How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.

[Funcioneta]

I checked alpha2's ANZAC NOs. They are the same as in OOB, the only difference being that Malaya+ANZAC gives 5 IPCs, not 3. Still, you need Malaya. So I think that:

- You should focus taking and holding Malaya. This will prevent aussies going greater to 15 if Japan holds all DEI. If you're not focusing on taking Malaya, your strategic approach is wrong
- If you focus on Malaya and still you cannot take it because of setup, then I agree that alpha needs balancing
- Same goes for New Guinea NO

Japan needs to make her historical conquests to keep the pace with USA (by round 4-5 as much). After then, Japan should kill the Asian minors (China and India), in 2-3 rounds more as much. This is that Japan should be able of do to make this balanced.

[suprise attack]

Did Japan ever have a chance in WWII?   In the group I'm in always takes a real aggressive approach to Japan. The longer you wait the more the Allies have to stock pile and plan.  I like the game the way it is,  at least there are no nukes!  When I read my WWII books I see that right after Pearl Harbor Japan goes all out for the Philippines, Malaya, Thailand, Singapore and Hong Kong. Also Guam, Midway and Wake were attacked, also Shanghai was occupied.  Then on Dec 16 they invaded Brit. Borneo and Johnson Island was shelled by a ��� sub then on Jan 4 they bombed Rabaul  Jan 7 they reached the border of Dutch West Borneo Jan 11 invaded Celebes . then Brit. North Borneo, then New Guinea was under attack. Jan 19 invaded  New Britain, New Ireland, Dutch Borneo, and the Solomon Islands. This all happened in a very short period of time, how can Japan do all this in one move,  I dont claim to have the answer for ya'll  but the one free round (before the Germany) maybe some American N.O.'s like 10$ for holding their home Island,  5$ for Iwo Jima, 5$ for Okinawa. Then there is the Tokyo express (Dest. carry 1 Inf.)

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Yes, the ANZAC NO was increased from 3 to 5, so now Australia can get up to 10 IPC from NOs. 

Taking and holding Malaya is all great in theory, but it's really hard to do when you face a 600 IPC American fleet coupled with a 200 IPC Australian + British fleet (includes 3 Aussie fighters flying cap.)

You'll eventually have to make the choice: Do I want SE Asia or do I want Tokyo?

[ghr2]

lol ive seen an " ITS OVER 9000!!!!!!!" american fleet!  between 200-300 is alot more realistic  and 100 combined anzac/uk fleet

[Cmdr Jennifer]

lol ive seen an " ITS OVER 9000!!!!!!!" american fleet!  between 200-300 is alot more realistic  and 100 combined anzac/uk fleet

200-300 American fleet implies the American player is asleep at the wheel - no offense intended.

3 Rounds of 52 IPC = 156 IPC + 129 IPC starting - 12 IPC minor Complex in Mexico (so you can put 6 ships a round into SZ 10, it's a petty thing, feel free not too) + 52 Round 4 + 25 NO = 350 IPC fleet right there!

Add in a few more rounds of 50 IPC + 20 IPC NOs (assuming you lose Philippines and do not gain the 5 of 7 NO for some reason) and you EASILY hit a 600 IPC fleet even with trading, perhaps even 900 IPC fleet if you are conservative.

[ghr2]

hey if america makes 0 planes thats got to be good for something, and like u said, america doe snot start with a 600 fleet, it like 6-7 turns of mall dedication to the pacific and no land units to get to that.  America would have around 250 at most by the time its at war with japan, and can take all the DEI plus maylay and phil and kwang, by a DoW J3 if it wants to.  I have not seen a SINGLE game where america has a 300+ NAVY goin all against Japan.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

I add planes in the Pacific to my American naval total.

As I said, there's 129 Naval Warships + 66 Planes = 195 IPC right off the bat, that's with zero invested in new ships and planes.  Add to that 3 rounds of 52 IPC (you said you attack on Round 3, so) that's 351 IPC you have to face. 

More realistically, the naval engagement will happen around turn 6, which would give America 77 + 70 + 70 more, for 568 in navy vs your little Japanese fleet.
Which, for the record, does not even count the extra stuff from Australia and England that will be helping to defend.  Just add on 3 fighters, 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers, 4 Destroyers and 4 Submarines to that total, in defensive forces so Japan has to attack a 568 American Fleet + 40 IPC British Fleet + 78 IPC Australian Fleet for a grand total of 686 IPC.

[ghr2]

but with 400-500 ipc japan has to defend with, its not such a commanding advantage.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

but with 400-500 ipc japan has to defend with, its not such a commanding advantage.

It sure seems to be more than enough to limit Japan to SZ 6 and it's neighboring sea zones, thus allowing England and Australia to take the DEI, snipe Okinawa, Formosa and Iwo Jima as appropriate as well.

I used to want Australia to have DEI, now I am leaning towards India having them gain, since Australia collects 20 IPC a round anyway, that's 2 submarines and a destroyer, all they really need to keep the Japanese fleet blocked from the American one

[ghr2]

Well, I just never had a game where the allies do as well as from what you've been saying.  Even with some well known people here on the allies side.  Allies do have the advantage, but not a walk in the park like you say.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Yes, I have played a few well known players on this site that all seem to be making the same mistake, they are investing in the Atlantic with the United States of America and thus, are having a bit more trouble in clearing Japan out. 

Don't get me wrong, they do eventually clear Japan out, they just have a much harder time of it than if they go whole hog after Japan.  If the United States ignores the Atlantic for the first 6 rounds of play, Japan is done for.  If they are more conservative, they can easily ignore the Atlantic for the first 8 rounds of play and really drive the nails into Japan.  Again, all you need to do is bottle Japan up and that is no where near as hard as actually beating Japan.

Once you are too strong to beat (defined:  If Japan throws it all at you, they lose and you win) all it really takes is an investment of 30-40 IPC a round to maintain your power.  The other 40 IPC a round can go into the Atlantic and CRD the Europeans / Liberate England (Africa should not be lost.  Unless the attack on SZ 97 went REALLY badly, Africa should be just about to capitulate to the Italians by about round 8.)

[questioneer]

Yes, I have played a few well known players on this site that all seem to be making the same mistake, they are investing in the Atlantic with the United States of America and thus, are having a bit more trouble in clearing Japan out. 

Don't get me wrong, they do eventually clear Japan out, they just have a much harder time of it than if they go whole hog after Japan.  If the United States ignores the Atlantic for the first 6 rounds of play, Japan is done for.  If they are more conservative, they can easily ignore the Atlantic for the first 8 rounds of play and really drive the nails into Japan.  Again, all you need to do is bottle Japan up and that is no where near as hard as actually beating Japan.

Once you are too strong to beat (defined:  If Japan throws it all at you, they lose and you win) all it really takes is an investment of 30-40 IPC a round to maintain your power.  The other 40 IPC a round can go into the Atlantic and CRD the Europeans / Liberate England (Africa should not be lost.  Unless the attack on SZ 97 went REALLY badly, Africa should be just about to capitulate to the Italians by about round 8.)

Jen, this is a great synopsis.  This is the main problem- go whole hog on Japan, sack them then liberate England.  Allies w/o US can hold their own I believe.  I have played enough to see this.  I would usually go 75% Pacific and 25% Europe with US.  Though I didn't go whole hog against Japan with US- I can easily see the plan working.  USSR and UK CAN keep it together until Japan is sacked.  Very convinced now that I've seen it on the board.

So then let's work on solutions which should entail the US having to dedicate more to Europe- best way is through an NO I believe.  Non-believers of Jen observations will gasp until they are convinced that US can sack Japan with 100% effort and none to Europe for first 6-8rounds.

So here it is:

Replaced Mexico NO with NO (US at war only) that includes Allies controlling all of the following: Gibraltar, Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia. 
Add 4inf, 1art on Tokyo
Add 2inf, 2art on Rome

$30 of land material for Axis- now Japan can use $16 on other things, Italy can use $14 on other things.
-$5 per round for US which in gameplay will result to at least $15-$20 (rounds 4-8ish) until they can gain this NO again and keep it.

This may seem a little strong but it may be what is needed.

[ghr2]

instead of units on rome, I say make it so that italy cant get totally screwed in tobruk and sz 97, the 2 inf 2 rtl wont mean anything if those battles cripple italy.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

The battles in SZ 97 and Tobruk can go badly for England already.  Those I think are in balance, IMHO.  Perhaps if you added 1 infantry, 1 armor to Libya instead so you have the punch for a counter attack.

[ghr2]

The battles in SZ 97 and Tobruk can go badly for England already.  Those I think are in balance, IMHO.  Perhaps if you added 1 infantry, 1 armor to Libya instead so you have the punch for a counter attack.

Ya but, the damage is more siginificant on the axis, you said that losing the uk med fleet is worth it for killing 2 german planes.  Also, how does italy recover when UK destroys torbruk (its mostly UK sided if UK wants it to be)?