What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?

@Stalingradski:

Dany - I like two of your thoughts in particular -

Some sort of Vichy rules (like the old Xeno game), and an IC that can build one limited unit per turn. If done well in design, and playtested, both could have a lot of merit and playability.

I also like those thoughts and agree with Stalingradski.

The Axis won last nite good game too many details to go into
  Tried splitting the money for U.S.A. it wasn’t a good idea in my opinion but I wasn’t America.  He did it by land values on the east board and the west board.
  Italy is the game changer do it right and victory is achievable, if something goes bad then good luck

@Stalingradski:

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

Thank you Stalingradski for the acknowledgement, time and again I find myself on the outs arguments here mainly because I play for the histroy, and by extension, play to the history. Contrary to the common argument, which usually goes something like, “If you play to history, then the axis would just lose every time”. It has been my experiance that more often playing to the history will drastically help players. Its a shame that so many people get caught up in winning the game instead of playing the game. Dont get me wrong, im not saying that it isnt fun to win, or that I wouldnt rather win, Im just saying that playing to enjoy the games intricacies and the company in which we play it should take presidence.

@Clyde85:

@Stalingradski:

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

Thank you Stalingradski for the acknowledgement, time and again I find myself on the outs arguments here mainly because I play for the histroy, and by extension, play to the history. Contrary to the common argument, which usually goes something like, “If you play to history, then the axis would just lose every time”. It has been my experiance that more often playing to the history will drastically help players. Its a shame that so many people get caught up in winning the game instead of playing the game. Dont get me wrong, im not saying that it isnt fun to win, or that I wouldnt rather win, Im just saying that playing to enjoy the games intricacies and the company in which we play it should take presidence.

I think the point of the game is also to see “what would have happened if Japan/Germany/Italy did this instead of that?”
That means also having fun with the game from an historical point of view.

I remember having a chat with my wife’s dad where he was talking “what if Italy did this and that the war would have been won”, so I just said him: Come at my place and play with my A&A global 40 and employ all your ideas :D

I disagree, Japan never invaded Russia in World War II and yet, so far, in every incarnation of the game, one of the best (if not the best) strategies is to invade Russia with Japan at some point.

Perhaps it is an exception.

In older versions of the games, i never really went after history, but I always worked on a Slow or Kill Japan first strategy with the United States primarily because most players are inexperienced in responding to that attack.  It happens to be historically accurate to some extent as well, but that is a function of happistance and not design.

I kinna agree with both Noll and Jennifer… even if it seems opposite. I mostly played (any version) A&A 1vs1. In such game, the global victory comes way before every nation’s objectives.

For instance, from Japan’s point of view it’s quite pointless to invade nothern poor land and would required a loot of land troops to keep control (occupation is free in A&A) while a non agression pact fits Japan just as Russia. From A&A “Axis” point of view, specially as 1 player acting whole side, there’s no doubts, no mistruss so all units from different nations fight towards same objectives… and Japan’s pressure on Russia serves (and needed by) Germany.

So, I agree that Japan attacking is always a good strategy for Axis and it’s ahistorical… but still, doesn’t remove anything from Noll’s “what would have happened if Japan/Germany/Italy did this instead of that” which I totally agree with.

That being said, I rarely (if not never) saw Alliance win with a Kill Japan first strategy. If it happens is not because Alliance succeed to beat Japan, it’s because Germany failed to win… which would be very surprising if USA is not involve in Europe.

@Cmdr:

I disagree, Japan never invaded Russia in World War II and yet, so far, in every incarnation of the game, one of the best (if not the best) strategies is to invade Russia with Japan at some point.

On the contrary, the Soviet Union and Japan fought numerious times during, up to out right invading Mongolia and having a huge battle in the Khalkin Gol desert. Tens of thousands of troops were involved, and the Soviets won in the end. This battle in 1939 was what convinced the Japanese high command to look at invading the “southern resources area”.
In previous games, Japan’s main goal was crushing China and and invading the Soviet Union. This was usually the only way the Axis could win with either an economic victory or having the Allies just forefit. However, with the introduction of the victory cities, Japan no longer needs to do either of these 2 things for the Axis to win, and should rather focues its attention on the allies to its south. The old ways of playing are mostly dead, and we need to look at this game with a different perspective to fully appericate it.
Just to clarify, when I say “play to the history” I dont mean following what the other countries did excatly, but using what their real world objectives were and making it your driving force, while avoiding the pitfalls that those countries fell into.

I believe there were numerous battles prior to and following World War II between Japan and Russia including the sinking of the vaunted Russian fleet prior to WWII, but not actually during WWII.

Anyway, we are digressing, the point is that the strongest line of attack is to have Japan invade Russia along with Germany and Italy.  At least currently.  I like to have Italy take it, Germany reinforce it as well, it allows planes to land on “newly” conquered territories. (New being defined as before Russia gets a turn to reclaim it.)  And it only takes a modest investment with Japan, perhaps 100-150 IPC.

As for previous versions and KJF/SJF campaigns not being seen often, that’s the point.  I did it because most players had never seen it or had not had enough practice to know how to counter it.  A famous game is when I shut down NCSCSwitch in an AAR (Revised) game with a KJF.  I never even had to land troops in Japan because once Japan is neutrallized, the game is over.

Weren’t you saying a while back that, as Russia, you wanted the Japanese to attack you?

@eudemonist:

Weren’t you saying a while back that, as Russia, you wanted the Japanese to attack you?

Yes.  How does this change my statement that Japan’s best move is to attack Russia?  As Russia I also want Japan to attack me, that way I get the immediate boost of IPC when I can most effectively use it (ie, early in the game).

Initially Russia is helped by a Japanese invasion.
And a minor investment of a few tanks, along with those 18 Infantry, will push the Japanese forces back across Siberia.
While Russia does experience a net loss, long term, Japan loses a lot more than Russia does.

However, if Japan continuously puts resources into Russia, then those 2-4 tanks plus the Siberian infantry no longer are enough.
That’s when Russia can die much more easily.

Generally, we’re talking 144 IPC investment by Japan into Russia with the stated goal of getting Evenki and Timguska and all territories east of there.  That’s 12 armor, 18 Mech + whatever Chinese forces you want to pull out.  At least, for me.

I was more addressing those that simply throw the initial border forces into Amur, and leave it at that.
That force will be pushed back in a few rounds.

But you’re completely right.  I would just wonder how Japan manages to sustain the income needed for that kind of land commitment, since they’re not spending an awful lot in the ocean.
I guess if Japan just uses its initial air force to stall for time (being that 16 IPCs for Japan is equivalent to 36 IPCs for America), they could last long enough to put a dent into Russia.  But it’s definitely not a long-term strategy.

I dont think Japan should be doing anything in Russia. Granted, I can see some advantage to attacking, espically if the oppertunity to destroy the Russians far east forces in one stroke presents itself.  However, all of Japans objectives are in the south, along with a number of ICP rich territories, that is where is Japan should focus its attention. I think a Japanese strike in Siberia should only be done if the oppertunity presents itself, which would be if 2 or 3 of the 4 powers ringing Japan fall.

Japan and the pacific are not a European side show, and should be treated as an equal front. A dedicated Japanese strike against Russia is an abandonment of the Pacific theater as an independent front and subordinating it to Europe. Japanese forces should be used to achieve Japanese objectives, NOT German ones

With all due respect Clyde I see you regularly support a more historical approach to the game and call for Japan to be treated as independent. But this game allows you to change history and let’s be honest if the strategy that occurred in history worked so well how come they lost. All in all it is a game and the objective is to win if that means one power has to take a beating in order to help deliver a killshot then by all means they should take a beating. Every power plays its part.

I think there really isn’t enough reason for Japan to go into Russia rather than going South unless it wants to completely abandon trying to achieve its own victory.  Maybe that means that Japan should generally attack Russia anyway, but i think it means things should be changed to make Japan want to be more independent.

Well, the reason I bring it up is because it’s breaking the game. This entire thread is about discussing how alpha+2 is broken and what should be done in “alpha+3-the-return-of-the-son-of-the-next-generation of rules and setups”. Alpha+2 isn’t broken, not by a long shot. It may need a few tweaks here and there, such as having the Italian navy start the game all deployed in the same sea zone, or changing the Japanese NO that gives them money for not invading FIC, for example. Simple things like that are all that’s really needed, and these are things can be handled by the players, it doesn’t need a massive overhaul by Larry himself.

Also, gamers will always find ways to “break” the game, regardless of what Larry does, so why should he keep trying to please them? When and if Larry does come out with a new setup and rules, it won’t be enough, or the gamers won’t like it. What you need to acknowledge is that this is a Historical game. If you want to play a game that represents a period of general history and is perfectly balanced, go play Risk or Battleship. If you want a game that recreates World War 2 and allows you to play with history and explore the what ifs? Then Axis&Allies 1940 is for you. The thing you have to realize is that Histroy isn’t balanced, and all Larry can do is get it as close to fair as he can and let us play from there. This is as good as it’s going to get, and its pretty good as is.

It gets wayyyy better in Hearts Of Iron 2.  As Japan I was able to attack China 6 months earlier.  By pulling all my garrisons off my worthless islands I was able to take China out of the war by 1938.  Then I prepared for the fall of France, grabbed FIC and then launched an attack on the allies in Burma/DEI area.  Sweeping through Burma I reached the border with Persia and then prepared for the invasion of Russia.  Meanwhile my diplomatic corps was sweetening our relationship with US while my marines were invading Australia.

You mean like that?  HoI2 is a great game to recreate WW2.  A&A is a WW2 themed boardgame.

@JimmyHat:

It gets wayyyy better in Hearts Of Iron 2. HoI2 is a great game to recreate WW2.

Jim, I love the HOI series, and there’s a whole thread in the other games forum about it, please, stop bringing it up here.

@JimmyHat:

A&A is a WW2 themed boardgame.

I dont think A&A40 can be called a “WW2 themed boardgame” anymore. I’ll grant you, previous incarnations of the game are just that, espically A&A revised, and can be ranked with other historical themed games like Risk and Battleship. However, with this game, the seires has achieved a level of depth that has, till this point, not existed. There are pages and pages in thread after thread, detailing, in depth, conditions and strategies on various fronts of the game, and they are all still perfectly and beautifully bound to eachother by the over-arching game play. What happens on one front will have an effect on others, sometimes in a major way and other times more subtle. In past games, the Japanese rush on the Soviets made sense, you only had to take 2 China territories and 3 or 4 Soviet ones to be at the gates of Moscow. This made sense because Japan could build a factory on the mainland and be threating the Soviet heartland in 1 turn. Now, trying that same idea requires you to push through 4 or 5 Chinese territories, with China now being able to defend itself in the process, which could make it take longer! No A&A game has ever allowed a player so many options, from unit choice, to strategic option, to so much money to spend. There is to much detail, and to close a parity with the actual historical situation it is trying to represent to call it a “WW2 themed” game anymore.

Amen.

This game isn’t broken. I still welcome changes, because changes represent thought, and playtesting, and evolution, and those are all ok.

It would be a mistake to lump people into groups such as the “numbers and game mechanics” nerds and the “I’ll only play a historically-aligned game” geeks… we’re all some combo of the two. I think that like anything, though, people can drift too far one way or the other, for a time.

Finding a game mechanic that ‘wins’ every time and then mechanically repeating it is the same definition of insanity found in someone who has to play a historic reenactment every time, even to their own in-game death.

Again - the game is fine.