http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9936
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
Interesting idea…
How about if the home guard only appear on the turn that London is invaded?
In other words, UK gets 3-5 home guard troops (regular infantry) to place immediately prior to combat on the first turn London is attacked. That would help balance the Sea Lion issue while still allowing UK to do something on the first couple of turns in Africa. -
Jennifer, your original idea of removing inf from somewhere else (Africa) and placing it in London is the best. Adding 3 units would make Sealion on turn 3 dicey at best.
I’m not sure how people are making a turn 4 or 5 Sealion work, though. UK on turn 4 would have too much to overcome with only 12 TTs. I think that if London is to be taken, its turn 3 or not at all.
-
Jim010,
What percentage of the games end in Axis victory after a successful invasion of England?
Is Sea Lion with the current setup a game breaker? Does it determine the game on German turn 3 no matter what the other powers do?
If so, is there nothing the Americans or British can do to lower the odds of a successful invasion?
-
Sealion DOES NOT constitute a game win, by any means.
England is JUST as useless if you bypass them - for turns on end.
Bring on sea-lion - by all means.
-
Either way I shuffle guys from europe to a territory near uk on R2 and R3. then finish him R4.
there is nothing uk can do. period. Max out the complex on inf try to hold with a fighter, but there is just so much air I sent and tanks and inf i’d have to miss an entire round and he’d have to hit an entire round before we’re even.
He can attack my drop on R2 and R3. oh sure. and whatever he sends R2 I kill R3. Whatever he sends to attack it R3 won’t be defending UK. so he’ll try to hit it for 1 round and retreat… sometimes that goes bad LOL sometimes that goes good and you still get wooped.
you guys are just very bad.
Like the harder question is: how can you not be able to take UK??? In a LL game or dice? You send pretty much overwhelming odds.
~Sealion doesn’t constitute a win. I concur. However I believe it is the optimal strategy for axis. However it does make the game really boring.
I rather just give axis a bid under the condition that they cannot take over uk.
Pretty much 15 axis. No attacking UK until after UK has taken his 4th turn (basically you have to do it R5 if at all).
-
I don’t think its fair that Britain gets a homeguard, if they get one shouldn’t every other power get one?
Germany = Volksturmm
Japan = Volunteer Fighting Force armed with Ceramic grenades, Bushido type stuff.
Russia = Great Patriotic Call to Arms
Italy = … Dunno.
America = Another draft I guess…
ANZAC = Defend the Kangaroos (DTK) lol
France = Just surrender already… -
Also R5 uk takedowns are possible. if you buy bombers round 2 and industrial bomb R3-4. You pretty much shut him down. bomb the guy for 20. he can make 5-7 inf? kinda a big difference.
I’d just play with axis bid and no attacking uk till R5+ to include industrial bombing.
-
I don’t think its fair that Britain gets a homeguard, if they get one shouldn’t every other power get one?
Germany = Volksturmm
Japan = Volunteer Fighting Force armed with Ceramic grenades, Bushido type stuff.
Russia = Great Patriotic Call to Arms
Italy = … Dunno.
America = Another draft I guess…
ANZAC = Defend the Kangaroos (DTK) lol
France = Just surrender already…Missing the point. The Home Guard is not for historical accuracy; rather, it’s to help balance the game with a little something to deter a G3 Sea Lion.
I still think a bid on the number of Guardsmen is the best idea, because it allows the players themselves to balance the game based on their relative skill and the perceived skill of their opponents.
-
Sealion DOES NOT constitute a game win, by any means.
England is JUST as useless if you bypass them - for turns on end.
Bring on sea-lion - by all means.
If Axis CAN’t win even after conquering UK, there is something really wrong with the game.
-
All I am saying is there have been several games where I have seen the U.K. fall - get liberated, and turn into an allied win.
It happens.
The game isn’t over JUST because the U.K. fell.
-
Has the axis played well in those games Gargantua? Or was the axis played poorly. It matters.
maybe I’m in the minority here, but I don’t want to play G40 with sealion being the preferred campaign choice. And on this forum it looks to be the course of action 90pct of the time. If the UK makes good choices I feel sealion should be disasterous for Germany.
as it is I would prefer to play the axis to avoid sealion, and I LOVE to play as the allies.
-
I believe it does constitute a game win.
6 IPC for England
2 IPC for Scotland
5 IPC for the National ObjectiveEngland cannot build anymore, England cannot be liberated and that means Africa will fall much faster to Italy.
-
All I am saying is there have been several games where I have seen the U.K. fall - get liberated, and turn into an allied win.
It happens.
The game isn’t over JUST because the U.K. fell.
And that doesn’t seem wrong to you? The Axis lost the game because they conquered England?
Besides, I would argue that the Axis player didn’t know what to do after London was taken.
maybe I’m in the minority here, but I don’t want to play G40 with sealion being the preferred campaign choice. And on this forum it looks to be the course of action 90pct of the time. If the UK makes good choices I feel sealion should be disasterous for Germany.
Agreed.
-
You guys need to get your head out of the way the old games were played. A capital falling is less of a deal these days.
The game isn’t over JUST because Russia dies either. If the Allies hold Paris, Rome, or Egypt the Axis is SOL. Same goes for the Pacific, is the game over because India gets conquered? No. And nothing seems WRONG to me at all. The game is well balanced.
People fail to realize that because of the scale of the game, Capitals falling - aren’t as end game as they used to be.
I’m struggling to understand your point of contention. You are saying that you don’t want to see sea lion, and it’s the best axis strategy - nothing allies can do, but then you also say that if U.K. plays it right, sea-lion is “Disasterous” for Germany. Is that not a total contradiciton? And an admission that the game is dependant on your player strategy? And not the setup?
What’s the hope you guys are looking for? Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible? Wow thanks for reducing the game options. That’s what makes global great, the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win, not engage in a scripted out roll fest.
And that doesn’t seem wrong to you? The Axis lost the game because they conquered England?
It depends on what it cost the axis to take england in the first place.
-
And I never said the Axis CAN’T win because they took england. Infact I believe they are more likely to.
But, it doesn’t mean that thegame is over. And taking england does not constitue an isntant “game win” It’s quite an investment by germany to take out England - and depletes them of MANY of their precious resources needed elsewhere.
As the overall allies you need to have a plan in place to prevent the fall of England - by winning the battle, or making it so costly that it’s not worth it. OR Also have a plan in place to LIBERATE England if it falls. As quickly as possible.
-
You guys need to get your head out of the way the old games were played. A capital falling is less of a deal these days.
The game isn’t over JUST because Russia dies either. If the Allies hold Paris, Rome, or Egypt the Axis is SOL. Same goes for the Pacific, is the game over because India gets conquered? No. And nothing seems WRONG to me at all. The game is well balanced.
Are you talking individualy or global? India Crush was proven to break Pacific.
People fail to realize that because of the scale of the game, Capitals falling - aren’t as end game as they used to be.
Maybe. Russia falling is pretty indicative of where the game is going, barring extreme scenarios.
I’m struggling to understand your point of contention. You are saying that you don’t want to see sea lion, and it’s the best axis strategy - nothing allies can do, but then you also say that if U.K. plays it right, sea-lion is “Disasterous” for Germany. Is that not a total contradiciton? And an admission that the game is dependant on your player strategy? And not the setup?
He said it should be disasterous, not that it is.
What’s the hope you guys are looking for? Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible? Wow thanks for reducing the game options. That’s what makes global great, the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win, not engage in a scripted out roll fest.
I want Sealion to be a 40 - 50% that early in the game.
And that doesn’t seem wrong to you? The Axis lost the game because they conquered England?
It depends on what it cost the axis to take england in the first place.
-
And I never said the Axis CAN’T win because they took england. Infact I believe they are more likely to.
But, it doesn’t mean that thegame is over. And taking england does not constitue an isntant “game win” It’s quite an investment by germany to take out England - and depletes them of MANY of their precious resources needed elsewhere.
As the overall allies you need to have a plan in place to prevent the fall of England - by winning the battle, or making it so costly that it’s not worth it. OR Also have a plan in place to LIBERATE England if it falls. As quickly as possible.
I’ll grant you that its not automatic. Not using the TTs properly, ineffective Japan etc. I get that.
But with all things being equal, there’s issues. Its the best chance Axis have to win, so it is the opener that will be used
Problem is with the new victory conditions. How do you invest into keeping Germany contained with UK out of the game/liberate them and with keeping Japan from getting its 6 VCs? I haven’t seen it done yet in Alpha 2. Its Axis best chance to win, and it shouldn’t be.
-
I agree. If London falls on Germany 2 or 3 (granted, 3 is a better option), it seems plausible that the game cannot continue. Why?
The cash, as I said before.
The transports are not wasted, they can be used to protect N. Africa (Landing in Morrocco for instance, with the Shipyard in Gibraltar, Germany’s still in a strong position with the fleet, now even threatening Washington DC and Ottowa) and to hold Scandinavia from Russia.With no threat from the sea (and really, what possible threat do the allies pose from the see with no England to unit fleets and no air bases to hold planes and, of course, no place to set up D-Day) Germany has nothing to do but hit Russia and counter American fleet builds.
I do not think Germany even needs to take Russia. They just have to counter build and, IMHO, that means building 2 infantry for every 3 Russia builds. (Since Russia has no NOs to collect because of a submarine in SZ 125, this shouldnt be hard.)
So we are talking 60 IPC for Germany, per round, vs 40 IPC for Russia per round give or take. America is either building like mad in the Atlantic and thus losing the game because of VCs in the Pacific, or building significantly in the Pacific and thus not building enough to sink the Germans and liberate Africa/England.
All in all, I would LOVE for someone to prove me wrong, we can start the game on G4 after England falls, before Russia declares war using SOP builds, movements as a guide there are plenty of games to look at for reference on what should be where; but I do not think it possible for the allies to win any longer. Especially if you start with a Japan 1 Sneak Attack on Euro-American ships.
-
Starting G4 after england falls doesn’t work. Because there are literally dozens of decisions and conditions Britian makes and adheres to until that time. That the finale all depends on.
It’s only fair to playtest from start to finish. Give the United Kingdom the CHANCE to defend itself however it wants to.
As for winning in the pacific, YES India crush for OOB was a solid maneuver. But with the new Global Victory Conditions and Alpha +2 rules, one only needs to stall Japan Long enough (Hold Hawaii and Sydney) to Prevent a Japanese Victory. Again there are decisions to be made on how to allocate local British resources. Not saying that it’s easy to defeat Japan, but I don’t think it’s unbalanced. The Japanese have to focus or they will lose. Personally I believe for the Axis, victory on the Pacific board is easier and more likely than the Europe board.
I’m just talking about the global board here.
-
Jim I do think I owe you a game.
You had a solid OOB strategy for Japan in the past, but due to my deliquance, we didn’t finish that game, and I at the time also disagreed with you and was proven incorrect.
Perhaps it is time we battle again, this time for real.
Alpha + 2, roll a dice to determine tech 1,2,3 NO 4,5,6, YES, I’ll also give you the German -3 interdiction ability because I am a big believer in it.
You’re the Axis, I’m the Allies. Let’s see if your strategy leads to as much of an unbalanced game as you believe. May the better General win. Start the game anytime, and send me a PM. It’s on! :P
Suggested Topics
