Hehe, i do remember you lost to me once Jim, (as Lord Nielsen) but granted i think you had rather bad dice then…
Going back to the OOB setup does not seem like a great solution to me, since it had its own problems like the India crush.
Has anyone considdered making the italians stronger as a way to balance the US income?? It seems to me that with a stronger Italy it might be impossible for the US to spend 100% in pacific and still stall the axis in europe…
@Cmdr:
I1:
British remnants and French fleet in the Med Sunk
Syria Taken (or Jordan depending on garrison.)
I dont know who you play against Jennifer, but if the UK player gather his fleet in z92 turn 1, there is no way you can take it out with the italians.
In fact its more the other way around then, if the italian player moves anywhere turn 1, you will have the option of crushing his fleet turn 2.
Im fine with no tech, seems like its not worth it anyway.
Hehe, how do you propose to make this a 4v4 game?
I might be up for UK/Anzac.
Oh, that was a reply to:
the balance is not bad. I’ll still argue its slightly in an axis advantage. I stated before that I would like to err on the side of an allied advantage, but on further review I’ll make a case the other way:
An axis bid will only provide for a more effective sealion campaign. a low bid of just seven will get Germany another transport. Since the axis hold the innitiative, an axis bid is much more dangerous for the allies than the reverse. Since I’d like to see fewer Sealion campaigns maybe the set-up is right. Then the allied player’s bid can nuetralize a Sealion play.
How many of you have actually played a game where germany didn’t build ships on G1 or G2? Have any of you gone for Russia’s throat from the start? Seems all of this balance discussion take only into account a German Sealion approach. Every game I look up on the forum shows a German ship build on G1. And for the most part Japan leaves Russia alone. odd……
I agree, havent seen or played one game where the german player did not buy fleet G1, and i believe its because its simply the best opening. If you do not put early pressure on the brittish it will be too easy for them to stop Italy before they can grow to a decent ipc level. And Germany fighting alone is a lost cause unless you are close to breaking Russia.
I believe Larry Harris did try to fix this in alpha2, a G1 barbarossa now seems a viable strategy in itself. The problem is in my opinion that the mediterranean setup is too volatile. Theres a very fine balance between succes and disaster for the italians. That means Germany have to put pressure on UK if they want Italy to gain critical mass.
I would like sealion & barbarossa to present equal oppertunities for Germany, and i think the key to resolve that is to rearrange the mediterranean setup (again) and lower the ods for sealion a bit.
Apart from this i do agree that the game seems well balanced most places. Some of these balance issues are perhaps also a matter of taste. There might be some people out there who just love building german ships, but personally i like it when the game offers more than one option.
I agree, Sealion should not be the default strategy.
I have tried to play against a succesful T3 Sealion. And though its not game over for the allies, it certainly is uphill from there. I would say against good axis players its a very hard win and you need a lot of luck for it to happen.
Sorry to dissapoint you Cow, but tactical bombers can only be used on air & naval bases, not on IC’s. So bombing is not really a strategy.
I agree that Sealion is still too easy to pull off. It seems the balance between UK london & UK Med forces is not really perfect yet.
I would say UK london should be stronger and UK Med & Africa forces should be slightly weaker.
Im going to pass anyway, sorry about that!
(I wanted to play, but i really shouldnt since i have a lot of work to do.)