What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?

I’ve played global 40 several times now and have the strong impression that Axis and Allies have even chances.

To my opinion there is no imbalance between the players!! Blaming the setup seems to be sore losers talk…

Also, I believe most discussed changes on Larry’s forum are not trying to fix an axis/allies imbalance, but are trying to force players into a more divers game, where a divided (between pac and atl) attention of the US is a focal point.

Stop smoking pot. Or actually, maybe don’t. Whatever.  :mrgreen:

Solo,

LOL! That’s funny! I love it! But seriously the game is broken in favor of the Allies, if played against evenly matched opponents.

@Commando:

Maddog,

If the US reinforces Hawaii every turn, it’s pretty much impossible for Japan to take it, unless they put a lot of effort into, which means they are lacking in other areas. This is even if the US goes for a KGF strategy, which I agree is the best option for the Allies.

Take it first.

You can easily grab Hawaii on round 2.  Trick is holding it.

Yes, you can take Hawaii on J2 but at what cost? The cost is, not attacking other area’s and bringing the US into the war earlier than you need to IMHO.

@Commando:

Yes, you can take Hawaii on J2 but at what cost? The cost is, not attacking other area’s and bringing the US into the war earlier than you need to IMHO.

Well, it IS situational.  It depends what your strategy is.  ATM, I am working on a Kill America First strategy.  I am not sure it will work, I have no idea if it’s even possible, so PLEASE don’t harp on me that it cannot be done.  Anything can be done!  It’s only a matter of degree of success!

In my current KAF, I hit SZ 26 and Midway on J1, then hit SZ 26/Hawaii on J2. (Depending on what is present in SZ 10, I may just send a transport to SZ 26, landing 2 ground units and 6 planes in Hawaii for the battle, as the planes can get back to SZ 25.)

In that case, J2 take of Hawaii is not only doable, but very highly successful (as in number of successes vs number of failures.)  America just cannot get enough there to stop it in the time frame alotted.

Not harping, simply making a comment. I thought that’s what the forums were all about.

Send them all against the U.S.A.   Whats going to happen , you’ll either win or loose , no matter what you’ll see where you would do it differently or not at all. If it’s for research set up multiple boards and swap sides and brainstorm and try it again……Dam I think I’m addicted   yea!!!

And to think, if problems could be identified and solved by majority vote, democracies might actually function competently.

@JayDavis:

And to think, if problems could be identified and solved by majority vote, democracies might actually function competently.

Democracy is much like Communism, they both work on paper and fail once you invite humans to participate.

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter”
~ Churchill

lol @ the concept of majority vote and choice.

Even if we had everyone vote on every issue, the choices are still made for us. It’s ridiculous.

Do you want to wear red socks? or blue socks?  doesn’t matter what you choose, you are wearing socks…

@jim010:

Democracy is much like Communism, they both work on paper and fail once you invite humans to participate.

Yes, because a democracy works better when it is only cats.

:roll:

Cats are gods, don’t you know your Egyptology?  Dang man!

Democracy works great for rocks!

I chose US is to strong, but it’s only that way when they use over 90% of there resources in only one theater for an extended period of time IMO.

The other things discussed seem to have a balance, or consequence.

UK attacks Italian fleet (one or the other), but most times the UK Med fleet is lost in the process along with much of the RAF. I know it is a bummer to play Italy once it loses the navy, but the UK is in the same boat so to speak, and you may have just cleared the path for a Sea lion. The only difference is that the US can back the UK getting it back on track (if it chooses to), and Italy normally can’t recover easily in the Med, because Germany has its hands full.

Sea lion is doable, but Russia will only be 2 spaces from Berlin with a hoard of units and will be very difficult to deal with. You will also have a hard time keeping them from getting a 3 IPC NO for each green tt for quite some time. This is also one of the reasons I would be against a Romanian IC to start. It would be nearly imposable to Sea lion, because you most likely would be giving up that forward IC to the Russians. I don’t think you (as Germany) could keep it, your best chance is to trade it to keep them from using it. If that’s not enough the US could also be steaming your way. Sea lion takes a lot of wind out of your sails, even when it is successful.

Honestly, I don’t have a lot of experience with the US using all of its income in one side or the other for extended periods of time (7-8 rounds or more), we are just now exploring that (defiantly changes things). Some games in our group the US will use all its income for 2-3 rounds in one direction, but then lends a hand for the other side. Evidently this could be a losing recipe, switching gears to early. We normally play FTF for fun, not trying to see if something is broken, but I can see the US being used in this manner to achieve victory in most games (dice and mistakes could still cost you the game). It’s my hope that Alpha 3 doesn’t force an economical split like UK (not even on the table), but it cost the US to much income for doing that (more self governing).

The NO’s are one way of doing that, but they also add a lot more income to a game that starts out with a lot more base salary. Are NO’s becoming the tail that wags the dog as Larry would say? I would be equally interested in ways to remove income from a power for ignoring its obligations and goals, as rewarding it for achieving them. Case in point like the Russian lend lease NO of now having US ships being present in sz 125 (would have been ok w/UK as well, thinking they would most likely need the help of the US anyway). I would also like to see Brazil added to the Mex NO for the defense of US interests to the south, don’t live up to your responsibilities lose income. The newly proposed Jap/US island NO’s will take more resources to achieve I think, so this could also remove income from the Pac theater. This will all depend on how much of a commitment the US has in the Pacific as to who gets its bonus. If there is a reward (NO bonus) for getting the US ground unis to Europe (should be something for this), I hope that it isn’t an extra 5 IPCs US can earn. Its other NO’s should be reduced or combined to make up for it (w/o axing the Mex NO IMO).

Are players using a bid in this version of the game?  It is a great way to balance the game.  If a player feels the axis is at a disadvantage then bid some extra units and if the other player bids lower give him the axis.

@kurt3892:

Are players using a bid in this version of the game?  It is a great way to balance the game.  If a player feels the axis is at a disadvantage then bid some extra units and if the other player bids lower give him the axis.

I disagree.  I always disliked the whole “bid” system, I just could never think of a better way to do it.  Larry has thought of a better way, the Alpha system which (presumably) will become the beta system followed by the actual set of rules.

Bidding puts the game in flux.  It is very hard to determine if 10 IPC here, or 12 IPC there will throw the game out of balance the wrong way.  And not all bids are equal.  12 IPC for artillery when used to attack round 1 is > 12 IPC for infantry to do the same thing.  Likewise, 12 IPC for Armor on the front may change things differently than 12 IPC for a strategic bomber.  What about 2 transports vs 2 infantry and 2 artillery?

It’s a great house rule, don’t get me wrong, and it can add dynamic to the game, but I don’t think it’s the proper way to balance a game “officially.”  If the powers that be determine there is a certain “bid” that is required, they should just add whatever units or cash is required and make that standard.  IMHO.

The problem with counting on Larry to create a ‘perfectly balanced’ ruleset is that feat may be impossible.  Strategies develop over time.  The global version is still in its infancy.  Bids in second edition at first were in the 14 to 16 range but gradually increased to 23-24 over the years.  If and when a ‘beta’ version is released strategies will be developed over the years that will throw off the balance.  What better way to fix this than a bid?  And if you do not like what or how the other player is bidding you can always bid lower.  Some may be worried that the addition of an extra transport for example may throw off the Sealion odds…limit the bid then.  In Anniversary edition an intriguing bid idea I thought was adding/subtracting Chinese infantry units in the territory that contained the Flying Tigers unit.  So a bid of six would add two infantry there and a bid of negative three would take away an infantry there.