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

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Eh, I always find the most humorous thing when Germany forgets about the second Russian submarine! 

The next most humorous to me is when Germany goes all into SZ 127 then gets locked in!  mhuhahahaha.  There are definitely more pitfalls for Germany than there are for Russia.  Very hard to cut off the Russians or pummel them into submission whereas the Germans have Scandinavia to worry about as well as France, Eastern Europe and Italy.

[JimmyHat]

ghr2:

Russian strategies very based on Italian and German strategies.  It is very hard to detail all possible strategies for Russia when all Russia needs to do is hold two victory cities to prevent the Axis from winning.

In the example that Germany ignores England:

Russia builds primarily infantry in forward positions until they cannot be held any longer.  Russian units slowely retreat to Moscow (Muskva) over 8 rounds.  Losing Leningrad and/or Stalingrad is not such an issue, as London has not fallen and therefore, Germany essentially needs both Leningrad and Stalingrad as well as potentially Moscow. 

With Germany ignoring England, Egypt is no longer a certain event.  Neither is the German NO for having a ground unit in Egypt, as England can readily put 6 units a round into the holding of Egypt if needed.  3 from Central Persia/Iraq and 3 from S. Africa.  One might even go so far as to put a complex in Iraq and Persia to augment the one in S. Africa (and the transports needed to get them up to Egypt) and thus have 9 units a round.  After all, once London is secure from attack, it is SECURE from attack.  There's no second chance at Sea Lion, you miss your chance, you've missed it permanently.  It will only be under-defended so long, after all, and then it becomes cost prohibitive.

Should Germany go Sea Lion, this is at least 4 transports and 20/30 ground units lost or trapped in England the water.  That's at least 100 IPC probably closer to 180 IPC worth of units that Russia now does not have to face.  That alone gives Russia the advantage in stalling the Germans and Italians.  (Again, I look at a strong British open, going for the throat whereever possible against Italy on Round 1 to neuter it.  If Germany augments, this will probably make England that much more secure, if Germany does not augment, then British forces should win more decisively.  Essentially, I want to kill every German plane I can with England on round 1.  If I cannot kill any German planes, then I can have a much easier time sinking Italian ships and killing Italian soldiers.)

In regards to "back dooring" Russia, as I have said, I invite it.  Many have claimed, erroneously, that this is 48 IPC for Japan. (6 IPC a round for 8 rounds.)  That is blatantly untrue!  First off, you cannot take 6 IPC worth of Russia in one round!  Secondly, you are not just walking in, you have to send something!  And you have to send something to protect that something.  And you have to send something to reinforce that something.

So as I said:

Japanese Gains:
* +14 IPC in conquered land
* -69 IPC worth of units (lost due to position on the board.)

Russian Gains:
* +60 IPC worth of units
* +9 IPC in land not conquered yet
* +12 IPC National Objective of getting Japan to declare war on them

Benefits:  Japan 55 IPC loss, Russia 81 IPC gain


I do not see invading Russia as a winning proposition, unless you can convince Russia to send units to go fight you.  However, I do not feel a good Russian strategy is to go fight Japan.  You don't really need too.  It is 4 rounds minimum before they can get units to trade for TIM, and 5 or 6 before they can send enough units there to hold TIM.  By then, the Japanese should be completely strangulated with Chinese forces making strong pushes into Jehol, British units from India (the ones I detailed that could be sent to China to help, less the aircraft which should go back to the Middle East long before now) in Kansu holding the Japanese out of China's back door and what I will detail about naval position now:

Japan is also losing at least 24 IPC in warships a round.  It is probably an even trade with Australia, who is putting 24 IPC worth of warships in the water each round.  This is to prevent the Americans from attacking SZ 6 by blocking (with picket ships) SZ 16, 17 and 18.  Australia then counters with Destroyer, Fighter to SZ 16, SZ 17 and SZ 18.  (If both destroyers are lost, then it's an allied gain, if only the Japanese one is lost, then it is an allied gain, if only the Australian one was lost, then it's neither a gain nor loss for the Allies.  Yes, this means the Allies cannot lose here.)  This means that America loses nothing in position, war materials or strength, rather only gains in the latter two while Japan at best stays even, at worst starts to lose strength.

Thus, if Japan invades Russia you have:

24 IPC a round into replacing lost destroyers to Australia (does not include anything to counter American builds.)

Probably another 18 IPC a round into China to hold your own.

69 IPC in units lost in the Russian hinterland giving you virtually no benefit.



But what about Germany and Italy?

Well, with Russia building and retreating (and keeping in mind that if Russia earns less than 30 IPC, they can build it all in Moscow still) and with 6 rounds to walk someone from N. Italy to Russia and 5 rounds to walk someone from Germany to Moscow, it shouldn't be hard to imagine it taking the Axis 9 or 10 rounds just to get in position to trade territories around Moscow.

That can be cut down with transports, but not significantly, since transports would negate much of the gains in movement speed by cost of the transports and the opportunity cost to divert units to protect said transports.

A tank dash is another option, but you quickly find yourself trading 6 IPC tanks for 3 IPC infantry.  That means you need 2 IPC for every 1 IPC Russia earns to break even.  Worse yet, since it takes roughly 3:1 odds to win a battle, you are risking at least 2 armored units (with airpower to assist) to kill 1 Russian infantry, whereas Russia is risking 2 or 3 infantry to kill 1 or 2 armored units.  This is a trade deficit and will eventually lead to Russia overpowering the Germans.  This is why virtually every tank dash in the game has been defeated.  Assuming the person being dashed against has seen the solution before (either by trying him/herself or just reading someone's game who has done it.  It is how I learned.)


Parting thought, in regard to Russia:  Russia is not the weak kitten it is made out to be.  Granted, it does not have nearly the offensive capabilities of Germany, but then, we are not asking it to march to Berlin, we are asking it to stop Germany from marching to Moscow.  It does not need the offensive capabilities, it needs the defensive, and it has the defensive. 

But but but...I need: {Paris, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Egypt, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow} to win!  I don't need London.  Of course you do not need London!  No one said you did!  But you are going to need Moscow!  I can stop you from taking Moscow with Russia!  I can stop you with planes from England to help!  yes, it takes 2 turns, but if you are not going for London, I have all these extra planes (and a French one, the hell else am I going to do with a French fighter???) to fly over to Moscow to stop you! 

I think it might be a good idea for you to try and figure out an Axis strategy that can defeat this allied strategy.  It might take some radical changes to the beginning of your games, plus a few changes to the time tables.  For instance, I have already mentioned how easy it is for the axis to save the Italian army in Africa, you yourself said that in that case UK would vacate the Med and save the fleet too!  Really this move is a no-brainer.  Secondly, because you wait until J4 to attack,(or is it J3?)  You are actually beefing up ANZAC enough that they /can/ afford to swap 24 ipcs of production with Japan.  In my games(attack J2) ANZAC is lucky to be making 20ipcs 1 turn, after that they struggle to make 15, I think a more realistic ANZAC support consists of 1 sub 1 dd or maybe 2 subs.  Thirdly, I don't see much value to Japan staging their fleet outside Carolines unless they plan on invading Australia/Hawaii.  As you've said, thats a fools errand for Japan because of the huge American fleet.  So why not do the smart thing and drag that American fleet all over the Pacific?  Stage in Philippines, or build a minor/NB/AB in Celebres(an awesome location to maintain your naval empire).  By forming up your fleet more west you can support the coast(where the money is)  and the money islands and forget about Carolines and other moneyless islands.

Lastly it appears you have yet to find out about one of the new units added to this version of the game.  The Mechanized infantry is great for adding to the Tank Dash strategy.  It now means that if you take a casualty, its only 4ipcs instead of the 6 you have been losing.  Try adding a few to your tank dashes.....especially for Germany.  For 1 ipc more you can now move twice as fast in vast russia.  This also might be a reason Germany is stalling.

[taschuler]

I think it might be a good idea for you to try and figure out an Axis strategy that can defeat this allied strategy.  It might take some radical changes to the beginning of your games, plus a few changes to the time tables.  For instance, I have already mentioned how easy it is for the axis to save the Italian army in Africa, you yourself said that in that case UK would vacate the Med and save the fleet too!  Really this move is a no-brainer.  Secondly, because you wait until J4 to attack,(or is it J3?)  You are actually beefing up ANZAC enough that they /can/ afford to swap 24 ipcs of production with Japan.  In my games(attack J2) ANZAC is lucky to be making 20ipcs 1 turn, after that they struggle to make 15, I think a more realistic ANZAC support consists of 1 sub 1 dd or maybe 2 subs.  Thirdly, I don't see much value to Japan staging their fleet outside Carolines unless they plan on invading Australia/Hawaii.  As you've said, thats a fools errand for Japan because of the huge American fleet.  So why not do the smart thing and drag that American fleet all over the Pacific?  Stage in Philippines, or build a minor/NB/AB in Celebres(an awesome location to maintain your naval empire).  By forming up your fleet more west you can support the coast(where the money is)  and the money islands and forget about Carolines and other moneyless islands.

Lastly it appears you have yet to find out about one of the new units added to this version of the game.  The Mechanized infantry is great for adding to the Tank Dash strategy.  It now means that if you take a casualty, its only 4ipcs instead of the 6 you have been losing.  Try adding a few to your tank dashes.....especially for Germany.  For 1 ipc more you can now move twice as fast in vast russia.  This also might be a reason Germany is stalling.

The "moneyless" islands can comprise a 10 IPC swing to the US (Japan down 5 and US up 5) and 5 for ANZAC. Granted DEI is a 20 IPC gain for Japan, but the object is not only to get as many NOs for yourself but to simultaneously deprive your opponent.

You can keep ANZAC at 10 with a little attention directed their way and sending some subs their way too.

[Defiance]

With the balance changes of Alpha 2, is it a fair assessment that Germany/Japan must use there momentum in the earlier rounds to gain an advantage? If for whatever reason Germany/Japan stalls or loses a battle,due to poor purchases,dice rolls,etc. The Allies begin to even up the odds. If the previous statements are correct, time is on the Allies side. Which brings me to wonder if this AA Global game follows historic outcomes to some degree. Example, Hitlers best chance at Sea Lion was in the early years of WW2. So this translates to rd 1-3(4?). The war with Russia was intended to be quick. If Germany goes Sea Lion it will face a much stronger Russia. At the same time, if US builds right, the odds seem to favor the Allies. I am very inexperienced at AA Global, so you guys/ladies would know best. I appologize if this has been addressed, or is common knowlege. I am simply tring to understand the dynamics of Alpha 2, and its changes.      

[questioneer]

Basically (Jen's got the details) the issue is this:

US income is exponential over time.  In other words it starts off slow then in mid to late rounds (rounds 8+) it gets very beastly.  This is not a big deal if the US is forced through a simple change in NOs to divert some of its cash to the Atlantic where there are no NOs invested.  In this way the Axis can somewhat keep up with the US income as the game progresses into deeper rounds- levels out the sharpness of income so its not as exponential. (Think e to the x power graph)- get it???

[Defiance]

I understand what you are saying. If Japan fails to convince US from committing forces, Germany will have a harder time. I have read most of the posts presented in this discussion. It seems to me everyone here is very knowlegable regarding AA. Jen has broken it down very well. Thank you for repling to my post.

[Jay]

After reading many posts it would seem Japan needs Ipc's early but can't get them without bringing US into war. Why not get rid of FIC NO and replace US war declaration with the taking of Calcutta or Sydney . Like the London DOW in the atlanic. This would allow Japan to attack many dutch Islands that it traditionally held when the Us entered the war.  Maybe move the UK BB and the Anzac ships a space out of reach to start.

[Zallomallo]

* Losing 3 destroyers a round is a loss of 24 IPC.  That's a lot of money anyway you look at it.  SZ 16, 17 and 18 have to be covered if America has ships in SZ 26 and SZ 33.  With Australian fighters helping along with remnants of the Australian and British fleets, odds of a direct assault on the allies being a victory for Japan are nil.  Even if you win, you lost.  You cannot recover, but the allies can.  Thus, the allies do not need to cover all three sea zones like you do.

Why must Japan defend those seazones?

[Zallomallo]

* Losing 3 destroyers a round is a loss of 24 IPC.  That's a lot of money anyway you look at it.  SZ 16, 17 and 18 have to be covered if America has ships in SZ 26 and SZ 33.  With Australian fighters helping along with remnants of the Australian and British fleets, odds of a direct assault on the allies being a victory for Japan are nil.  Even if you win, you lost.  You cannot recover, but the allies can.  Thus, the allies do not need to cover all three sea zones like you do.

Why must Japan defend those seazones?

Japan needs the blockers I think.

When I played, my opponent and I just built well rounded navies.  Is it better to have a block and have more submarines?

[eudemonist]

I strongly believe waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a death sentence right out of the gate.

Between Kwangtung, Phillipines, Borneo, Java, and FIC, you're talking about a 30 ipc swing in territory alone, makes up for the extra U.S. objective money. On top of that, add maybe four bucks from disrupting ANZAC convoys (and four bucks hurts a LOT when you start with ten) and another couple from interdicting off Malaya.  You lose 10 ipcs from not getting the peace bonus, but convoy damage you can inflict offsets some of that, you're halfway to controlling the DEI, you're taking away a 5 ipc USNO, and you can stomp on India and Australia's navy while they're still tiny.

[special forces]

I strongly believe waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a death sentence right out of the gate.

Between Kwangtung, Phillipines, Borneo, Java, and FIC, you're talking about a 30 ipc swing in territory alone, makes up for the extra U.S. objective money. On top of that, add maybe four bucks from disrupting ANZAC convoys (and four bucks hurts a LOT when you start with ten) and another couple from interdicting off Malaya.  You lose 10 ipcs from not getting the peace bonus, but convoy damage you can inflict offsets some of that, you're halfway to controlling the DEI, you're taking away a 5 ipc USNO, and you can stomp on India and Australia's navy while they're still tiny.

i completely agree!

[suprise attack]

Game 14 this weekend I cant wait!   I'll take as many notes as I can,  I'll let ya know who takes over the world.
    Will the Axis get lucky or will the Allies prevail?     ( I feel sorry for lucky, everybody is out to get-im)

[Cmdr Jennifer]

* Losing 3 destroyers a round is a loss of 24 IPC.  That's a lot of money anyway you look at it.  SZ 16, 17 and 18 have to be covered if America has ships in SZ 26 and SZ 33.  With Australian fighters helping along with remnants of the Australian and British fleets, odds of a direct assault on the allies being a victory for Japan are nil.  Even if you win, you lost.  You cannot recover, but the allies can.  Thus, the allies do not need to cover all three sea zones like you do.

Why must Japan defend those seazones?

Because if they do not, they lose their fleet in SZ 6.  If they have destroyers in SZ 16, 17 and 18, then America can only open the door to the Japanese fleet, they cannot actually move in and sink them.  Keep in mind, the American fleet in SZ 6 does 3 convoy damage to Korea and 8 convoy damage to Japan.  This is not something Japan should allow to happen!  Doubly so since there is no reason that America has to only convoy those zones if they have moved into SZ 6. (Generally speaking, by the time Japan has to be in SZ 6 (roughly round 6) America already has the firepower to sink all Japanese ships, soak 6 kamikazee fighters and take out the 6 scrambled fighters I assume Japan will also have.  3 from Japan and 3 from a newly built airbase in Korea.)

I strongly believe waiting until round four to attack with Japan is a death sentence right out of the gate.

Between Kwangtung, Phillipines, Borneo, Java, and FIC, you're talking about a 30 ipc swing in territory alone, makes up for the extra U.S. objective money. On top of that, add maybe four bucks from disrupting ANZAC convoys (and four bucks hurts a LOT when you start with ten) and another couple from interdicting off Malaya.  You lose 10 ipcs from not getting the peace bonus, but convoy damage you can inflict offsets some of that, you're halfway to controlling the DEI, you're taking away a 5 ipc USNO, and you can stomp on India and Australia's navy while they're still tiny.

i completely agree!

For a modest income boost early in the game, you are handing the Americans 75 IPC + the ability to drop 10 units a round into the Pacific?  This does not seem wise.  In fact, I have play tested it and I happen to know this is not wise.  America can recover from early losses, Japan can never recover from a single loss, anywhere. 

[taschuler]

I wouldn't attack anyone but China till J3 unless Germany took the UK in G2.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

Again, America does not need to sink the Japanese fleet, only have a force strong enough to threaten to sink it along with a few transports and ground units to keep Japan honest.

I have demonstrated numerous times in multiple threads how easily it comes to America to gather a 900 IPC fleet.  By comparison, I have also demonstrated numerous times in multiple threads on how hard it is for Japan to get a 500 IPC fleet.   Both fleets include air units but neither include transports.  The American fleet and Japanese fleet both have 4 transports in the scenarios I posted.  I recommend you go read them, instead of asking the same questions others have asked and have gotten very sound answers too.

For the record, your Kamikazee's are great, but rather useless.  America should refrain from bringing in some of the carriers, this way, they still have soaks to justify landing long range fighters (not the technology, but those fighters at or near the end of their fuel) but deny Japan the "Hail Mary" of one kamikazee per carrier in the hopes America has nothing to land on and loses a lot of fighters to the ocean.  Generally by round 8 this is no longer a factor, it generally occurs with rookie players who attack SZ 6 too early.

I wouldn't attack anyone but China till J3 unless Germany took the UK in G2.

Even with a G3 Sea Lion (I do not believe round 2 is an option, I could be wrong, but even if I am, I don't think it would make much of a difference to Japan) I would not recommend doing anything in Russia. 

As I outlined, in order to get the moderate benefit of taking the territories (14 IPC) it costs you 12 IPC (since you cannot collect it now, no matter what the allies do) and you have to dedicate a pretty sizable land force to get it.  If you don't send in the ground forces, the little income you might have get is quickly dwarfed to next to nothing.

Keep in mind, an invasion of Russia justifies Russian reinforcements into China!  Otherwise, Russian reinforcements gives Japan the NO.  So by NOT invading Russia, you potentially prevent Russia from bolstering China.