Was KJF really that bad?

@drummerinheat:

Does the blue color for the oceans match?  My Pacific side is a liter or more faded blue than the Europe side.  Even the replacement was off colored.

I have the same, and I never even noticed it until someone else mentioned it to me. Now I can’t un-see it :p

Still, the difference is quite minor–enough to not even notice for five months and a half dozen games.

@suprise:

So here’s the Question How many ALPHA+2 games have you played , and what is the win lose ratio of Axis to Allied , not whether you won or lost, and do you pick your countries  or randomly draw them.
   For us the Axis have taken the last few
   I like the sound of your counter to the Kill Japan First , anyway just wondering how the record looks for your ALPHA+2 win loss as Axis and Allied
   I should probably start a new topic with that question or two table top or lap top

My one on one games, Axis win a lot, but in our 6 player group games, the allies win a lot.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

First things first, watch the economics,  as long as you are making MORE money, you are in charge,  and can trade piece for piece all day.

Second thing, remember you only need to NOT LOSE Hawaii and NSW.  Get stacks of ground units into those territories - mixed with planes + an AA and hold.

Third,  as often as possible build Transports and Men.  Take islands, forcing Japan to take them back, even if it costs you the tran to steal the territory in the first place.  Again, try to watch the economics here.

What this all does - is dilute’s Japan’s ability to focus it’s economics on one specific target.  If Japan can’t focus and take it’s objectives, it can’t win.  If you slowly start to swing the economic balance in your favour - 1 island at a time, eventually Japan will run out of gas - and because they lose - you win.

It’s all a widdling factor.  Widdle widdle widdle till you win

I am having a good game against the allies as they have been splitting their points in the Alantic and Pacific.  That being said I don’t know how I could have stopped them had the gone all in the Alantic.  I seems to me Germany and Italy need time to prepare for that sort of thing.

Just allow defenders to retreat after first round of battle like the attackers can do. That’s one of the rules of axis and allies that don’t make sense to me, defenders can’t retreat. If they are surrounded, I can understand they must make a last stand however.

I just posted this on another thread. What if the Allies go KFJ right from the beginning of the game?

On R1 Russia declares war on Japan moves its 6 inf from Buryatia to take Korea and sends its planes/armor to the Far East. The US moves all its units from Eastern/Central US to Hawaii/Western US and spends all 52 IPCs on the Pacific then Japan will have a long hill to climb.
It will have to deal with a reinforced US fleet, with the Russians/Chinese pressuring from the north and China plus the UK/ANZAC, while trying to capture the DEI and defend SZ6.

Of course it all depends on how the Axis will respond to this threat but from round 3 onwards the US can start sending units to the UK/Europe/Africa to try to contain Germany/Italy.

I posted my reply in the other thread ( http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20063.0 ) so it’s a bit easier to follow. No use having two threads about the same confusing the discussion!

8-)