What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?

@Clyde85:

However that does bring up a very intresting trend I’ve noticed with A&A, and that is, people tend to treat the Pacific half of the board as a side show. Its like to most axis players Japan’s only job is to try and help them win in Europe, regardless of how adverse of a situation that might leave Japan in, as long as they hold the home Island. I dont know why this happens, is it an cultural thing, is it because for the last decade and a half Americans have been bombarded with WW2 video games depicting the USA fighting Germany across Europe? I really dont get it, I always play Japan like its a full country with its own objectives, and its “alliance” with the European Axis is out of mere convenience. Really because all the areas that are worth a damn in the Pacific IPC wise are under the protection of the UK, it benifits Japan economically to join in with the Axis in dismantling the British Empire.

Well, one thing to remember is that Europe is filled with roads, factories, cities and mines.  Asia is largely filled with rice paddies and People.,In the 40’s at least.  This is why the US agreed to fight Hitler before Japan, because Europe holds things worth capturing while the Pacific Islands only hold a lifetime supply of coconuts.  That is why all games represent Europe as more ‘ipcs’ than Asia.

Also, it just sounds like you have to tweak your US play to find out which round is the best to switch from Japan back to the Atlantic.  Jenn says its when Japan’s navy has been chased out of the pacific, far enough that they cannot return to Japan in 2-3 rounds.  I think this might be possible, but I have found that leaving a very much reduced fleet in the area can help you taking those final Japanese held islands and perhaps land in Siberia to roll that front up.  I do think Japan is the easiest target for the US in the first few rounds.  No Italy backing them up, all their units must be transported, and once sz6 is cleared Japan can be ignored because they are making 0ipcs.

Germany CAN win without Japan, it is just significantly harder since Russia will have about 100-120 more IPC worth of units before you finally are able to press into it.  Japan attacking them gets rid of 18 infantry and an AA Gun as well as 8-10 territories’ worth of IPC a round.

Japan, also, can win without heavy American assistance, it is primarily America’s heavy investment that keeps Japan from having 48 IPC worth of ground units (6 Mech and 4 Armor) into Russia a round.  They dont have the money to BOTH drop that kind of hardware into Korea and then drive into Russia AND out produce America.  What I generally do is produce the ground units and aircraft carriers leaving my fleet in SZ 6 (eventually) so I have about 6 carriers, 2 airbases and all the planes I can scramble into the sea zone to stop any amphibious assaults on Tokyo

Japan’s route to victory is usually:  India => Australia => Hawaii
Germany’s route to victory is usually: England => Russia and sometimes Russia => England (in the case of all those Japanese units hitting Russia heavily.)

Jen I don’t understand why you’d go Russia => England.  After conquering Russia, Axis only needs Cairo to win.  That to me would seem hella easier to grab than London.

By the time you get Russia, you have American Pig-Dogs and British Imperials crawling over the Med and Africa.  Neither expect a quick addition of some transports to the fleet you have already and a fast landing on England by the benevolent Fuhrer and his compassionate Japanese allies.

Ah, fair enough.

I’d like to comment on the issue some are having with the FIC NO.  That NO is the trade that Japan had with US.  That trade was on thin ice already, so anything like invading FIC/attacking UK/attacking US would have caused that tap to dry up completely.  The game reflects that just about perfectly.  It also makes sense in game terms - makes Japan not want to just declare war instantly.  And prevents Japan from building in FIC on turn 3.  I don’t really see a problem with it.

I think the problem Im having with the ideas people are putting forth as common occurances is the mind-set and out look with which I approach the game as a whole.
I play for the historical flavor and spirit of the game. I can see why Larry designed things the way he did, cause it fits with the history. Granted, this dose leave some things unbalanced, but thats just how it was. With this mind-set, some of the issues people raise leave me confused is because these other players arent looking at it with the eyes of a history nut. They see the game through the eyes of a Gamer, and see through the games carefully constructed historical setting, flavor and texture, and see the raw game and its mechanics. This is what is creating the “broken” problems the game is having. Larry clearly designed to flow better when people treat each country as it was historicly, an independent nation trying to achieve its own goals and make itself a great power. I think the NO’s really drive this point home, it rewards players for following or achieving what each nation wanted historically.
Japan is a great example where the gamers and history buffs clash in this game. To the gamer, Japan is just a part of the greater axis war machine that can be, and should/needs to be, used towards whatever end help the European axis win, which is why, despite everything Larry has done to dissuade people from it, the Japanese drive on Russia always seems to break the game.
Its perplexing to the historical player, mainly because we know that Japan wouldnt of had the logistical abality to support a large slogging through the depth of Siberia, and historically only wanted the in game territories of Amur, Soviet Far East and Siberia. So in the historical players game, the Soviet-Japanese war never comes up and makes no sense. It also makes no sense in  from a gaming stand point in that it brings Japan no closer to personal victory. There are no VC’s in siberia, or deep China for that matter, and Japan gets no NO bonus money for driving on these aformentioned areas. So it only logically makes sense for a historical playing Japanese player to leave well enough alone in these areas, and focuse on the south where Japan has the real possibility to double its economy, which tends to go hand and hand with what Japan did historically anyway.

Well historically Russia did postpone bringing back Siberian troops to the German front because they needed to establish that Japan would not attack them.  So there was a fear that Japan would start a war with them. 
Potentially it could have happened.  Just like potentially Germany could have attempted Sealion.  The game lets you try stuff like that.

And -

To the gamer, Japan is just a part of the greater axis war machine that can be, and should/needs to be, used towards whatever end help the European axis win.

I would not say that is the case at all.  It’s simply much easier for American to beat Japan first than Germany first.  In the face of that, Japan has to do what it can to help its ally.

See, there again is the gamer clashing with the historical gamer. American CAN defeat Japan easier first, so therefore, it should. However, Germany is in a stronger position to get all the VC it needs to win, therefore, wether America beats Japan or not, it wont make a difference, Germany will have already won. America has a MASSIVE economy, not only because it was historical, but so it can split its resources to both fronts, and be equal or greater to the axis power/s it faces on those fronts. America, as it did historically, work with the other nations to try and stem the axis advance, and then when it starts to stall, being hitting back and making a slow, but gradual, advance against the axis on all fronts. I think that is why Larry designed the US the way he did. In many of A&A’s pervious incarnations, in global versions anyway, there was always this issue that if America didnt focues on one front first, its would dissipate Americas overall impact on the game, and give the axis an strong advantage, if not an outright win. Now, Larry has made the US an economic beast, dwarfing all other players economy. Now the US no longer needs to focues on one front first, as they could split their wartime encomy, sending 50IPCs to Europe and 40IPCs to the Pacific and be matching or beating the economies of its enemies. And, when you add the portion of the US economy commited to whichever front to that of allies fighting with the US in the same front, it will always be more then what the Axis power has.

It really comes down to following the letter of a game rule, as opposed to playing to the spirt of the rules and the game.

I agree with you to some extent Clyde, but this is a game with defined objectives and a very loose DOW system set on the WW2 model, not WW2.  I have never played Advanced 3rd Reich, but I hear it is a board game with lots of homework assigned and multiple rulebooks.  A&A is the much simpler version, and therefore does not include logistics, infrastructure, attrition, retirement, unit upgrades, commander attributes…the list can go on if you’d like…

A game with those types of complexities set in WW2 would be better on the computer, to handle all the variables.  cough HoI2 cough

A&A is just a wargame with a WW2 flavor and therefore doesn’t have to be very historic…it just adds flavor.  For instance, how many times have you insisted Yamamato must not have been ambushed because my Japanese fleet just owned you. :)

@Alsch91:

Well historically Russia did postpone bringing back Siberian troops to the German front because they needed to establish that Japan would not attack them.  So there was a fear that Japan would start a war with them. 
Potentially it could have happened.  Just like potentially Germany could have attempted Sealion.  The game lets you try stuff like that.

Well, like Clyde85 said, Japan had no ability or desire to push through thousands of miles of the Soviet eastern territories just to help out Germany.  Sea Lion was planned, and could have actually happened (if the battle of Britain went differently).

I love games that take historical situations and allow historically plausible outcomes that didn’t actually happen (e.g. Sea Lion).  But there needs to actually be a reason for players to be historically accurate, as well (in this case, with Japan not always needing to attack Russia).  The game shouldn’t be deterministic in that it will always follow certain things that happened historically, but it shouldn’t go the opposite way either and force a player to deviate from history to win.

And, to JimmyHat - there’s a HoI3.:)

Well as far as gameplay goes, Japan doesn’t have to attack Russia for the Axis to win.  May be tougher for Germany, but it’s certainly possible.

Japan had no ability or desire to push through thousands of miles of the Soviet eastern territories just to help out Germany

But the Japanese regime did expressly say that their highest priority was the destruction of Communism (Soviet Union, specifically).  There certainly was a chance of a Japanese-Russian war in '41.  Sure, they wouldn’t have blizted through thousands of miles of Siberian wasteland, but there’s really no other way for this game to show the effect of Russia being forced to lose resources in the East.

HOI is an amazing game series, I really do enjoy its complexities, however, one of the best things about A&A is its intutive and simpler game play, either way, good call Jimmy  :-D

I know this is a game with a historical contex and flavor, so I dont mean to be harping on the histroy angle too much. It just seems to me that alot of the problems people are having, making the game “broken”, is because they are abandoning the historical flavor, and focusing on the game alone. Haivng played A&A since the mid 90’s, I’ve seen the game’s evolution through its many incarnations. I’ve also noticed how Larry has constantly moved towards a greater historical parity and to keep the “gamers” in check.
  This game is the best with reguards to that, not only giving a Japanese player incentives to play historicly, but with the creation of victory cities as win condition, Making it mandatory that Japan goes south (historical) if it wants to win. On the other side, Larry has tried to making invading the Soviet Union as unattractive of an option as possible for Japan, giving the Soviets stacks of infantry, an AA gun, a 12IPC bonus if Japan attacks them, and making it a long and ardious slong though poor IPC territory.
  While I recognize that this is a game first and the histroy has always come second, I think one of the easiest way to “fix” whats “broken” is to try, just try, and play with greater historical emphasis and mind set, embracing the games flavor and contex more, and its “game” aspect less.

@Alsch91:

Ah, fair enough.

I’d like to comment on the issue some are having with the FIC NO.  That NO is the trade that Japan had with US.  That trade was on thin ice already, so anything like invading FIC/attacking UK/attacking US would have caused that tap to dry up completely.  The game reflects that just about perfectly.  It also makes sense in game terms - makes Japan not want to just declare war instantly.  And prevents Japan from building in FIC on turn 3.  I don’t really see a problem with it.

Be that as it may, Japan still needs a major IPC boost to make attempting a win on the Pacific board more palletable.  Until then, it’s more of a waiting game for Japan (helping Germany win and preventing the fall of Tokyo) which is very ahistorical!

Perhaps if the Philippines were an NO for Japan (they were a major objective, after all as both sides fought over them) and control of French Indo-China Burma was an objective (FIC, Malaya, Sham State, Burma - reminescent of Classic.)

I also think the one-time 12 IPC NO for breaking the Soviet-Japan Non-Aggression pact is not enough of a deterrent to Japan.  If Japan takes the 3 coastal territories right off the bat (as is usual when Japan declares war), that’s a 6 IPC swing in favor of Axis Japan, so Japan only needs to hold them for 1 more turn in order to make up the 12 IPC bonus that the Allied Soviets get, not to mention any other territories they capture.  I think a 6 IPC per turn NO would be a better deterrent to breaking the agreement.  Admittedly I haven’t played many games yet, but even the diversion of resources North doesn’t seem like too much of a deterrent either as Japan has 3 turns to accomplish wiping out the 18 Russian infantry and usually has more than enough other units to wipe out China before UK/ANZAC is in a position to readily attack, and the USA cannot enter unless the Axis decide to let them.  And this is not to mention the diversion of Russian forces East to keep Japan from sweeping over everything.

Clyde - you made a compelling argument and didn’t get much response.

I agree with you.

I also find that nothing is broken in this game - precisely because of the reasons you put forward. I just couldn’t let myself do an All-Pac strat in the first place. I’m not interested in finding a mechanical way to defeat someone… the game takes too much time, I only have so many opportunities due to family considerations, etc… when I play, I want to play an artful game, and I like to see my opponent do so as well. This game has a tremendous amount of elegance when played with a certain spirit - win or lose.

You didn’t get much response for a good reason - there aren’t too many folks out there who think the way you do. Otherwise, you would have had thirty responses to what you said. Most people are more interested in the mechanics and raw numbers, rather than the artistry and historical re-enactment element. So it is! So be it!

The trick is finding other players who enjoy the game the same way.

Clyde, if you’re interested in a game - I’m in.

@Stalingradski:

I just couldn’t let myself do an All-Pac strat in the first place.

I challenge anyone who pretends an All-Pac strat is a sure win for Allies. So far nobody could proved that.
I said it many times and I’ll say it again, AAG40 Alpha 2 is not broken!

Agreed Triple B. Ain’t broken. I still look forward to .3…

@SAS:

I also think the one-time 12 IPC NO for breaking the Soviet-Japan Non-Aggression pact is not enough of a deterrent to Japan.

I agree. I think its more of a deterrent for Germany then anything. If Japan attacks Russia, Russia then gets 12 IPC worth of units to place where….at its ICs that are directly in front of Germany.
More of a punishment for the Axis rather than Japan specifically.

… And yet, those 12 IPC are just an “advance” on income in fact, since after 3-4 turns Russia will have lost 12IPC in income (and Japan 12 more!)

With Japan I attack Russia on first turn, no hesitation.

@BigBadBruce:

… And yet, those 12 IPC are just an “advance” on income in fact, since after 3-4 turns Russia will have lost 12IPC in income (and Japan 12 more!)

With Japan I attack Russia on first turn, no hesitation.

I beat the snot out of China first, don’t actually TAKE China, but since my ships are there for the time being, and I have those infantry, may as well heckle them a bit.

A major complex in Korea with 48 IPC in fast moving ground units into Russia seem to make up for the lack of other units.