After playing Alpha 3.9 numerous times on the forum and off against many players, I draw the conclusion that Alpha 3.9 favors the Axis decisively for one reasons:
The Allies cannot effectively stop a USSR crush.
The USSR is too under powered to stop it, and the other allies cannot get in there fast enough to stop it without losing to Japan. The allies either have to KJF and hope they can rerout once that’s done to hold on to Cairo or to just hope Japan stumbles, giving them enough time to counter Germany. Either way is a crap shoot and futile if Germany and Japan really hammer the USSR.
From my experience- I’m not convinced of the that yet.
dude this is why people bid for allies.
you got to pull out all the hat tricks to save russia.
USA can get bombers into russia in two turns from east usa via east usa -> north africa->russia.
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.
Fighters from UK generally don’t change the equation. I’ve seen up to 9 UK fighter in play in Russia and the Allies still saw the writing on the wall and evacuated Russia.
I am not saying that Alpha 3.9 favors the Axis by a wide margin, but in a very narrow way that the allies can’t really counter.
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.
One last thing about this….
The Axis advantage could be negated by some really small adjustments such as:
1. Airbase in Gibraltar/Malta;
2. 8 Russian inf scattered around Siberia, central Asia;
3. Return to the USA 30+ no instead of the peace-meal nos; or,
4. more US units at start.
I am one of those who thinks balance shouldn’t be the objective anyway. The allies should always be favored, at least economically. The Axis should start out militarily superior but economically inferior and have to move quickly to secure their positions. In the current version the two sides are almost balanced economically once Japan moves into the DEI, which is insane in my view.
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.
hm, not sure what a bomber would do for USSR. But bid 9 would help for allies.
If I had time I would declare open challenge with me Axis vs any allies player… alas time constraints (not to mention I probably too many games going anyway… :wink:)
