How about giving US improved shipyards when at war to help balance game



  • I have played four games now using Alpha + through it’s various developments and I feel safe in saying that the game now favors the axis.  In out of the box set up rules and NOs the US could rush Europe with almost all it’s points and crush Germany.  In Alpha + I believe the US must spend points on both sides of the map for the allies to win.

    It can not allow Japan to get out of hand or it will gain control of the needed 6 victory cities in the Pacific.  If the US can not send help to Europe then Germany and Italy will most likely break the backs of UK/Russia given enough time and gain the needed 8 victory cities in Europe/Africa.  So when you think about it the US really needs a substantial naval fleet in the Atlantic to survive attacks from the German U-boats/Air force and possibly even an assault from the Italian Navy.  If the US does not have a sizable Navy in the Atlantic then it is at risk of losing it’s transports and ability to send troops to liberate UK, take heat off Russia, or lend help in Africa.  And this does not even begin to consider taking and holding at least one of the axis capitals which will be necessary for the allies to begin to meet their victory conditions.

    Now when you take a look at the other side of the map it is going to take a very large Navy to hold Japan back from rampaging in the Pacific.  Japan starts with a much bigger Navy than the US and a sizeable Air Force to complement it if the US should decide to venture very far in the Pacific.  In the games I played my axis opponent upgraded the Japanese Navy while stomping out China with Japan’s starting ground forces/Air Force.  He also was able to grab the money islands by peeling away some of his starting Navy that was facing off against the US to protect his transports.  There was never really a window for the US to capitalize on this because like I said he was adding subs/carriers/destroyers each turn to his starting Navy from turn one.  His first turn purchase was two transports and two subs.

    The point I have been trying to make is the US/Allies now need some help to bring the game back towards the center now that it has drifted in favor of the Axis.  If the US is given improved Shipyards when at war to help represent it’s war time production ability it would help provide incentive for the US to spend on both sides of the map and have a chance to win.

    I don’t believe it could really be abused to sack Tokyo easy because Japan can build carriers to put her starting Air Force on as the game progresses if needed and fighters can be scrambled in Sea Zone 6.

    On the other side of the map the US goal is to build only the right amount of Navy it will need and no more so it would not lead to abuse there either.

    I think improved shipyards for the US would help bring the game back into balance.  I understand this is a really big bone to throw the allies way but at this point I think they need it.  Not to mention it will only help give incentive for US to fight on both sides of the Map.



  • Have you tried the Alpha plus 0.1 version?



  • The only changes I did not get to play with are the extra Russian units and the UK Battleship in the Med.



  • Well, in the newest version, the US gets 2 more destroyers, 1 more cruiser, 1 more fighter, and 1 more tac bomber. Additionally, the VC’s have to be achieved for a full round; the axis can’t immediately win.



  • Okay never mind I did not see that added when I played last.  Changes are coming fast but this is a really cool thing.  I will have to play with that to make a decision now.  Improved shipyards on top of that is probably too much.



  • @Frank:

    Okay never mind I did not see that added when I played last.  Changes are coming fast but this is a really cool thing.  I will have to play with that to make a decision now.  Improved shipyards on top of that is probably too much.

    Larry is considering removing 1 or 2 of those extra planes.



  • We’ve played a couple of rounds this new Alpha and Alpha+ and Alpha +1 are balancing it out quite nice.  If you equal opponents, one of two things happens…

    1- Axis wins quick by taking London or Japan taking India in the 3rd or 4th turn.  The US can’t get in the game in time to be of use.

    2- The Allies win because London and Russia hold on for dear life and the US totally overwhelms everyone with shear numbers.

    If you get into the later turns, it’s only a matter of time before the US has WAY more than everyone else.  WORLD DOMINATION!!!  LOL



  • @docfav7:

    We’ve played a couple of rounds this new Alpha and Alpha+ and Alpha +1 are balancing it out quite nice.  If you equal opponents, one of two things happens…

    1- Axis wins quick by taking London or Japan taking India in the 3rd or 4th turn.  The US can’t get in the game in time to be of use.

    2- The Allies win because London and Russia hold on for dear life and the US totally overwhelms everyone with shear numbers.

    If you get into the later turns, it’s only a matter of time before the US has WAY more than everyone else.  WORLD DOMINATION!!!  LOL

    It seems that, in your experience, the axis are having a race against time.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    There is no need to “balance” anything.

    Certainly not at this stage, it’s pretty close.

    The American player has to spend on both fronts, and have to know what they are doing.  The victory cities make it EASIER for the allies to focus.

    Knowing that all you have to do to prevent Japan from winning, is owning NSW, HAW, and WUS.  Focus on that.  Send everything else to Europe or Africa.

    If you are playing the allies, as long as you are making more money every turn, there is no reason to surrender.



  • It’s hard for the US to defend Sydney and focus on Europe.



  • @SalothSar:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Frank:

    Okay never mind I did not see that added when I played last.  Changes are coming fast but this is a really cool thing.  I will have to play with that to make a decision now.  Improved shipyards on top of that is probably too much.

    Larry is considering removing 1 or 2 of those extra planes.

    did he tell you that personally or is it more of the CHL rumour mill?

    He told that to someone else. If you go to his website, you can see it for yourself.



  • @SalothSar:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    It’s hard for the US to defend Sydney and focus on Europe.

    enough little boy, time for beddyby

    How nice. Instead of responding to my argument, you make an ad hominem attack.



  • SalothSar has PMed me this:

    You just get it do you…you lack the foresight to ever be any good at this game. Your viewpoint will be forever a one dimensional one. Just like your skills…the only thing you contribute here is SPAM!

    I think it speaks for itself.



  • I’ll also let the previous post speak for itself.



  • Sorry, I don’t need a teacher since I know how to form a grammatically correct sentence.

    Going back to the topic of the thread(sort of), I think the United States setup is okay as it is. It prevents Japan from getting an easy victory but does not make it too easy for the US to put everything in Europe.



  • I’m cool with the split.  US gets 40+IPC to spend in each theater once at war.  FDR can choose to put it all in either coast on any one turn so that’s a little advantage to him over the UK/India type set up.

    If the Axis go hell bound after either coast the US has to pay attention to destroyer screens.  That’s fine.



  • I would abuse improved shipyards right off the bat. I would make sure that the USA had the only floating major navy in both oceans. No point of having an edge if you don’t abuse it. And Japan can’t get its cites if they have no fleet.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 72
  • 16
  • 42
  • 8
  • 12
  • 15
  • 3
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

53
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts