What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?


  • @Cmdr:

    There were no naval bases or airbases when I used this last (because they did not exist in classic) but we stated that all facilities (AA Guns and Complexes) had to stay where they were, but you could buy more with your cash.  In this situation, I would say AB/NB would have to stay as well, but you could buy more.

    There was no limit on what you spent it on.  If you wanted to cash in 309 IPC for America and get all infantry on E. USA, then you had 103 Infantry on E. USA and nothing else.

    Created a post in the House Rules section: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24273.0


  • @Fishmoto37:

    Two things stand out in my humble opinion as problems. First the Italian player loses a large portion of his fleet before he can even make his first move even if the Germs fly two fighters to help. Granted part of the time the U.K. will suffer a large number of casualties but it just does not seem right that the Italian player does not even get to make one stratigic decision before he has lost a portion of his navy. The U.S. can have a Pearl Harbor and bounce back because of a huge income. But Italy is poor and for game purposes their fleet should be combined as the U.K. has the initative and moves first. Second problem is the huge U.S. income before they are even at war. With their prewar income and starting units they are able to build a large fleet before their war even starts. If an adjustment were made by lowering their prewar income to more historical levels and then have them make up the difference in gradual steps during later turns. The total IPCs would eventually be the same but the difference would be that the U.S. would not start turn four with a huge fleet and all prepared to go to war. Now if the axis is crazy enough to attack the U.S. on turn one or two then leave the income schedule as it is.

    I agree, I think the easiest way to balance Alpha2 is to change the DOW system, Italy automatically DOW UK/ANZAC/France on I1, but prior to that they cannot be attacked.  The other change I would make is to let China move to Korea so that Japan cannot just ignore China without being completely kicked off the mainland.

    This would preserve the Italians at Tobruk and safeguard their fleet, allowing Italy to hold the initiative instead of UK.  Initiative is a big thing in this game, because its all the Axis have going for them, the economics favor the allies.


  • It sucks as the Italians, but I think UK should retain that freedom to sucker-punch them.  UK risks paying the price elsewhere, so it’s not entirely unfair.  Also I think it should always be possible in this game to go the historical route.  Historically, Taranto did destroy literally half of Italy’s naval power with minimal British losses.    It shouldn’t always be the best idea to be historical, but I think that option should exist.

  • '10

    @Alsch91:

    It sucks as the Italians, but I think UK should retain that freedom to sucker-punch them.  UK risks paying the price elsewhere, so it’s not entirely unfair.  Also I think it should always be possible in this game to go the historical route.  Historically, Taranto did destroy literally half of Italy’s naval power with minimal British losses.     It shouldn’t always be the best idea to be historical, but I think that option should exist.

    I am all for being historical IF POSSIBLE but in this case for good game play if the Italian fleet could be combined on the setup or could remain neutral until the second round then I think it would be better.


  • Well there is good gameplay here, in the sense that even though Taranto is very effective at crippling Italy for 2-3 turns, it is very often a mistake for UK to pursue it.  I don’t think Italy should get special treatment just because it’s weaker.  And this is coming from a player that prefers playing the Axis.


  • I rarely see Taranto, so its a non-issue to me and shows that even if UK doesn’t hit those ships its not enough to keep Italy ascendant those first few rounds.  UK has the initiative in NAfrica.

    Tobruk gets hit every game though.  That is the battle that this would negate, and would leave Italy with an army in Africa in order to start.

    Uk can still run through the med or position fleet units to deny an Italian NO, but can’t kick Italy in the balls prior to their first move.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I generally move the British fleet to Gibraltar lately, but I am wondering, should I be moving it into the Red Sea and then the Indian Ocean?  Thoughts?


  • @Cmdr:

    I generally move the British fleet to Gibraltar lately, but I am wondering, should I be moving it into the Red Sea and then the Indian Ocean?  Thoughts?

    This is great move to do in conjunction with a slow/kill Japan first strategy.  As the Allies, if you bring everything (and I really do mean everything…Anzac planes, Anzac boats, Anzac purchases, French DD, UK Med fleet, UK Malta fighter, UK India naval purchases [main point being carriers to put those extra planes on]) that you can to India (sz 39) You can actually stonewall a J3 or J4 attack into India.  Even with Japan going maximum India Crush, the naval battle needed to clear z39 is only about a 50/50 proposition.

    Now you may think that Japan could just land their ground units into Burma on J3 and then attack India on J4.  This would bypass clearing sz 39.  The max that could make it to Burma on J3 is 6 TT (three starting and three purchased on J1).  If Japan does this, India has enough ground units and planes to kill the stack of 12 ground units and therefore Japan has no attack on J4.  If you aren’t lucky enough to kill all of them, Anzac still has several fighters to clear the last remaining ground units so as to prevent an attack.

    I know because I did exactly this as the UK in my most recent FTF game.  I thought I would just make it painful for Japan to take India.  It turns out that the Allies can actually stop a full out Japanese India Crush from the starting set-up.  The big key is bringing the UK Med. assets to India.  Now, if you do this Japan really has no where to hide if the US spends big $$$ in the Pacific also.


  • Need help understanding the balance of Italy. Many gamers speak of moving the German fighter from Hungary and TAC from Poland that are used to attack France on G1 to Southern Italy. How can they get there? It is 3 moves from where they are to France with one left over to Northern Italy? Am I missing something?

    Don’t the Italian planes in Northern Italy get to scramble as well as the one in Southern Italy if UK does Toranto in SZ 97?

    Please advise.


  • Correct they cannot reach and must be used in a different battle like Yugo. or not used in battle and noncom’ed there, not a good option.  It’s better to use the ones from either Holland,W.Germ.
     Study the Board and see what planes can reach where.  Italy does need the extra scramble ability to make the U.K. pay for trying to sink it’s fleet.
      Only air bases allow scrambling of 3 planes and the air base is in S.Italy

    After a week of vacation I can’t wait to set up a Global war game I’m going threw withdrawl symptoms
      If I had to bet I would say the Allies are going to pull it off because the Axis won the last few like 4 so the odds are against them……We’ll see    actually I don’t care who I pull as long as I get the hot dice


  • @sargon:

    Need help understanding the balance of Italy. Many gamers speak of moving the German fighter from Hungary and TAC from Poland that are used to attack France on G1 to Southern Italy. How can they get there? It is 3 moves from where they are to France with one left over to Northern Italy? Am I missing something?

    Don’t the Italian planes in Northern Italy get to scramble as well as the one in Southern Italy if UK does Toranto in SZ 97?

    Please advise.

    North Italy doesn’t have an airbase, so planes there can’t scramble.

    Here’s my usual G1 :

    GERMANY 1
    PURCHASES (30)
    2Tr (14) + AC(16) = 30 save 0

    COMBAT MOVES
    #1 France (7Inf,2Art,2Arm,Ftr)
    W.GER: 3Inf, 4MInf, Art
    S.GER: 2Arm
    HOLL : Inf, Art, 2Arm
    POLD : Tac - Will land in W.Ger
    W.GER: Tac - Returns
    E.GER: Tac - Will land in W.Ger

    #2 Normandy (2Inf,Arm,Ftr)
    HOLL : 3Inf,Art,Arm, Ftr - Will land in S.Italy

    #3 Yugoslavia (5Inf)
    S.GER: 6Inf, 2Art
    HUNG : 2Inf, Arm
    POLD :  Arm
    ROMA :  Inf, Arm

    #4 z106 (DD, Tr)
    z117 : Sub
    z118 : Sub

    #5 z91 (Cru)
    z103 : Sub
    Z108 : Sub

    #6 z111 (BB, DD + option Ftr)
    z124 : Sub
    E.GER: SB - Will land in W.Germany
    W.GER: 2Ftr, 2Tac - 2Ftr land on AC to be, 2Tac Returns

    #7 z112 (2 Cru)
    z113 : BB, Cru
    NORW : Ftr - Will land in S.Italy
    HUNG : Ftr - Will land in W.Germany

    NON COMBAT MOVES
    ROMA > BULG : Inf - Retruits 4Inf.
    NORW > FINL : Inf - Retruits 4Inf
    W.POL> HUNG : 3Inf
    E.GER> NORW : Inf, Art via Tr z113>z112
    DENM > W.GER: 2Inf
    E.GER> HUNG : AA

    PLACES NEW UNITS
    z112 : AC, 2TR

    COLLECT : 41 + 10(NO#1,5) + 19(France) + 0 Saved = 70


  • I mentioned this in a thread I just started the other day about the US bonuses, but our group has the US take 1 turn after DOW until it gets it’s Bonus income when we play Alpha 2 setup. (Example: US declares war turn 3, but doesn’t get their bonus until collect income phase of turn 4)

    We did this because frankly  😐 we didn’t interpret the rules correctly, but this accidental interpretation thus far has lead to (at least in our group) a pretty balanced game (Probably about 50:50 win %, maybe 60:40 allies if anything.  We’ve probably played 10 games total).

    Maybe there is an adaptation of this that could be used to make it less skewed to the allies?  It seems that the general feeling is the game is tilted in favor of the allies due to US being a juggernaut starting turn 4 (or earlier).


  • I’ve read through most of this and, to me, it seems that the best way to “fix” the issues people are having are with small, historical, changes. This game is A-historical more than historical,(such as Rumania being axis before the fall of France) and moving to a more historical set-up may actually help balance.
    For instance, perhapse the best way to solve the G1 prepare for sealion move is to remove the French first turn income. Make it so that France will only get it 19IPC starting income if its capital survives to F1, that way Germany dosnt have a sudden influx of cash to build a massive invasion fleet with. However, I do think that if Germany takes Paris they should get a reward, like, half of Frances starting income, for example. I think it better represents the fall of France and the state of the French economy in the face of the German invasion. This ends the threat of a sea-lion to Britian, but dosnt mean that Britian is out of the woods, so to speak, Germany can still finds ways to render the UK irrelevent. Another easy fix to the Med. theater is combining the Italian fleet, simple fix and more historical. The Reggio Marina (italy’s navy) main base during the war was Taranto, in the heel of the boot (southern Italy) so having the fleet in sz97 is do-able on the simple grounds of its more historical, and better for the Italian player. I suppose if you want to give the Uk a chance of still taking a shot at Italy, concentrate the Italian navy in sz95 and give the UK the option to convoy raid sz97 if they want. Again, solves Italy being weak, without over-powering them, and is MORE historical then it is now set up.


  • Sorry for the double post, my browser dose screwy things when I type too much.

    Anyway, in regards to the pacific, the problems people have with Japan and the Allies have always baffled me. I remember when the game first came out(ahh those heady days 8-)……anyway), people were saying that Japan was too strong, and could take China out to quickly, Japan needed less planes. I disagreed, and once again, pointed out that following history would solve the problem. Having the game begin with the Chinese controling Kwangsi, was more historical, but also kept the Japanese from over-running the burma road on the first, thus buying China a single turn of breathing space to better prepare a defense. I think even with the Alpha+ whatever set-up, this is a good idea, as it gives China a breating space(as an aside, the japanese forces there werent removed from play, everything just got bumped up 1 terittory up to Jehol).
    They way I look at it, the only reason Japan and the European axis should work together is to take down a mutual enemy, one that helps Both sides economy grow and nets them more victory cities. To this end, the Soviet Union is the wrong target. Japan gains very little in attacking the Soviets, there are no victory cities for Japan to take in Siberia, and a 6 or 7 turn slog through the IPC poor asian mainland dosent benifit japan much. Meanwhile, a strike south, at the UK/ANZAC, not only allows Japan to grab many IPC rich tt, but also will net them 4(minimum) VC’s bringing them closer to winning. this is a better enemy for the European Axis and Japan to team up on. Also, it dosnt benifit the soviets 1 bit to fight against Japan with Germany bear-ing (lol  :-D) down on them. A more historical outlook and play style that solves alot of the “balance” issues.
    Or atleast thats my 2 cents anyway


  • Hey Clyde, the one advantage to going through Russia as Japan is that although those are few IPCs, they cannot be convoy raided by the US fleet off Japan.  Those are ipcs that Japan will make until an allied power takes them away.  If Japan concentrates on the coast and money islands, their fleet can be neutralized and the US can convoy raid and grab the ipcs at their leisure.


  • I still say give Japan 5 for shanghai and 5 for the complete conquest of china and it would help Japan tremedously.


  • Well, the NO idea is a great one, but the implementation right now leaves much to be desired.  I think LH looks at NO’s as a way to augment a nations ipcs, not as national objectives……

    A great one for Japan would be something in China.  I think the idea that Japan gets an NO for complete capture of China is stupid, but that’s because of the immense investment required to get that NO.  I think a better one would be cutting the Burma road, or perhaps holding half of China.  Or holding the whole chinese coast including Hong Kong.  Something that gives Japan a reason to go to war in the one region they wanted to.

    Also, while I like the idea of a FIC NO, I think the current incarnation is bad.  There is no incentive for UK/ANZAC to not declare war on Japan immediately.  I think the whole DOW system in the Pacific is screwed up.  Also I would amend Japans NO’s to include an outer defense ring and inner defense ring of islands, considering this was a big deal in Japanese strategy of the time.

    ***EDIT: To elaborate a bit on the FIC NO again.  Japan should get the NO for capturing FIC, not staying out.  That would at least give incentive to capture a territory that seems to go to UK India for 90% of the game rounds.  There are too many clunky areas in this game, it needs to be streamlined and fixing the DOW issues would do that nicely…and re-releasing a new map with corrected borders once the rules are finalized.


  • Jimmy, you’ll have to explain, how is Japans total income destroyed by convoy raiding? What happens to Japans surface fleet in your games where they dont seem to be able to keep the US from completely disrupting Japans economy?

    Also, a crucial way to look at this game is through cost analysis, ie, how much dose it cost in units for me to do “X” for what gain that will take me “Y” turns to recover my losses. So for instance, say you attack the soviets in Amur, and lose 3 infantry, Amur is only worth 1IPC, so it will now take you holding Amur 9 turns solid to recover the loss of 3 infantry. On the other side, say you attack the UK in Malaya and lose 3 infantry, Malaya is worth 3IPC so it will only take you 3 turns to recover the loss of those 3 infantry. The 3 dollar boost to your economy for holding Malaya will recover you 1 infantry you lost a turn, where Amur will take 3 turns to recover you the loss of 1 infantry thus taking 9 turns to full pay you back, so to speak. So, if you look at it that way, clearly, it better for Japan to invest it forces and economy towards a southern thrust. Japan can Net itself a 12IPC boost be seizing the 3 islands of Sumatra, Java and Borneo, which are usually lightly defended, and will likely only lose slightly more than 12IPC worth of units, meaning that Japan will have recovered from most of its losses in only 1 turn, where to get the result anywhere on the mainland would take much longer, and more then likely take a bigger loss in units to do so, and also net Japan no additional VC’s, and actaully take them further away from a more important front at a critical time


  • Well Clyde every single territory you take is one more IPC that Russia can’t use to defend itself.  Pretty worth it.
    It’s not like attacking Russia prevents you from taking southern islands.  Really it just makes China a bigger pain in the butt.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @JimmyHat:

    ***EDIT: To elaborate a bit on the FIC NO again.  Japan should get the NO for capturing FIC, not staying out.  That would at least give incentive to capture a territory that seems to go to UK India for 90% of the game rounds.  There are too many clunky areas in this game, it needs to be streamlined and fixing the DOW issues would do that nicely…and re-releasing a new map with corrected borders once the rules are finalized.

    That is precisely why I don’t take FIC with Japan until India is captured.  If I am going after Russia (or America which is my main alternative currently) then taking FIC equates to about 4 IPC for me (2 rounds of collection) and 20 IPC for India (10 rounds of collection) mainly because I am not in a position to take it back again.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Alsch91:

    Well Clyde every single territory you take is one more IPC that Russia can’t use to defend itself.  Pretty worth it.
    It’s not like attacking Russia prevents you from taking southern islands.  Really it just makes China a bigger pain in the butt.

    I still like blitzing Mech/Armor into Russia and killing off whatever infantry you start with to break a hole.  The idea is to sap enough strength that Germany can take Moscow while maintaining enough income to turtle in SZ 6.

    6 Aircraft Carriers + 18 Planes (3 Korea with AB, 3 Japan with AB, 12 on carriers) seems to be quite sufficient if America is not going whole hog after Japan (and they usually dont, because many players are worried that Germany will get 8 VCs before they can limit Japan with America.)


  • @Clyde85:

    Jimmy, you’ll have to explain, how is Japans total income destroyed by convoy raiding? What happens to Japans surface fleet in your games where they dont seem to be able to keep the US from completely disrupting Japans economy?

    Also, a crucial way to look at this game is through cost analysis, ie, how much dose it cost in units for me to do “X” for what gain that will take me “Y” turns to recover my losses. So for instance, say you attack the soviets in Amur, and lose 3 infantry, Amur is only worth 1IPC, so it will now take you holding Amur 9 turns solid to recover the loss of 3 infantry. On the other side, say you attack the UK in Malaya and lose 3 infantry, Malaya is worth 3IPC so it will only take you 3 turns to recover the loss of those 3 infantry. The 3 dollar boost to your economy for holding Malaya will recover you 1 infantry you lost a turn, where Amur will take 3 turns to recover you the loss of 1 infantry thus taking 9 turns to full pay you back, so to speak. So, if you look at it that way, clearly, it better for Japan to invest it forces and economy towards a southern thrust. Japan can Net itself a 12IPC boost be seizing the 3 islands of Sumatra, Java and Borneo, which are usually lightly defended, and will likely only lose slightly more than 12IPC worth of units, meaning that Japan will have recovered from most of its losses in only 1 turn, where to get the result anywhere on the mainland would take much longer, and more then likely take a bigger loss in units to do so, and also net Japan no additional VC’s, and actaully take them further away from a more important front at a critical time

    Sure no problem.  I as Japan usually send my fleet south when the US approaches.  I try to stay as close to Japan as possible, but with ships coming from Australia and India and San Diego my time in the Pacific is limited.  My Jap fleet usually ends up sailing into the Indian ocean, messing with Indian Convoy zones and meeting up with the italian fleet to help control the Western Indian Ocean.

    Much of this has to do with my overall strategy though.  I as the Axis am trying to win on the Europe Board, so the best Japan can do to help in that objective is to attack Russia and assist the Italians at sea.  If you are trying for a pacific board win than I would suggest not abandoning China for Russia because China has 2 VC’s while Russia has none on the Pacific board.


  • Jimmy, Ah ok, that makes sense, a difference in over-all stratgey would explain that.

    However that does bring up a very intresting trend I’ve noticed with A&A, and that is, people tend to treat the Pacific half of the board as a side show. Its like to most axis players Japan’s only job is to try and help them win in Europe, regardless of how adverse of a situation that might leave Japan in, as long as they hold the home Island. I dont know why this happens, is it an cultural thing, is it because for the last decade and a half Americans have been bombarded with WW2 video games depicting the USA fighting Germany across Europe? I really dont get it, I always play Japan like its a full country with its own objectives, and its “alliance” with the European Axis is out of mere convenience. Really because all the areas that are worth a damn in the Pacific IPC wise are under the protection of the UK, it benifits Japan economically to join in with the Axis in dismantling the British Empire.
    I just do not see the advantage for Japan in joining in on an attack on the Soviet union, outside of pointlessly aiding the Germans. I would think it would benifit Germany more to have a Japanese behemoth in the Pacific, distracting American resources away from Europe and taking down relevent powers like British India and the ANZAC. Japan saying “sorry Germany, but you’re on your own against those nasty Reds, im going to go capture 2 new victory cities and work on doubling the size of my economy” sounds like an acceptable excuse NOT to attack the Soviets.

    I also agree that the NO for Japan NOT taking FIC is stupid


  • The Axis won last nite!!!  it was a good game, close it could have gone either way.  I think it came down to to many high risk battles without the good dice and the Axis were able to collect big incomes to many times. I think that its only a matter of time before our Allied strategy catches up to where we are with our Axis strategy is and then the results will be different for a while and then its the whole thing all over again

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Clyde85:

    Jimmy, Ah ok, that makes sense, a difference in over-all stratgey would explain that.

    However that does bring up a very intresting trend I’ve noticed with A&A, and that is, people tend to treat the Pacific half of the board as a side show. Its like to most axis players Japan’s only job is to try and help them win in Europe, regardless of how adverse of a situation that might leave Japan in, as long as they hold the home Island. I dont know why this happens, is it an cultural thing, is it because for the last decade and a half Americans have been bombarded with WW2 video games depicting the USA fighting Germany across Europe? I really dont get it, I always play Japan like its a full country with its own objectives, and its “alliance” with the European Axis is out of mere convenience. Really because all the areas that are worth a damn in the Pacific IPC wise are under the protection of the UK, it benifits Japan economically to join in with the Axis in dismantling the British Empire.
    I just do not see the advantage for Japan in joining in on an attack on the Soviet union, outside of pointlessly aiding the Germans. I would think it would benifit Germany more to have a Japanese behemoth in the Pacific, distracting American resources away from Europe and taking down relevent powers like British India and the ANZAC. Japan saying “sorry Germany, but you’re on your own against those nasty Reds, im going to go capture 2 new victory cities and work on doubling the size of my economy” sounds like an acceptable excuse NOT to attack the Soviets.

    I also agree that the NO for Japan NOT taking FIC is stupid

    It is significantly more difficult to win with Japan due to the need of transports primarily, and due to the fact they face the equivalent of 5 nations by themselves:  India, Australia, China, America, America (since America earns twice what any other nation does.)

    Thus it comes down to Japan pulling a one time gambit off (because after that your opponent will see it coming) or helping Germany to win.  The two easiest ways to help Germany win are:  Blitz through Russia; Crush India and bring reinforcements up through the middle east and your navy into the Indian Ocean to sack Africa.

    I’d like to see the FIC no changed to “Japan owns Japan” NO for 10 IPC.  America has one of those silly objectivese (because they are hardly going to lose it so what is it really?  Just a bonus you automatically get until you’ve lost the game, right?  Silly, you did not ACHIEVE an objective there!) and Japan DESPERATELY needs one.  Actually, make it 15 IPC to counter the American one, there is just way too much money in the Pacific for the allies!

Suggested Topics

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

35
Online

15.6k
Users

36.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts