How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
I dunno, maybe 11 so it’s the same price as a tactical bomber…remember, you’re effectively adding 2 aircraft to any attack and 1 aircraft to any defense with this unit. (Juggling aircraft to get 2 units in the attack, one from the carrier lands somewhere, one from somewhere lands on the carrier.)
-
Well … my balance issues. The US is fine, but Russia is too strong. They need to start with less units, or make less money.
So far Russia played properly can hold its own without help. That should not be the case. Even going hard on Russia from both sides and I haven’t been able to crack it.
Russia needs to be reduced.
Even in the face of a KJF, I have been unable to get my 8 cities in Europe quickly enough, whether I did a Sealion or not. And I’ve played against a KJF since October, so a KJF is not new:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20826.90
-
I think Alpha +2 is a lot better than OBB but after some extensive testing I am finding that it still favors the Allies. It took awhile to adjust and I did not think that the first couple of times I played but I am coming around to the idea that the Axis need some more boosts.
I have seen that the Allies wrecking Italy quickly is hard to stop. Also as you stated I am finding the Allies can even do some early Pacific spending and still come back to save the day in Europe. The Axis may even be able to sack Moscow but then the last victory city will be all but out of reach.
The only way I see for Axis victory against strong Allied play is desperate gambles that rely on the element of surprise in the hope it will cause the Allies to make a costly mistake. In that event a window for Axis victory can be opened. The problem is if you play this game a lot there are only so many ways to surprise a skilled Allied Commander. As is the game is not balanced.
-
Well … my balance issues. The US is fine, but Russia is too strong. They need to start with less units, or make less money.
So far Russia played properly can hold its own without help. That should not be the case. Even going hard on Russia from both sides and I haven’t been able to crack it.
Russia needs to be reduced.
Even in the face of a KJF, I have been unable to get my 8 cities in Europe quickly enough, whether I did a Sealion or not. And I’ve played against a KJF since October, so a KJF is not new:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20826.90
how did you play as axis when not performing sea-lion? did you get to moscow or have you been stopped before?
rock`n roll
-
how did you play as axis when not performing sea-lion? did you get to moscow or have you been stopped before?
rock`n roll
Even with no Sealion, Moscow is not taken. I can get Leningrad and often Stalingrad before I am pushed back. I find that when I can do Sealion (and it can be stopped now) I come closer to getting my cities than when I don’t do Sealion. Russia builds up enough that they outnumber Germany when trying to make teh approach to Moscow. And those 18 inf from Siberia are one hell of a shot in the arm for Russia - even when chased down by Japan.
I am currently trying to see if there is some better way of putting the squeeze on Russia from all 3 Axis, but I’m not optimistic.
-
how did you play as axis when not performing sea-lion? did you get to moscow or have you been stopped before?
rock`n roll
Even with no Sealion, Moscow is not taken. I can get Leningrad and often Stalingrad before I am pushed back. I find that when I can do Sealion (and it can be stopped now) I come closer to getting my cities than when I don’t do Sealion. Russia builds up enough that they outnumber Germany when trying to make teh approach to Moscow. And those 18 inf from Siberia are one hell of a shot in the arm for Russia - even when chased down by Japan.
I am currently trying to see if there is some better way of putting the squeeze on Russia from all 3 Axis, but I’m not optimistic.
I mostly agree with what you have said. I am curious though what is Russia building in the games you have played. I have found it depends on what Russia builds and does that determine whether Germany can get it or not.
-
Well, a poorly or even a mediocrely played Russia will mean an Axis win.
Russia has been maximizing buys with inf and art to get the numbers up followed by in later turns with tanks/mec. I prefer art to mec, though, as it is not often I’ll be doing blitzing with the Russians, and with the right mix of art and inf, my pips won’t drop dramatically switching from defense to attack.
Again, a Russia that can hold its own without help is too strong.
-
Well, a poorly or even a mediocrely played Russia will mean an Axis win.
Russia has been maximizing buys with inf and art to get the numbers up followed by in later turns with tanks/mec. I prefer art to mec, though, as it is not often I’ll be doing blitzing with the Russians, and with the right mix of art and inf, my pips won’t drop dramatically switching from defense to attack.
Okay that is similar to what I am experiencing. If Russia buys pretty much just inf and art it is a very tough nut to crack. The only time I cracked an all inf/art Russia was when I built the Romanian major G1 and went straight at Moscow as fast as possible. I did get Moscow but I lost the War. By not building the Baltic fleet or helping out Italy in any fashion the UK ruined my day by locking down Egypt and London. It is just too much for Italy to handle if UK is building in Africa on UK1 and sinking the Italian Navy with no fear.
-
Here’s an example. It is turn the end of Russia’s turn 9. UK and US could probably have been played better, but Russia is doing just fine and won’t be taken. anytime soon. There was no Sealion here.
-
que pena,
i cannot open your file. :(
what did you buy for german in the no-sealion-scenario?
what did the UK-europe do? attacking germany mostly or italy? -
You can see the game here:
-
Here’s a Europe only. This one was Sealion, and it was close for a while.
It is interesting in that Russia does not receive the 18 inf from Siberia, but that is balanced by US spending on Europe. By the time I got in front of Moscow and brought back all my planes to take it, I would be outnumbered in Moscow, and the US will be strongly established.
Italy could have been played better, but even so, London was not retaken, nor was Gibraltar. Even so, Russia is holding, and I am now spending elsewhere to deal with other issues.
-
I concur that giving up Sea Lion is pretty much a bad idea. Removing England from play in Europe seems to be the only saving grace the Axis have in that field. Likewise, if Japan can get India, their lives are eased significantly as well.
Perhaps to balance things out we should make India easier to nab?
-
@Cmdr:
I concur that giving up Sea Lion is pretty much a bad idea. Removing England from play in Europe seems to be the only saving grace the Axis have in that field. Likewise, if Japan can get India, their lives are eased significantly as well.
Perhaps to balance things out we should make India easier to nab?
I disagree. Russia needs to be weaker. It needs to be that the can’t hold without the West intervening to ease pressure. Lose 10 inf, I say.
-
@Cmdr:
I concur that giving up Sea Lion is pretty much a bad idea. Removing England from play in Europe seems to be the only saving grace the Axis have in that field. Likewise, if Japan can get India, their lives are eased significantly as well.
Perhaps to balance things out we should make India easier to nab?
I disagree. Russia needs to be weaker. It needs to be that the can’t hold without the West intervening to ease pressure. Lose 10 inf, I say.
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
Why?
1) Japan can dedicate less force to deal with India.
2) With less going towards India, more can go after Russia.
3) Russia has to contend with more force coming at it.
4) Further, Japan has an easier time capturing India.
5) Japan not only captures India, but also gets a complex and an NO
6) Russia is not boosted in any way to counter this increase in Japanese strength (in relation to the allies) and is thus weakened. -
@Cmdr:
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
If you want to weaken Russia, then weaken Russia. Don’t weaken India in the hope that it will indirectly weaken Russia.
-
Historically the Axis did attempt Barbarossa and not Sealion. THerefore i agree that Russia can be reduced. I don’t see a need for India to be easier.
-
THere was discussion a few pages ago about using OOB setup and Alpha2 rules and NO. Has anyone attempted a test? I wonder if that wouldn’t solve the Pacific problem.
Obviously this has the added value of using what’s in the box and not requiring additional printed pages of setups.
-
@Cmdr:
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
If you want to weaken Russia, then weaken Russia. Don’t weaken India in the hope that it will indirectly weaken Russia.
Agreed. It is a simple solution. Don’t complicate it.
-
@Cmdr:
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
If you want to weaken Russia, then weaken Russia. Don’t weaken India in the hope that it will indirectly weaken Russia.
No, it was an answer to someone saying we need to weaken Russia. We don’t need to weaken Russia, we need to weaken India and make it more like Australia.
Better idea: Industrial Complex in India is a Minor Complex downgraded from Major. If they want to make it a major complex, they can do that at their own expense!
Suggested Topics
