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



  • I wouldn’t mind seeing the 10 point US NO reduced to 5 and an additional 5 point Europe based NO in the game.



  • On a second look, yes Jen I am in favor of #1, #2 and #3

    Yes that will work- clever- your not eliminating and IPCs from US only shifting it to the Atlantic- very nice- yes I think that would work nicely.  Now the US has 10IPCs to gain in the Atlantic and 5IPC to gain with either board (Continental NO) and 15 IPCs to gain in Pacific (2 island NOs and Philippines)- seems very fair to me.

    Excellent writing!!!



  • I don’t really care for the 10 point London NO. I don’t think it would have the desired effect of committing the US to the Atlantic, London can turtle in fairly effectively without help from the US, so now it’s just a guarenteed 10 IPC for the US and as long as London play conservatively the first few rounds and protects it’s capital USA get’s a guarenteed 10 IPC. I’d like to see the NO encourage action and attempts to actively contest territory rather than reward inaction.



  • @Geist:

    I don’t really care for the 10 point London NO. I don’t think it would have the desired effect of committing the US to the Atlantic, London can turtle in fairly effectively without help from the US, so now it’s just a guarenteed 10 IPC for the US and as long as London play conservatively the first few rounds and protects it’s capital USA get’s a guarenteed 10 IPC. I’d like to see the NO encourage action and attempts to actively contest territory rather than reward inaction.

    How???  Sealion is nearly guaranteed every game- if Germany wants it- they can take it G3 or G4 barring really bad dice.  UK turtle is not enough.  Show me the punch counts- prove it.



  • Jen makes a compelling and convincing case. The imbalance is clear. This thread should shift to solutions.

    Germany was researching nukes and relatively close to resolution. Perhaps a given turn allows Germany a one time spectacular effect on one territory.



  • If you retreat the RAF from the Med, along with 9 Infantry in your turn one build, then 10 infantry (you usually can make a beter turn 2 defensive build) with your turn 2 build you’re looking at 23 Infantry, 6 Fighters and one Tac Bomber for defense (french forces included) that does not include any transports that survive to bring over additional Canadian troops. The transports will die, but, the objective is for the UK to survive. Let’s assume the Germans build 12 transports between turns they will be able to get a Max of 26 land units and 11 air (this assumes a best case scenario for Germany, no air units lost turn one and an aircraft carrier and two transports bought turn one, 10 transports on turn 2) so yes, in this best case scenario Germany brings 13 Infantry, 8 Artillery, 5 Tanks, 5 Fighters, 5 Tac bombers, and 1 Bomber vs 23 Infantry, 6 Fighters and one Tac Bomber for defense at this point you have good odds (roughly 99%). But what if a transport survives the G1 attack and brings over an infantry and a tank from Canada, now your odds drop to 92%, still good but you get mauled on the ground.

    If you go with a standard G1 build of 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 Sub you now have 4 less ground troops and your odds (not assuming the two additional Canadian troops land in the UK) your odds drop down to 88% (72% if Canadian reinforcements come) with high ground losses and on a bad die roll you’re losing air units to keep a tank alive to claim the capital. None of these scenarios take into account the possibility of German air unit losses or the possibilty that the UK will park the Med fleet in SZ 110 to buy an extra round of building up.

    With the 10 point London NO, you’ll do one of two things, you’ll encourage the UK to turtle above all else or if I’m missing something here and it truly is a cake walk to take the UK, then you’ll make that the new standard opening for Germany because the Allies get hit twice, once for losing a capital and a 10 point hit to the US economy.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Geist:

    The problem I have with your objection is that England already does what you say and is still lost to Germany by round 4 (vs round 3 if they harras the Italians instead.)

    The other problem I have with your objection is that the 10 IPC NO is already automatic for America since it’s virtually impossible for Japan or Germany to get E. USA, C. USA or W. USA anyway.

    The idea is, if we move that objective to London, then America will lose that NO unless the dice go crazy, or they go liberate it.  However, it is logical that the Continental United States should be worth something (I would actually lump Alaska in here, but they were not officially a state yet, so I’ll let that one drop) so giving that 5 IPC is okay with me.  However, a Mexican NO? Sounds like they were hunting and searching for anything so as to give America more money, presumably because they thought America would need the cash for both hemispheres, but I cannot read minds and I was not privvy to the discussion at the time of creation.  I suggest removing this NO entirely and moving it, along with half of the continental NO, to England.

    American intelligence networks knew, quite well, that if England fell, breaching Europe and defeating Hitler was going to be almost impossible.  They realized how evil “Unkle Adolf” was and had first hand accounts of concentration camps from escaped survivors (whether or not they believed them is a moot point, they had the reports, you can get copies from the government under the Freedom of Information Act.)  Thus, America knew it had to save England, if only to have a stepping stone into France to win the war.  That is not the case in this game.

    Further, do not the justifications for these National Objectives all call upon the history of the political and military situation at the time?  Mexico was hardly militaristic nor strategically nor even politically significant to World War II (I apologize to any Mexicans who are reading this, no insult is intended, but they were hardly under any threat historically speaking, nor were they a threat.)  Meanwhile, as detailed above, the fall of London would have been a crushing defeat to the Allied aspirations of victory, yet there is no national objective for America to stop London from falling.  There is one for Germany to take it, primarily because the fall of London would have assured them success, in the real war, or very close too it.


    Granted, to judge the viability of the change, we would need test data.


  • Official Q&A

    @Cmdr:

    Why the resistance to splitting the American build, which would be the easiest method and least impactful on the game, I do not know.  I suspect those who resist this change are the same ones who conceed defeat the instant their opponent takes their Queen in chess.

    The reason for the resistance to this idea is that it simply will not work, for reasons that have been adequately explained before.

    @Cmdr:

    I suspect, what you have seen, is a Russia that is trying to win the game.  This is a common mistake by players of all levels of expertese, I believe.

    Are you kidding me?

    This discussion is going in circles.  What I’d like to see from this thread is more reports of results from people trying this Allied strategy.  That’s what would be really useful at this point.



  • @Krieghund:

    @Cmdr:

    Keep in mind, if Germany goes Barbarrossa over Sea Lion it’s abilities to stop the British fleet drop to near zero and it’s abilities to maintain its own fleet likewise drop to zero.

    @Cmdr:

    And if Germany decides NOT to go 100% against Russia, then what’s the point?  You don’t have the strength to do both which means you won’t accomplish either.  All that changes, really, is the rate in which Russia retreats in front of you, laughing at your tanks as you get stuck in the mud and run out of fuel.

    I disagree.  I have taken down Russia without a 100% commitment from Germany.  Germany can spare enough resources to keep UK contained for a few rounds without sacrificing its efforts on the eastern front.

    I think the game is pretty darn balanced from my experience.

    I have also taken Moscow without a 100% commitment from Germany.  I have also lost Moscow to an opponent who did not give a 100% German commitment.  Russia just does not have the starting units or economy to go toe to toe with Germany alone.  If I am attacking Russia as Germany I build Artillery first to go with my huge starting Infantry force.  Then as the march goes in I reinforce by spamming tanks with Germany’s large economy at that point and then as the fall of Moscow becomes imminent I seal the deal with some bomber purchases that can also be brought back to help keep the other Allies in check.

    I have found that if the US goes in the Pacific first with all it’s resources it might be able to maim Japan first but the situation in Europe will just get out of hand if the Axis players on that side of the board have done their job.



  • Well I agree with Geist that a london NO for US is a mistake, but that’s because in my axis games I have yet to capture UK, although I have won one and lost one.  I agree this discussion is going in circles, at first it was a discussion that US was too strong, now it has switched to a way to make Germ go after UK more.

    Best fix for the US is to put a NO in North Africa.  This gets their attention at least and might at a minimum keep US involved in Atlantic to hold Africa.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I generally see England go down if Germany wants it.  However, it is not so much a can we make Germany go after England so much as can we get America to invest in the Atlantic when they otherwise would not need to?

    Moving the Big American NO to England would be a way to do it.  It takes an NO that would NEVER be captured because it’s almost impossible and makes it one that has a high probability of being captured.



  • Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.



  • Sorry for not filling in what the UK did the other nite I think it was more mistakes than anything else and I think it affected his rolls.  On UK1 it was a dd a sub and a trans and an Int & Art. (purchase)  Italy’s BB CA &2 trans were sunk, the 2dd,CA,sub&1trans were left alone, they eventually took Gibraltar. The German minor in S. Fra. helped Italy gain control of the Med. they eventually came out and landed in Panama.  It was one of those things.  He also didnt listen when Japan took Hawaii then New Zealand  and I said he’s going for ANZAC and his answer was no he wont take,  he’s going to go after the USA, he was wrong. Anyway its just a game. The person who was Japan played his first time as Japan, I’ve pulled it 4 times and I think he was paying attention and his time was due he had’nt had a win in a long time.  The week before he was Germany and he went Barbarosa and we were successful (I was Japan) and that was his first time as Germany          I think it was lack of team work and some lack of common objectives  I also have noticed that rolls are linked to your frame of mind (good mood and positive frame of mind) and you’ll do better and visa versa.



  • Hello everyone new to the site . But 20+ years A+A expierience.  I have played alpha 2 now several times both axis and allies winning.

    I would suggest the following changes free for critique.

    Germany - would not change much . Maybe shift a couple more(2-3) infantry toward france for G1 from Germany to West germany . Germany seems in the singular spot of having to capture a well defended capitol round 1 or lose the game.

    Russia - would not change much here . I would like to see the 4inf. pop up for it or Japan for breaking the treaty.

    Japan - lots of changes .  I would remove the NO for French Indo-China and allow Japan to attack UK and Anzac as they pleased . With the restriction that if they attack India east/west or Australia/New Zealand then they provoke war with the US or attack US as per usual. I would give back transport to carolines .  This would allow Japan the much needed IPc’s by contesting the DEI early and denying Anzac the solomons.

    UK- I would remove the inf. and plane from normandy and add them to London.
    The fleet by Egypt I would break up . The destroyer to SZ91?(by Gibraltar) with the cruiser there.  The cruiser I would leave . the Tac bomber to egypt . The Carrier to india . The transport to south africa. The carrier would give abit more fleet vs. japan . This would also allieviate Italy of all it’s fleet dying . They would still most likley lose the western fleet.

    Anzac - as is

    UsA - Needs a 10 NO if Gibraltar and all French north africa are in allied hands. In Place of some of there home NO’s .

    China- as is

    Italy - I agree about air base in North Italy.
    France as-is
    Commander Jennifers idead of OOB order is good as well/



  • Honestly, I would start off with

    Eliminating Mexican NO for US and
    Adding a 5IPC NO for US (at war) for Allies controling Gibraltar, Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia at the same time. (Historically first landing on that hemisphere)

    That’s a 10IPC swing to the Atlantic right there.  If US still went Pacific heavy (which I don’t believe it would) then I would try Jen’s NO proposal.



  • I agree with questioneer on NO in Africa for US . Also maybe move brti. inf. in France to Normandy , going along with my previous move of ftr and inf.(from Normandy) to London.

    Also my  friend suggested taking a German Inf and art from south germany to Lybia.

    We are going to playtest these and my above suggestions this thur-friday.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ehenry:

    Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

    We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.



  • IMHO USA shouldn’t even get Mexico to begin with. Mexico should become part of USA led forces at the beginning of turn 4, after USA declares war on germany or vice versa. That’s 3 less IPCs for America, which isn’t a ton, but then they can’t build a minor IC there. Alaska is more risky for a minor IC, because Japan can hit it from SZ 6 in 1 turn.



  • @Cmdr:

    @ehenry:

    Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

    We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.

    Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.



  • I’d like to see it rolled into the Hawaii and Alaska NO, lump them all into one called US territory and allies. Then replace it with a North African NO (perhaps Morroco, Tunisia, Egypt and Gibraltar).


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @ehenry:

    @Cmdr:

    @ehenry:

    Does America really need another NO? America’s incentive in the Atlantic should be to prevent the loss of UK. I’m uncertain an additional NO is necessary. I would do without.

    We are talking about moving an NO, not adding a new one.

    Yes. I deem it an unnecessary NO. It should be removed, not moved. America can do with fewer NO.

    The only problem with this is that America would actually need the money, if they played “honestly” that is, if they invested on both sides of the board.  If they invest on one board only, then yes, they should have the 10 IPC NO removed and the Mexican NO made solely Alaska + Aleutians (so Japan can snipe it.)



  • @M:

    IMHO USA shouldn’t even get Mexico to begin with. Mexico should become part of USA led forces at the beginning of turn 4, after USA declares war on germany or vice versa. That’s 3 less IPCs for America, which isn’t a ton, but then they can’t build a minor IC.

    Or a navelbase.



  • @questioneer:

    Eliminating Mexican NO for US and
    Adding a 5IPC NO for US (at war) for Allies controling Gibraltar, Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia at the same time. (Historically first landing on that hemisphere)

    I think USA should get a 5 IPC NO when Gibraltar strait and Suez canal is controlled by the Allied. This represent the benefit from open shipping lanes and international trade.

    Also UK should get 5 IPC NO for controlling Gibraltar strait and Suez canal, because if they dont, the convoys need to go around the tip of South AFrica, and that is twice the distance. Just imagine all the fuel.



  • I like the idea of having a NO for Gib and Suez that affects the U.S.  There should be some offset if a player only plays one side of the board.

    Adjusting the NO’s on the Pacific side for the US improved the game. We may need a small adjustment like this for the European theater.

    Another idea might be Axis subs in the Atlantic.( ie the US loses 5 or 7 ipcs for Axis subs in the Atlantic,  similar to the UK NO)



  • Good thinking, now we are gettin somewhere, man.

    US ditch the Central NO and Mexico NO.
    New US NO’s:

    • US get 5 IPC NO when Gibraltar strait and suez canal is controlled by the Allies.

    • US get 5 IPC NO if no german sub is present in the Atlantic.

    • UK get the same NO’s as USA. Easy to remember and to keep track on.

    • USSR get 5 IPC NO with sz 125, Archangelsk and no Allied units in Russia. This represent the Lend/Lease, but is hard to get, so the Brits send fighters in every game. Russia need one more Lend/Lease NO:

    • USSR get 5 IPC NO when the Allies control Persia, and no Allied units in Russia. Historically half the Lend/Lease stuff went through Persia, so this is a strategically spot.

    Also the Axis should get a 5 IPC NO for control of Persia. This is for the oil. One NO for Persia only is better than the current with 2 IPC for Northwest Persia + 2 for Caucasus + 2 for Iraq etc etc. Simple is better.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

57
Online

14.2k
Users

34.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts