Alpha 3.9 Favors Axis

You must need better allied players.

mmmmmm the germany owning russia goes pretty much like clockwork now a days.

I’ve played Global 1940 only once, and I think we used an older version of the rules (I don’t own the game).

By what German turn do you reckon that Moscow would fall if the USSR received no significant help from its allies?

Seems balanced to me, with co-equal players.

round 8-10 depends how rushed axis are and if waiting increases odds or not.

aa50 is balanced but people still bid for allies, because otherwise the only time axis lose is when they get diced. :)

global is balanced and needs a similar small bid.

suggesting 6 bid for dice games. I am sure a sub or tank won’t change the game, but give allies a small breather. especially since sz 97 shoots up from 85% to 95%.

hate gettin diced there. 1/20 games sounds about right.

@Cow:

round 8-10 depends how rushed axis are and if waiting increases odds or not.

Thanks. The reason I asked is that you mentioned the possibility of sending US bombers to Russia through North Africa. Bombers can arrive in two turns, but they are poor defenders.
So I figured that US fighters could make it to Russia in three turns (taking the Pacific route), if only they arrive in time. And I’d say that should be possible by round 8.

UK generally sends ftrs to Russia at some point in our games when there is an all out assault on the Soviets. The RAF can send ftrs from Scotland to Russian soil (territories that boarder sz 127), then to Moscow if done before Germany takes all the northern “Red” territories. UK can also funnel up fast moving ground units and air through the Mid East from India/Egypt. This may only halt them for a turn or two, but that may be all you need to pressure Germany from other fronts, its all about delay. If you can stall the march to Moscow, the US can generally get into position to do its part. The allies have to see this coming, and plan for it.

True, but the US can more easily afford the purchase of such fighters, and they could reach Russia in time unless Japan previously captures the USSR’s eastern territories where the fighters would need to land in between. The idea would be, to place some 10-12 fighters on Midway and the Aleutians (10-12 as a total, not 10-12 at either location) while the US is at peace, then fly into Soviet territory as soon as the war breaks out, and continue on towards Moscow. I’d say it would be very difficult for Germany to crack a big Soviet infantry stack backed up by a grand total of some 15 fighters.

So my next question would be: does the “USSR crush” typically also involve an all-out Japanese thrust into Amur and further, while simultaneously avoiding an early US entry into the war, and can Japan afford to do that and also maintain a good position in China?

idk the whole KJF thing does not work if japan gets india and holds out as long as possible. if the fighters leave to go to russia to defend that, you can then blow up again in the pacific.

also usa in russia does not stop germany from taking egypt and without a fleet in the atlantic… germany still makes enough to sea lion UK.

If Germany builds 10 infantry on turn 1 and follows that up with tanks
Turn 2 infantry stacks move to Poland and Rumania, turn 3 East poland turn 4 Belarus Turn 5 Smolensk Turn 6 Moscow falls.
That means the 6 infantry from Buryatia will be 1 turn short of Moscow and the other 12 will be 1 turn behind that, meanwhile Japan eats up as much Russian income as possible which will cost Russia 6 to 9 infantry for the defense of moscow.

Way too early IMHO to claim who has advantage in this game.  I need to challenge (through more gameplay) some of you on some of these claimed unstoppable Axis strategies/assumptions.  I’m gonna try some TripleA soon.

Eh, I dunno.
It wasn’t a whole lot more time than this that many of us were convinced how “unbalanced” A2 was towards the Allies.
Just saying.

Karl7, just play with a 9 bid.

If I were to suggest LH make some changes, it would be to add a russian bomber on russia.

I believe you. :D

Improve your allied play, and PLAY MORE GAMES, before you jump to this kind of conclusion.

I can garuntee neither of you has played more than 25 games as the allies.  Yet you are pontificating that it is imbalanced.

With so many options, and so many IPC’s already available, the allies can do alot of different things in response to the Axis.  You just need to figure out what works best for you.

And you can start by asking, HOW do the axis win MOST of the time? and Where?

Gargantua, I think it is as balanced as AA50 and Revised. 9 bid is fine.

Revised, the minimum bid I would take for germany was an infantry in ukraine, though I preferred minimum artillery for libya.

AA50, I guess it’d be an infantry in egypt… lowest I recall, but I really did not feel like playing axis that day.

I played V4 a few times without bid… prefer revised rules.

Classic I prefer original classic rules, but I do attack karelia round 1 (guys stranded in norway so may as well take a stab at karelia)… I think 10 was the lowest I went. Man been awhile since I played classic.
~
I have taken allies at 0 against newer opponents and won. Same for AA50 when it first came out. Revised rules same thing when it first came out.

The bid system takes time to flesh out. I believe in 1 unit per territory, also 1-9 is relatively small enough that you could play with or without it.

For all A&A games I prefer to play with a bid or against an opponent who takes a bid. It changes the game up.