What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?

To Alsch91 : I don’t beleive the " US Pac-Strategy" is a wining strat for alliance… Nobody won against me with that strat. Of course Japan will be weak, but German will win. If US goes all Europe, then Japan will win. I think US has to split so alliance can win. All my alliance victories were achieved by splitting USA. So I don’t see the need to boost Japan.

To Enigmatic : I think sea lion has to be a gamble… and was in fact. And if it’s too a gamble to succeed, as Germany, I don’t try it and focus on Russia so I (usually) don’t fail Sea lion, I do or don’t try.

But, let’s give it a thought anyway… As you notice, kinna paradoxal to make sea lion less a gamble AND make it harder to succeed. Perhaps a Germany’s NO linked to UK casualties… as propaganda to recruit new troops for example. This NO could be progressif too.

Well there’s been significant discussions and testing on the Pacific Strategy.  The results more or less show that it’s just about the best strategy for the Allies.  Sure, it’s not an instant win, but it’s usually the best way to do it.
Frankly, there wouldn’t be so much discussion on how to stop the Pacific Strategy if it weren’t very legitimate and effective.

BigBadBruce: My idea was always going to be paradox like (after all look at my name tag) You raised some interesting points.

Jen: your idea also sounds interesting and well thought out.

A little more food for thought might be to have a German air force presence on Western europe cause some kind of economic penalty for Britain. Something a little more substantial than the current Str. bombing rules?

Completely off topic but bringing in some form of espionage rules to the game as a whole might work and has anyone envisioned what a “fog of war” game might look like?

The main principle behind SJF is that America spends all their income in the Pacific for 5-7 rounds (depending on the board situation and dice results, of course.)  After that, they split their income (as they earn more than what Japan + Italy earn in any given round at this point.)

To augment their defense, India and Australia put submarines and destroyers in the water.  Australian fighters can land on Islands to add additional air support.  This forces Japan to keep their aircraft near home else get pinned early in the game.

SJF is not a winning move!  You do not take Japan!  Ever!  Unless they leave it undefended of course.  That’s not the idea!  The idea is to stop Japan’s growth.  Once India and Australia are earning more than Japan, they can take over from there and you can go back to crushing Germany with the lion’s share of your income.

I’ve seen games where the allies have recovered from India, England and Australia being lost, and games where the fall of Russia proved meaningless because the allies are THAT STRONG!

That’s a major problem in my book.  I cannot speak for anyone else, but that is a MAJOR PROBLEM in my book!  If Russia falls, the game should be over.  If India and Australia fall, the game should be over.  If Germany or Japan falls, the game should be over.  IMHO.

@Alsch91:

No arguements there, but what I’m saying is that if US responds the way we like - splitting its income significantly - then we’ve only caused Japan to be able to win faster.  This doens’t encourage US to split income.  The power that is the bigger threat to US - Japan - would only become more threatening.

We don’t want Japan to be able to “slow US down” more.  We want for Japan to not see its first priority as simply stalling for time - for US to split its IPCs.

8 IPC is not enough to force America to invest significantly more or less IPC than normal.  We’re only talking a potential 2 artillery or 1 destroyer a round.  It is, however, enough to slow America by at least one round if not two or three which could be the difference between victory or failure.

@Cmdr:

The main principle behind SJF is that America spends all their income in the Pacific for 5-7 rounds (depending on the board situation and dice results, of course.)  After that, (…)

I understand you point… but mine is that by turn 3 (maybe 4), London is under Germany’s occupation. By turn 6-7 Germany is within Mother land and Leningrad is about to fall (is not done already) and within next 2-3 turns Moscow is greatly threaten.

Bottom line, with time frame you propose, I say Germany will have time to win before USA can take back London (or Gibraltar for that matter).

Yes Jen, but that doesn’t deal with the actual problem of US not splitting its income.
Making Japan stronger only serves to make America want to crush Japan as quickly as possible even more.
I understand how KJF works, I’m saying that an additional 8 IPCs for Japan won’t suddenly make America want to devote some resources to the Atlantic.  If anything, it will do the opposite.

@BigBadBruce:

@Cmdr:

The main principle behind SJF is that America spends all their income in the Pacific for 5-7 rounds (depending on the board situation and dice results, of course.)  After that, (…)

I understand you point… but mine is that by turn 3 (maybe 4), London is under Germany’s occupation. By turn 6-7 Germany is within Mother land and Leningrad is about to fall (is not done already) and within next 2-3 turns Moscow is greatly threaten.

Bottom line, with time frame you propose, I say Germany will have time to win before USA can take back London (or Gibraltar for that matter).

I believe a British turtle will derail that.  You should lose too many units in a normal sack of London that Russia will be able to push into Europe.
Assuming Sea Lion, by round 6 or 7 Germany is trading Baltic States and E. Poland and getting Russia out of Romania, Hungary and Poland.

With London Turtle, I redirect all forces against Russia and keep UK check with navy. Of course, every game is different so I can’t say it will “always” works as I planned… but yet, I did have success with Axis… which, and it’s the point of this thread, leads me to think Alpha 2+ is fairly balanced and surely not broken.

I was thinking a way to Balance the FIC objective for Japan might be to place to have it change according to the situation. For example, If Japan dosn’t occupy FIC and isnt at war with the allies, then they get 10IPCs. If Japan occupies FIC but isnt at war with the Allies, Japan gets 5IPCs. If Japan occupies FIC and IS at war with the Allies, they collect 3IPCs.

I think it balances it a bit more and makes Japan still want to go south, it also represents not only the economic backlash of the west by Japans occupation of FIC brought, while still representing the strategic and economic value of the territory

@BigBadBruce:

With London Turtle, I redirect all forces against Russia and keep UK check with navy. Of course, every game is different so I can’t say it will “always” works as I planned… but yet, I did have success with Axis… which, and it’s the point of this thread, leads me to think Alpha 2+ is fairly balanced and surely not broken.

Then, I feel, Russia is making mistakes.  You can do serious damage with submarines, as JMite is more than willing to tell you, but the Russians should still have a 400-500 IPC army to defend Moscow with and prevent a VC win.  Likewise, England should still be able to reclaim Africa unless Italy is not helping in Russia at all, in which case, Russia should still have the Ukraine as well.

Indeed!  :-D

The Allies won last nite. they had some real great dice, 100% hit ratios on offence and defence  Paris was one example  I didnt think I was going to get it  London was another I woulnt belive it if I heard or read that there was some 100% hit ratio. I saw it so I have to belive it they had real good rolls and the Allies needed a win.  The Axis rolled real good I think that on any other nite we would have had it, we had plenty of 70- 95% hit ratios , just totaly desimate teritories on your opening roll  we also had some real crap dice
  There were 6 of us at the table.        more next week

For whatever reason, in my games the Axis always have terrible luck while the Allies always roll well.  This isn’t true of every battle, but is almost always holds for the big important game changing battles. It frustrates me to no end, and it really doesn’t seem to matter who plays what powers.

@shadowguidex:

For whatever reason, in my games the Axis always have terrible luck while the Allies always roll well.  This isn’t true of every battle, but is almost always holds for the big important game changing battles. It frustrates me to no end, and it really doesn’t seem to matter who plays what powers.

This seems to hold true for me on Germany 1 and Japan 4 when the biggest battles seem to be rolled…

The Allies won the first one yesterday and the Axis won the second one
  I’m looking forward to the ALPHA+3 version and the preliminary 10 or so test games to see how it will all pan out
  I think it will make  the  opening offensive movements still the same  with some conditions that if they are meet then you can do a specific attacks if not then that strat. is no longer an option and you have to go with a different plan …… It looks good from here

The Allies won last nite ALPHA+2, last week the Axis won ALPHA+2
  To tired last week to stay focused    up at 5 work at 6 home at 5 game at 7 dog tired by midnite  but this weekend I was able to get a cat nap in and lots of strong coffee