faster by building an NB in Smx or Panama. By doing this US units can go from Hawaii to Gib in two turns. Or, go from SZ62 to Gib or Haw in one turn.

Frank - I agree w/you. I think making the Axis stronger or Russia a little weaker helps balance the game. Most people would agree A&A Anniversary Edition is a very balanced game. However, most players still bid to see who played the Axis. The bid was usually 6 to 8 IPC’s. I’m not sure what the magic number is for A&A Global 1940 but I’m seeing the agreement that most players feel the Allies are a little too strong.

I’d still like to see what happens when you the US comes into the war on Turn 4, instead of Turn 3. I also want to see what happens when Germany goes to war against Russia on Turn 2 and builds a major IC in Rom. I think this would go a long ways to helping the Axis win. I think Sea Lion is a losing proposition for Germany against a competent UK player. Therefore Russia is the way to go. And Russia a little too strong to take before the Allies stomp Italy and make things sticky for Germany.

Sorry. Meant SZ64.

@Xandax:

@Frank:

A lot of people are saying a weaker Russia would balance the game.  Do you think this would do the trick.  I think it would at least go a long way.

I still don’t see how people can claim a weaker Russia would balance the game.
The problem is still not killing Russia, but killing Russia “fast enough”. By making the game faster (weaker would all things equal mean faster kill), you do not balance it - you just remove any other need than going after Russia fast for the win.

The key to this strategy is actually very much in tune the strategy of going full Pacific (as per Jennifer’s posts) and therefore only substantiates the claims from that strategy.
And that is that a (near) 100% involvement by the (combined) USA is enough to turn over the power balance for either side of the map fast enough that neither Axis board-side can win. Axis just need to be contained for Allies to win.

A weaker Russia would kill off this game IMO. The issue with a combined USA is the key IMO.

This is precisely the way I see it too. It’s already a race to Moscow beore the Allied industrial might becomes too much. Currently, if the Germans attack Russia on turn two, and focus on Moscow, they are most likely advancing on the city with one area per turn no matter what.

The US income is calibrated for a divided effort, and if they focus on one side, they have the power to tip the scales with near 100% certainty. THAT is the reason for the race situation.

In Alpha+2 the attempted fix is to allow the Axis to win the game by gaining a certain position in one of the two theatres. In other words to create a counter-race situation. If calibrated right this could force the US to commit significant forces to both theatres, as the Axis should be able to win easily if one theatre is neglected. This last bit is what seems***** to be broken, if Japanese victory can be prevented simply by sending a few fighters and infantry to Hawaii. I think it would be healthier to address that issue than to unbalance the Eastern front area even heavier towards the Axis.

*****Now, I’m not saying it IS broken, as I haven’t played that many Global games myself, but it’s what I’m guessing based on the experiences you are posting here.

I’m not sure how this could be fixed. Perhaps the seazone around Hawaii should be the Victory Area instead?  :?

I don’t think making the US spend a certain amount of IPC’s in one theater solves the problem. The US can always move units from one theater to the other. They can do this faster by building an NB in Smx or Panama. By doing this US units can go from Hawaii to Gib in two turns. Or, go from SZ62 to Gib or Haw in one turn.

I actually think splitting the US income would go pretty far towards fixing the issue. A two-turn delay in the arrival of units is huge. Also it is certainly easier to calibrate this solution right, than to balance the victory conditions perfectly.