Changes still needed to the game, IMHO


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I would gladly throw away 4 infantry with the allies to kill 1 axis infantry because the allies earn that much more than the axis.  That alone unbalances the game, IMHO.

    America should feel like a powerhouse???  Sure, on the condition that it has to spend in BOTH theaters and cannot dump it all DIRECTLY into one or the other. I believe that was the compromise I agreed too.  My original stance is that the American territories should be halved in value and half their NOs should be removed, since then, I’ve been talked into a much more conservative vantage.  My original point being that if it can act as a unified nation, it should earn what the other unified nations earn, and that’s 40-50 IPC per round, not 80-100 IPC a round.

    Now people are saying that America shouldn’t have to split it’s income and the arguments they use are valid even more for England than they are for America!  But they don’t want to get rid of the split for England, which I find just absolutely hilarious. Sorry, but if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander, so to say.

    Russia hardly needs a boost at this time.  Perhaps after some of the overwhelming benefits the allies have now are stripped down, to negate a more drastic change, a buff can be added to Russia.  For instance, if India was removed as a power altogether and London acts alone - as it does in every other global game - something may be done to increase Russia’s defensive capabilities.

    All in all, I do agree with Geist, there is no pressure to play the allies what-so-ever.  Daring and unheard of strategies can be employed because, after all, you have a two nation income lead on the Axis!  Okay, so your Artillery only strategy failed, so what?  In two rounds I can out build them and have equal numbers in ANY other strategy of my choice!  You can’t do that with the Axis.  If you try a gambit to have even a chance of winning the game, and that gambit fails, your (to continue a theme) goose is cooked.



  • Jen your FIC NO sounds very awkwards- it just makes FIC a wasteland, like its not even on the board.  Let me suggest this:

    Change the #4 NO for Japan in Alpha +2 to this:

    4. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for each of the following major power centers controlled by an Axis power – Honolulu, Sydney, Calcutta, Hong Kong, Shanghai and/or the Western United States. Theme: Strategic national objectives.

    My only worry is that it may or may not ignite more J1 Gambits because you would have to be at war to get these.



  • I’d rather see it along the lines of Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Japan collects 5 IPC when it controls Korea, Kiangsu, Kwangtung and French Indo China.



  • With the powerful Sealion, the Japanese turn 3 India Crush… the United States needs to be the big dog in both theaters.  USA needs that flexibility to dump all in Pacific or Atlantic.

    Japan is an island nation.  You can see a USA loaded transport 5,478 miles away!!  (Tokyo to LA fyi.)  You can prep for any sort of attack the USA may try to use on you.  For the life of me, I honestly can’t see Japan getting invaded by any Pacific nation.  It’s why USA had to drop a freaking nuke!!  You can D the heck out of Japan while you destroy India, capture all of China, and dive into Russia.  The IPC is more than enough for USA and Anzac, you can even hold a 100% USA at bay.

    Don’t see it.  Alpha +2 is balanced.



  • @Cmdr:

    I would gladly throw away 4 infantry with the allies to kill 1 axis infantry because the allies earn that much more than the axis.  That alone unbalances the game, IMHO.

    I just don’t believe IPCs vs. IPCs is the only thing that effects balance in Global.  The US forces are stuck behind two oceans they have to cross to stop the Axis from winning the game on each side of the map.  Also the Axis can win the game on the other side of the board if US goes too heavy in one or the other.

    @Cmdr:

    America should feel like a powerhouse???  Sure, on the condition that it has to spend in BOTH theaters and cannot dump it all DIRECTLY into one or the other. I believe that was the compromise I agreed too.  My original stance is that the American territories should be halved in value and half their NOs should be removed, since then, I’ve been talked into a much more conservative vantage.  My original point being that if it can act as a unified nation, it should earn what the other unified nations earn, and that’s 40-50 IPC per round, not 80-100 IPC a round…

    I see no way the US could accomplish it’s job if it earned 40-50 IPCs a round.  The math is just not there for all the war ships they need to buy to protect their fleet and the amount of transports they need to buy.  Finally they generally need to do this in both theaters or the Allies will lose the victory city game.

    @Cmdr:

    Now people are saying that America shouldn’t have to split it’s income and the arguments they use are valid even more for England than they are for America!  But they don’t want to get rid of the split for England, which I find just absolutely hilarious. Sorry, but if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander, so to say.

    I think the UK spilt works for the game.  I don’t think you want the UK to be able to drop 45 in one side of the board for various tactical reasons.  I just don’t see it as necessary for game balance to spilt the US income.

    @Cmdr:

    All in all, I do agree with Geist, there is no pressure to play the allies what-so-ever.  Daring and unheard of strategies can be employed because, after all, you have a two nation income lead on the Axis!  Okay, so your Artillery only strategy failed, so what?  In two rounds I can out build them and have equal numbers in ANY other strategy of my choice!  You can’t do that with the Axis.  If you try a gambit to have even a chance of winning the game, and that gambit fails, your (to continue a theme) goose is cooked…

    I am just not coming to the same conclusion.  The Allies must react to what the Axis does in certain situations with spot on timing or they will lose due to victory cities.  For instance if an Axis player does Sea Lion successfully G3 and on J3 crushes India the US will have to balance itself very carefully, as 2 Allied countries just went down.  On one hand the Axis are now probably 1 victory city away from allied surrender in the Pacific.  Then on the other UK got their capital captured so they are not going to be able to stop the growth of Italy or put any pressure on Germany.  The US can’t leave London just sitting in German hands but it will take a very large US force to stop Germany from just trading London with US and looting the treasury again.  On the other hand if the US does not fortify Hawaii or chase Japan down to Australia then it is going to be game over.  I don’t see how US could accomplish these goals if it reduced to a 40 point country.  Going that far I believe unbalances the game big time in the Axis favor.  Also I believe operation Barbarossa is another viable option for the Axis.  If Germany goes hard at Russia with all it’s extra starting units and larger economy Russia with have to choose it’s war strategy very carefully.


  • '10

    I’m not sold on alpha 2. I’ve only played 3 games of global the last 2 being Japan with 1 game being alpha/OOB rules the other being alpha 2. In both Japan is extremely hard pressed to extend on the mainland, take and maintain control of the money islands and deal with the US fleet. In my current game US has been going big in the Pacific and I’ve managed to rope a dope until Turn 8 but it looks like the jig is up.  Perhaps the scramble rule has to be tweaked when home islands are under attack as I’ll have some idle ftrs in Japan just watching the battle in z6.


  • '10

    Personally, I think A2 is pretty well balanced, but I have found Japan a little soft, mostly on the mainland v. China and Russia.  I don’t believe the Euroaxis needs any help, but two or three more Japanese starting on the mainland wouldn’t hurt, I don’t think.


  • Customizer

    One thing that I have noticed in just about every Axis won game of G40 is that the Allies lose when the US tries to change tactics.  Often what happens is when the US first starts out, they are getting mostly warships and planes for the Pacific with little put out on the Atlantic.  Then, after 2 or 3 rounds, they start buying a lot of equipment and transports for the Atlantic to try and help out their UK buddies in Europe with a sharp decrease in spending in the Pacific.  Problem is that they can’t seem to build enough to overcome the Germans/Italians, especially if Sealion was successful.  Meanwhile, the US Pacific forces are kind of left on a limb while Japan starts really asserting itself.  Plus, with the US presence in the Pacific getting gradually weaker, Japan is able to better concentrate on China, India and ANZAC, gaining more territories and IPCs while gradually whittling the US forces down.  Then if the US decides to reinforce the Pacific, that gives German/Italy more time to build even more defense.

    It just seems to me that it is really hard for the Allies to win as it is if the US doesn’t have the option to go 90-100% in one theater.  Unless the UK can prevent a Sealion, in which case they can prevent Italy from gobbling up all of Africa and harass the Germans enough to take some pressure off of Russia.



  • I just do not feel pressured as the Allies. The greatest pressure seems to be on the US to make good purchases and get their forces into combat quickly. Obviously I’m not saying the Axis cannot win, but, I don’t believe the game is as well balanced as it could be. Changes I’d like to see include:

    1. A 5 IPC NO for Japan based on Land conquests.

    2. A minor buff to Japans starting forces, possibly adding one more tranport to SZ 6.

    3. Italy neutral until it declares war at the start of its turn.

    4. A small increase of German units on the Russian border, possibly a destroyer in SZ 113 as well.



  • @eudemonist:

    Personally, I think A2 is pretty well balanced, but I have found Japan a little soft, mostly on the mainland v. China and Russia.  I don’t believe the Euroaxis needs any help, but two or three more Japanese starting on the mainland wouldn’t hurt, I don’t think.

    This is where I am at right now.  I know for sure the Alpha+2 is in favor of the Allies slightly.  Therefore I just want to see a tweeked NO to give Japan a little more cash.  Europe side is fine IMO.

    Change Japan’s #4 NO by adding 5IPCs for owning Shanghai or Hong Kong.

    I really think that is all that is needed.

    Its difficult for Japan to take India and then come back to get Sydney/Honolulu or vice versa OR charge towards Russia (long route).  I do think they need a little more cash in the Pacific.  US seems to overwhelm in the later rounds once they get going.

    As US I have always had to split the income in Alpha+2.  I think you really get burned if you don’t.  Usually its 60-40 or 70-30 Pacific side.


  • '10

    @questioneer:

    This is where I am at right now.  I know for sure the Alpha+2 is in favor of the Allies slightly.  Therefore I just want to see a tweeked NO to give Japan a little more cash.  Europe side is fine IMO.

    Change Japan’s #4 NO by adding 5IPCs for owning Shanghai or Hong Kong.

    I really think that is all that is needed.

    Yeah, that would probably work as well.  I was just kinda shooting for simplicity with a few extra infantry.

    @mantlefan:

    Maybe it’s child’s play if you are litarally playing axis opponents who are children, but it is infathomable hopw much the axis players must suck inthe games you are describing.

    Idi Amin-like typing detected…



  • @eudemonist:

    @questioneer:

    This is where I am at right now.  I know for sure the Alpha+2 is in favor of the Allies slightly.  Therefore I just want to see a tweeked NO to give Japan a little more cash.  Europe side is fine IMO.

    Change Japan’s #4 NO by adding 5IPCs for owning Shanghai or Hong Kong.

    I really think that is all that is needed.

    Yeah, that would probably work as well.  I was just kinda shooting for simplicity with a few extra infantry.

    @mantlefan:

    Maybe it’s child’s play if you are litarally playing axis opponents who are children, but it is infathomable hopw much the axis players must suck inthe games you are describing.

    Idi Amin-like typing detected…

    I know right… I can’t even figure out what post he is addressing, it must be an automated troll response.



  • LOL, apprantly when people disagree or finds the case unrealistic, they are trolls.  He does have a legit argument, are the axis rooks or not?

    For russia to be out producing germ, it would require bad roles for germ, or a rook germ.  In any real game, the most russia can do is to tie down german units, and hardly make serious offensives.  Germany would have to be spending a buttload on non land units in order for russia to out produce him, or the allies be landing in France in a serious way Turn 3/4.

    How can Japan be at war with the allies and be making only 40 IPCs, and not be late in the game?  Most good Japans can get their incoem into the 60’s and hold it there for a while.



  • What makes it troll like is he comes out and says a bunch of people sucks, even though he has no idea who those people are. Then he refutes a bunch of arguements no one is even making. Who said Russia out produces Germany? Who gave specific examples of Japan not being able to take the DEI or the UK’s circumstances? What was said is that some of us feel the game is tilted towards the Allies (as well as some debate towards what degree people think it is). Too bad Mantlefan doesn’t play online, I bet we could all learn from him…



  • @Geist:

    Who gave specific examples of Japan not being able to take the DEI or the UK’s circumstances?

    @Cmdr:

    I would love to GET the DEI for a change!  But I think you are missing how easy it is to sack Tokyo now….  Getting DEI is pretty impossible now due to how fast America can move and get ships to bear…

    Obviously from the OP Geist…

    @Geist:

    Too bad Mantlefan doesn’t play online, I bet we could all learn from him…

    Yeah.  You probably could.

    @Geist:

    Who said Russia out produces Germany?

    @Cmdr:

    This is due, probably, to the fact that Russia can easily out produce Germany and thus stop the incursion without assistance.

    Again, the OP made this statement…

    Mantlefan is right.  Japan has the tools to survive, and also to win.  Honestly if USA is 100% pacific, your Germany/Italy brothers are morons if they don’t win.  Japan can’t be captured in less than 10 turns anyway, even that’s pushing it.



  • I still not seeing the unbalance in alpha +2 that you’re talking about. How exactly are the Allies beating you that you don’t see any way to counter?

    Also, suggesting that the US split their income with the existing Alpha +2 victory conditions doesn’t make any sense to me.

    Think about it: for a forced US income split to give an advantage to the Axis, the US had to have been winning the game by dumping all of its income into one theater, otherwise you wouldn’t need to force a split. Given the “either theater” victory conditions for the Axis in +2, this also means that the Axis, left completely alone by the US in one of the theaters, can’t get the necessary victory cities.

    Really?

    You’re saying that if the US goes all out in the Pacific, your Germany can’t take the necessary Russian cities? That if the US goes for a Europe only strategy, your Japan can’t become a monster?

    As the Axis, you only need to win one of the boards to win the game. You’re claiming that the Axis can’t win one a board without any US involvment at all. I think you need to revisit your Axis strategy.



  • @Dark_Destroyer:

    @Geist:

    Who gave specific examples of Japan not being able to take the DEI or the UK’s circumstances?

    @Cmdr:

    I would love to GET the DEI for a change!  But I think you are missing how easy it is to sack Tokyo now….  Getting DEI is pretty impossible now due to how fast America can move and get ships to bear…

    Obviously from the OP Geist…

    @Geist:

    Too bad Mantlefan doesn’t play online, I bet we could all learn from him…

    Yeah.  You probably could.

    @Geist:

    Who said Russia out produces Germany?

    @Cmdr:

    This is due, probably, to the fact that Russia can easily out produce Germany and thus stop the incursion without assistance.

    Again, the OP made this statement…

    Says another guy who doesn’t play online. Though, I did miss that he was refering to a post two pages back, so my bad there, I was wrong, feel free to start up a forum game as the Axis so you can school me, though, I don’t think it’s going to happen.



  • @Geist:

    Says another guy who doesn’t play online. Though, I did miss that he was refering to a post two pages back, so my bad there, I was wrong, feel free to start up a forum game as the Axis so you can school me, though, I don’t think it’s going to happen.

    And Mantlefan is the troll?  I was just getting you back on track of the OP discussion, something you lost focus on.

    Just because we don’t play online doesn’t mean we don’t know what we’re talking about, or worse players.  Enough with the online elitism.



  • Got it…you’re not willing to throw your nuts on the table and back up your opinions. I suspect there will be some minor tweaks to boost the Axis when all is said and done, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.


  • '10

    Damn, waddn’t tryin’ to start all that.  I don’t think mantle’s trollin’, leastaways not intentionally.  Just ribbin’ him about sounding like Idi in an earlier thread.

    I agree that Jen’s estimates are…lower than what my experience has been.

    @Pelanderfunk:

    As the Axis, you only need to win one of the boards to win the game. You’re claiming that the Axis can’t win one a board without any US involvment at all. I think you need to revisit your Axis strategy.

    I also agree with this.  As Axis, I’m pretty happy if the U.S. goes all one way.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Wait, Dark Destroyer, we’re talking about Alpha 2, there is no India crush, unless you refer to India crushing Japan.

    Further, you don’t have to TAKE Japan, just sink it’s fleet and kick it off the mainland, that’s super easy now after the repeated nerfs to Japan and buffs to the Allies.

    Questioneer:  Chaning the FIC NO was meant to make it a wasteland.  It stops England/Australia/Japan/America from collecting for the territory and, in effect, permanently bumps Japan’s cash flow by 10 IPC a round. However, you can still invade it if you want it for a strategic or tactical reason.  In essense, invading or not invading FIC becomes profitable for Japan.

    Frank:

    No, IPC are not the end all be all of the game.  It is the lion’s share, however.

    America is not stuck behind two oceans, America only faces Japan with the assistance of Australia, India and China.  That’s the problem!  America SHOULD be required to spend on both halves of the game, that’s precisely the point of them earning double any other nation!

    With CURRENT, American tactics, 40-50 IPC a round is a gift.  If the rules were altered to require 35 IPC be spent in the Atlantic, then no, 40-50 IPC would not be enough.

    As for the UK split, to be honest, I don’t want EITHER England OR America to drop an entire paycheck on one side of the board, but to be perfectly honest, it is worse having America do it than England.  I would say, either both have to split or neither has to split.

    Maxo,

    Thanks.  I agree, Japan does not have an uphill battle, they are facing a shear cliff.  The Allies just have way too much money and are way to diversified to be adequately handled by Japan as it stands.  I agree, limping along until Round 8 is possible, if you want to see how well Germany can do and see if Germany/Italy can get a VC Win, but as it stands now, Japan is not winning any games, at best, it will sap some strength away.  Actually, at best, it prevents American investment into Europe at all.

    KNP:  Exactly, we want it to be HARD to win.  It is better to make it HARD than to make it IMPOSSIBLE and right now, with veteran players of equivalent caliber, it’s impossible for Japan to win without ungodly dice.

    Questioneer-2:  A Hong Kong NO might work.  Perhaps an NO for the Philippines would be better?

    Mantle:  Japan has some of the DEI, but it never gets them all, not anymore.  You have to counter America and that means you don’t have the equipment to get the DEI.  Also, remember, you cannot attack DEI that are under control of England/Australia until America enters the war, or you lose the FIC NO….

    GHR:  Russia easily out produces Germany.  Think on it a moment.  Russia takes scandinavia (simple process) and prevents a German incursion past S. Ukraine (simple process). Germany now has no objectives and very little land.  Russia has Scandinavia and their objectives and, in some games, even have parts of Europe they trade for even more money.  I’ve seen at least two games (one against me, one with two other players) where Russia earned in excess of 60 IPC a round for multiple rounds. (In my game I owned London, but that did not help because I lost all that money to CRD.)

    Eudemonist:  If you expect the worst, you will only be pleasently surprised.

    Geist:  That’s the whole point of this thread, to convince the powers that be that they’re not done yet!  That the axis needs help.  No, Germany and Italy don’t need help, they need strategy and normal dice, Japan needs life support, or in the words of Shadowrun “Doc Wagon”.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    It all boils down to the fact that Japan needs help.  No one is disputing this fact really, what they are disputing is the level of help Japan needs.

    There are a number of options, most of the ones I prefer hurt America in some way, but it’s equally good to buff Japan, I suppose.  Some of the ones that have come up that I like are:

    Split America’s build. 
    Give Japan an NO in Philippines, Hong Kong
    Give Japan 2-3 Armor in China
    Give Japan 1-2 Transports in S. Pacific (so DEI is at least an option again.)


  • '10

    If it is your opinion that Russia and England can overpower Germany and Italy without any help from the Americans (which I strongly disagree with), it seems like Europe must necessarily be imbalanced, does it not?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    No, I feel it is balanced that England and Russia can counter Germany.  Note, I am not talking that they can take Berlin or Rome, what I am speaking of is preventing Germany from a Victory City Win.  That is all one needs, after all, then American can pump their entire paycheck into the Pacific without worrying about Germany/Italy getting the VCs to win.



  • @Geist:

    What makes it troll like is he comes out and says a bunch of people sucks, even though he has no idea who those people are. Then he refutes a bunch of arguements no one is even making. Who said Russia out produces Germany? Who gave specific examples of Japan not being able to take the DEI or the UK’s circumstances? What was said is that some of us feel the game is tilted towards the Allies (as well as some debate towards what degree people think it is). Too bad Mantlefan doesn’t play online, I bet we could all learn from him…

    No, what makes it NOT trolling is that I am not calling out specific people and saying they suck. I’m talking about the opponents cmdr jennifer has been vaguely describing.
    These ones:
    “Stopping Japan from earning more than 40 IPC a round is child’s play”
    Note that I was not the one bringing up child’s play. In my opinion, Japan would quite literally have to be (either a TOTAL rookie) or a young child to be kept under 40 IPCs for the most relevant turns of the game.
    “I disagree, I rarely, if ever, see any American equipment in the Atlantic outside the equipment that America starts with in the Atlantic. This is due, probably, to the fact that Russia can easily out produce Germany and thus stop the incursion without assistance.”

    As you can see, I AM calling out arguments people are making. Please quit accusing me of trolling. It’s quite valid that the OP’s assertion of Japan needing help is based on false premises. It’s clearly stated that she believes that it’s easy to keep Japan at 40, and the only way that can really be true is if her opponents are quite bad. Why does it matter If I know them personally or not? If Japan can’t get over 40 IPCs it’s either their own darn fault OR they have unbelievably, nauseatingly bad dice.

    I’d honestly consider your actions more trolling than mine. Attacking me for posts you think are coming out of nowhere when it’s quite obvious they were definitely a response to a post, and the only way you could think that they were out of nowhere is if you haven’t been reading the posts in the thread, in which case you probably shouldn’t even be posting in the thread. Please don’t come back with some self-righteous crap about “how dare you tell me where I can and cannot post.” Please just actually read the thread and get on board before wasting everyone’s time with baseless accusations of trolling.
    I don’t really care if you know who the post was addressed to. The poster I was addressing could easily recognize to who I am referring just by remembering what they themselves wrote.

    Maybe Japan does need help. Maybe Cmdr Jennifer’s changes are great ideas. But her reasoning for that help being needed is quite unreasonable and can really only come from having experience with just awful axis strategies.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 26
  • 3
  • 11
  • 20
  • 6
  • 513
  • 1
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

35
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts