What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?

@Alsch91:

Well Clyde every single territory you take is one more IPC that Russia can’t use to defend itself.  Pretty worth it.
It’s not like attacking Russia prevents you from taking southern islands.  Really it just makes China a bigger pain in the butt.

I still like blitzing Mech/Armor into Russia and killing off whatever infantry you start with to break a hole.  The idea is to sap enough strength that Germany can take Moscow while maintaining enough income to turtle in SZ 6.

6 Aircraft Carriers + 18 Planes (3 Korea with AB, 3 Japan with AB, 12 on carriers) seems to be quite sufficient if America is not going whole hog after Japan (and they usually dont, because many players are worried that Germany will get 8 VCs before they can limit Japan with America.)

@Clyde85:

Jimmy, you’ll have to explain, how is Japans total income destroyed by convoy raiding? What happens to Japans surface fleet in your games where they dont seem to be able to keep the US from completely disrupting Japans economy?

Also, a crucial way to look at this game is through cost analysis, ie, how much dose it cost in units for me to do “X” for what gain that will take me “Y” turns to recover my losses. So for instance, say you attack the soviets in Amur, and lose 3 infantry, Amur is only worth 1IPC, so it will now take you holding Amur 9 turns solid to recover the loss of 3 infantry. On the other side, say you attack the UK in Malaya and lose 3 infantry, Malaya is worth 3IPC so it will only take you 3 turns to recover the loss of those 3 infantry. The 3 dollar boost to your economy for holding Malaya will recover you 1 infantry you lost a turn, where Amur will take 3 turns to recover you the loss of 1 infantry thus taking 9 turns to full pay you back, so to speak. So, if you look at it that way, clearly, it better for Japan to invest it forces and economy towards a southern thrust. Japan can Net itself a 12IPC boost be seizing the 3 islands of Sumatra, Java and Borneo, which are usually lightly defended, and will likely only lose slightly more than 12IPC worth of units, meaning that Japan will have recovered from most of its losses in only 1 turn, where to get the result anywhere on the mainland would take much longer, and more then likely take a bigger loss in units to do so, and also net Japan no additional VC’s, and actaully take them further away from a more important front at a critical time

Sure no problem.  I as Japan usually send my fleet south when the US approaches.  I try to stay as close to Japan as possible, but with ships coming from Australia and India and San Diego my time in the Pacific is limited.  My Jap fleet usually ends up sailing into the Indian ocean, messing with Indian Convoy zones and meeting up with the italian fleet to help control the Western Indian Ocean.

Much of this has to do with my overall strategy though.  I as the Axis am trying to win on the Europe Board, so the best Japan can do to help in that objective is to attack Russia and assist the Italians at sea.  If you are trying for a pacific board win than I would suggest not abandoning China for Russia because China has 2 VC’s while Russia has none on the Pacific board.

Jimmy, Ah ok, that makes sense, a difference in over-all stratgey would explain that.

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.
I just do not see the advantage for Japan in joining in on an attack on the Soviet union, outside of pointlessly aiding the Germans. I would think it would benifit Germany more to have a Japanese behemoth in the Pacific, distracting American resources away from Europe and taking down relevent powers like British India and the ANZAC. Japan saying “sorry Germany, but you’re on your own against those nasty Reds, im going to go capture 2 new victory cities and work on doubling the size of my economy” sounds like an acceptable excuse NOT to attack the Soviets.

I also agree that the NO for Japan NOT taking FIC is stupid

The Axis won last nite!!!  it was a good game, close it could have gone either way.  I think it came down to to many high risk battles without the good dice and the Axis were able to collect big incomes to many times. I think that its only a matter of time before our Allied strategy catches up to where we are with our Axis strategy is and then the results will be different for a while and then its the whole thing all over again

@Clyde85:

Jimmy, Ah ok, that makes sense, a difference in over-all stratgey would explain that.

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.
I just do not see the advantage for Japan in joining in on an attack on the Soviet union, outside of pointlessly aiding the Germans. I would think it would benifit Germany more to have a Japanese behemoth in the Pacific, distracting American resources away from Europe and taking down relevent powers like British India and the ANZAC. Japan saying “sorry Germany, but you’re on your own against those nasty Reds, im going to go capture 2 new victory cities and work on doubling the size of my economy” sounds like an acceptable excuse NOT to attack the Soviets.

I also agree that the NO for Japan NOT taking FIC is stupid

It is significantly more difficult to win with Japan due to the need of transports primarily, and due to the fact they face the equivalent of 5 nations by themselves:  India, Australia, China, America, America (since America earns twice what any other nation does.)

Thus it comes down to Japan pulling a one time gambit off (because after that your opponent will see it coming) or helping Germany to win.  The two easiest ways to help Germany win are:  Blitz through Russia; Crush India and bring reinforcements up through the middle east and your navy into the Indian Ocean to sack Africa.

I’d like to see the FIC no changed to “Japan owns Japan” NO for 10 IPC.  America has one of those silly objectivese (because they are hardly going to lose it so what is it really?  Just a bonus you automatically get until you’ve lost the game, right?  Silly, you did not ACHIEVE an objective there!) and Japan DESPERATELY needs one.  Actually, make it 15 IPC to counter the American one, there is just way too much money in the Pacific for the allies!

I have always felt that it was the Axis powers job to try and keep America from committing to much of its economy to any one front. If America did try to commit all, or the bulk, of its economy to fighting just in Europe, then it was Japans job to run-a-muck in the pacific, and start threating the USA west coast with mass convoy disruption, or by bearing down on one of the 2 commonwealth powers. Making it so that If America focuses all of its resources in Europe, then when it turns around to face Japan, it will be facing a monster that controls all of the Asia-Pacific.

And visa-versa Germany(and to a lesser extent Italy, if they arent more of a liability at that point) should be threating London and pushing on Moscow and Cairo, making it paramount that if America goes whole hog after Japan, Germany will win the game alone.

I guess I just havent played enough, or im playing with a group that has a drasticly different mind-set form the A&A community at large, Or maybe I should stop wasting time with my fun little variant games I make for A&A  :roll:

America can devote about 18-24 IPC in the Atlantic and prevent a concerted effort by Germany and Italy from being overly successful, allowing the other 48-54 IPC to be dedicated to Japan.  Note:  If Germany and Italy do not make a concerted effort in the Atlantic, then America can use those IPC in the Pacific.

So while Germany and Italy are dumping 40-60 IPC into the Atlantic, they are not getting ground units to go after Russia, and America is putting in just enough to take some naval territories and block landings on N. America, or they go after Russia and America puts nothing out because there is no threat to N. America.

I’d also point out that hte fall of Italy is not a huge deal either, as long as Germany controls the Atlantic to a great extent.  Also, provided, you can get Russia.  Once Russia is down, Germany should readily be able to drop 23 ground units in range of Italy and force the Allied units out again.

Thats seems very odd to me, and if you dont mind, i’d like to just ask a few questions.
First, can Germany achieve a victory with out help from Japan? as in, are there enough VC’s in Europe with Japan just holding Japan?

Second, why isnt America more intrested in fighting in Europe? If Germany can achieve a victory with Japan only holding Japan, then shouldnt it be more important for the US to invest more in Europe and keep the Germans from focusing soley on the Eastern fronts with out having to worry about a massive US landing? I mean, it seems that Germany can dominate the European landmass, and threaten/take London, Moscow and Cairo. German and Italian IC’s are much closer to these critical victory areas then the US, meaning, in theroy anyway, they can get reenforcments to these important areas faster then the US, giving them(Euro-axis) a clear advantage. With the exception of London, the Euro-Axis can literally walk to all the needed victory cities if they wanted, while the US needs to transport everything from where they start to where the action is. Japan on the other hand, is in the same boat as the US, being an island and all, meaning that they are the slower of the Axis powers, and should be of second intrest to the US. You can tell where the Japs are gunna hit cause you can see the boats and guess, and most times it should be pretty obvious, meaning the US has plenty of time to react, and in some theaters the US and Japan are going to have an equally difficult time getting troops there, so they dont really need to as heavily. In my mind anyway, Germanys fast moving blitzkrieg poses more of a threat and has a greater chance of bringing an axis victory then Japans slowing moving infantry air-support army.

@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.