What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?

@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.

Jennifer… mobile units with Japan? What!? I quite remember you were pretty disinterested in Mech Infantry a few months ago…  :)

Mobile units are exactly what Japan needs - time is an issue for Japan (all the Axis, for that matter), and mobile units increase speed and maintain the initiative when well-used. Infantry and Artillery are still critical, but a combination is best.

BBB - I just tried the J1 attack on Russia, and I like it. the 12 IPCs to Russia get eaten up fast in lost economy for the Motherland and gained economy for Japan. And it’s ok if Russia forms a wall… Japan can be content with a stalemate in the north while they use the bulk of forces to go center and south.

The thing with mobile units is it’s not too hard to block them from blitzing.  Sure, they can still use their mobility in other useful ways, but not as much.

6 Mech, 4 Arm in Korea blitz into Russia starting around Round 3.

I dont think there are any big balance issues in the game. The better players usually win and if the teams are even we almost play for 15 hours and are not able to call it (unless grave mistakes are made). The problem i have with the game atm is more that it is not as dynamic as it could be.

I think there are a few changes that could make the game more dynamic.

The first would be some sort of Vishy rule. Say there is a minor axis ally formed in southern france and some of the colonies when france falls while the rest are free french and work with the Britts. There might be a need to redeploy/add/remove some units to compensate for this, mainly in the med.

I also think there should be an european NO for the americans (tourch is a good one), the alaskan or mexican one could be removed if needed to compensate for this.

Furthermore i do not like how grave it is to loose ones capital. I think there should be some sort of exiled capital rule. Say if a capital is taken the attacker gets all the defenders ipc on hand and that the defenders income collection rate of the power with an occupied capital is halved. I think this could be a potential way of fixing all the silly all-ins that are used in the game.

I also have some problems with ANSAC being a power in itself. I understand the function in the game as the set-up is now but i would rather have it as a third part of the CW with is own economy (Canada could possibly also be a separate economy and there could be some sort of transfer system, its might make things more complex but it could also be alot of fun).

Last but not least i would like some sort of micro IC:s say for the cost of 5-6 IPC that could be built anywhere (or in areas with an IPC-value of at least one) and that could build one unit (maybe not capital ships or strategic bombers). This could make remote parts of the maps more interesting. Russia could build one in the far east, Italy in East Africa and the Japanese or the Americans could build them on islands in the Pacific. Combined with the free french and the exiled capital a rule like this could generate alot of interesting options.

All of these thoughts are untested. They are just things i i think would be interesting to try out.

I believe Alpha 3 will include a transfer of one American NO to Europe from the Pacific.  Unsure as to which one, I believe the Mexican one, but I do believe that is what Larry was talking about doing.  It would probably be an NO for the liberation of France (recurring) I would assume.  5 IPC a round for France being liberated.

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.

@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.