To get back on point…
I think Alpha is better gameplay in both versions. It doesnt really hurt Japan (if you know how to play as Japan) it only hurts their J1 attack, which was overpowered anyway. I just finshed a global gae where Axis won after a J3 attack.
A smart US player will have more than 1 transport ready by US 3. So you block w/ the DD for a turn, Us fleet moves forward (it can use the aussie fighters in OOB to kill DD blocks too btw) , but the India crush requires your air force to be out of position for 2 turns. How do you hold the 2nd turn?
Oh, you mean US3. Well, then J4 builds 10 inf in the Capital and upgrades the India IC and builds 3 tanks India.
US2 can only hit Japan with 1 transport, so no US2 invasion of Japan
Oh yeah, sorry I didn’t state that better. I meant US3 and 4 pressure. So you let the US move into SZ 6 and then hope to kill them with your returning airforce? They can do some serious harass if you let them get in that far.
Oh yeah, sorry I didn’t state that better. I meant US3 and 4 pressure. So you let the US move into SZ 6 and then hope to kill them with your returning airforce? They can do some serious harass if you let them get in that far.
Well, I can counter with most of my navy. J4, I can move all my non CV planes from Yunnan to Manchuria to kill the fleet in Z6
Why don’t you guys play by forum and settle this properly?
IMHO by the way, I enjoy the aesthetic of Alpha better as all those Jap planes looked a little ridiculous. Initial impressions of the game play were that it slows down Japan a tiny bit too much, but I’ll have to play a few more games before I can say that with some degree of certainty.
I prefer my games face to face. What’s wrong with a little theory-crafting, eh? :-P
Ok settle down please. Its just a game right?
Maher, I never claimed to be a superior axis and allies player. I can readily admit that many people here are better than me and have played more G4o games as me. Just because someone has many posts does not mean that they are arrogant or that they are a good player. I am just stating my opinions; my post count is not being used to support or justify my opinions.
I’m sorry that I don’t waste time “getting ladies” who I’m never going to marry. I don’t like football either. And I do not troll the forums; I post useful information. You’'re forum trolling more than me since much of your posts is made up of insults and condescension.
Hmm, I guess you deleted your post(or IL did so).
Back on topic, Alpha is much better gameplay. India now can build small ships or a carrier as a viable option and can compete for the DEI
And you’ll be done by turn 6. GG.
Who is going to kill me by G6? US? I dare you to build all Atlantic.
Also, combine J3 India Crush with g3 Sealion
Not for nothing, but a G3 sealion is probably impossible (or at least cripplingly costly) with the J1 attack that sets up the J3 crush. Once the US is at war with Japan (J1), it’s allowed to move units into England. The addition of units in England makes the sealion even more costly and would mean Russia would probably be easily able to make FAST advances in Germany.
And you’ll be done by turn 6. GG.
Who is going to kill me by G6? US? I dare you to build all Atlantic.
Also, combine J3 India Crush with g3 Sealion
Not for nothing, but a G3 sealion is probably impossible (or at least cripplingly costly) with the J1 attack that sets up the J3 crush. Once the US is at war with Japan (J1), it’s allowed to move units into England. The addition of units in England makes the sealion even more costly and would mean Russia would probably be easily able to make FAST advances in Germany.
You’re right. Thanks for the correction. I forgot the US can now help the UK
I think with Alpha senario set-up it’s a trade off in the sense that in the early game, Axis losing hardware at a ration of 1:1 is the allied player’s dream, however having those additional Japanese ground forces on the mainland make this a bit more in favor of the Axis than you may think.
In all of the games of Axis & Allies I have ever played, Getting Japanses ground forces onto the mainland has always been the strategy. So think of it this way: You sacrifice a few planes to get troops (which are the only way to win this game) that much closer to the objectives. Also to boot, you get to kill off an equal amount of enemy aircraft. (ANZAC got Neutered hard)!
Would you pay 70 IPCs to kill off 70 Ipcs of enemy planes and get 6 (free) land units 2 spaces closer to the enemy capital?
The axis may have more infanty to help out in Alpha but from my expereince it is much harder to repell the US when they come into the Pacific without those seven extra planes. Yes the US lost three planes but in early game it will have a much easier time building those 3 planes back than Japan will building 7 planes back if they want to keep America out of the war. Japan has so many enemies to deal with already.
I would like Alpha better if they added a +10 points a turn NO for Japan when not a war with UK, ANZAC, US as the Axis are at a bit of disadvantage in Global in either OBB or Alpha set up in my view.
I dont see the need for the Alpha setup. Japan really shouldnt have more ground forces in Asia. As was historical, the Japanese relied on gaining local air superiority and then advance with their ground forces. Granted, maybe reducing their airforce by 2 or 3, maybe even 4 I could see, but 7 seems like a bit much. Other than that, a good Japanese player really needs to worry about not spreading out too much, and being able to pull their forces off of Japan and into the front.
Yes, but OOB is at best axis favored.
Yes, IF you consider that it is the beginning of the game and the Axis have many more units than the Allies. But how does this equate to the whole game being in Axis favor? In my gameplay experience the game is very weighted toward eventual Allied victory. Even playing OOB (which is all I have played), the Axis have a terribly rough time.
Additionally, removing all units doesn’t equate since axis have more units. If you remove all allied units usually left after turn 1 and corresponding axis units, axis will win.
Well sure the Axis will win if you do this, but you cannot compare it in this way. This gives no account to Allied economic power, which is their greatest asset. The best way to compare is to look at who has the greater number of final victories… which most people claim to be predominantly Allied.
I would just submit that it seems OOB the game is historically balanced… for the most part. It is, and should be a challenge for the Axis to win. They should not win 50% of the time. It should be (for the sake of realistic historical accuracy) 60-40 … or even 70-30 (or so) in Allied favor. OOB approaches these figures from what I have seen. I am not sure about Alpha because I haven’t played it.
I have played all OOB set-up games in person. And several Alpha games online. Between firsthand experience and what I have seen online I have come to several conclusions.
1. The Global game favors the allies in both set-ups.
2. The Axis need average to good dice to have a chace, especially in the early game.
3. Alpha redueces the starting units for both sides……but hurts Japan’s ability to defend itself in the later rounds vs. the USA
In Pacific Alpha seems to work fine. The issue is if Japan attacks R1 in Global both Italy, and Germany are in a world of hurt.
Sealion becomes much harder, and the USA can re-take the UK much sooner even if Sealion is successful.
4. Alpha helps Japan on the mainland for the first few turns as it has some more inf…but hinders its ability to expand and hold islands (its main source of income)
5. The USA has that massive income that never really decreases. 80 IPC going into whatever side of the map it wants. That is more than either Japan, or Germany ever reach alone in almost every game.
The economic balance is set up greatly favoring the allies, and in every game I have played the Axis have never gained economic superiority over the Allies. In some games they have had better position, but not more money.
I am not saying the game is broken. But it is much harder for the Axis to get victories using the current set-up, OOB or Alpha.
I have played all OOB set-up games in person. And several Alpha games online. Between firsthand experience and what I have seen online I have come to several conclusions.
1. The Global game favors the allies in both set-ups.
2. The Axis need average to good dice to have a chace, especially in the early game.
3. Alpha redueces the starting units for both sides……but hurts Japan’s ability to defend itself in the later rounds vs. the USA
In Pacific Alpha seems to work fine. The issue is if Japan attacks R1 in Global both Italy, and Germany are in a world of hurt.
Sealion becomes much harder, and the USA can re-take the UK much sooner even if Sealion is successful.
4. Alpha helps Japan on the mainland for the first few turns as it has some more inf…but hinders its ability to expand and hold islands (its main source of income)
5. The USA has that massive income that never really decreases. 80 IPC going into whatever side of the map it wants. That is more than either Japan, or Germany ever reach alone in almost every game.
The economic balance is set up greatly favoring the allies, and in every game I have played the Axis have never gained economic superiority over the Allies. In some games they have had better position, but not more money.
I am not saying the game is broken. But it is much harder for the Axis to get victories using the current set-up, OOB or Alpha.
Perhaps this is true. However, keep in mind it is extremely difficult to balance a game of this proportion. Even if the allies with 60% of the time, it’s still a great game to play, especially if you like challenges.
And keep in mind that alpha is not the final setup. Larry has expressed doubts that something is wrong with alpha and is waiting for someone to “break” the alpha setup. Hopefully, at the end of all this, we will get a setup that is as balanced as possible
