• I, as most of you, have come to the conclusion that, barring the dice, the game favors the Allies at least 7 out of 10 times, if not higher.

    Without overcomplicating this, which one of the options provided do you think would help to SOME degree, re-balance the game a bit.

  • My ‘other’ is another Jap trn somewhere mildly useful.

  • I think it is still going to take a little bit of work to give the Axis close to a fair shake at winning the game.

    I think a little boost to Italy and the minor in Romania for Germany is a good place to start.

    As time goes on I think more people will come around to the conclusion that Alpha +2 still favors the Allies.

    It took some time for everyone to realize how horribly broken OBB was.  I think the fact that Alpha +2 is heads and shoulders better than OBB causes some people to conclude that it is balanced when it is still fairly broken.  I thought this at first because playing OBB it was not even neccesary to think playing the Allies.  In Alpha +2 the Axis can capitalize against poor play by the Allies and they can also pull off some flashy gimmicks.  Alpha +2 does make the Allies have to think to play effectively.  That being said if the Allies play a tight game and the Axis play a tight game I have found that the Allies will almost surely win and with authority.

    If Alpha 3+ does not address this then bids may be the next best option as much as they leave a sour taste in many players mouth.  Either that or the clamor will grow over time for Alpha +4 to be created.

  • My other would also be adding a transport for Japan (maybe at carolines), and perhaps some rouge inf somewhere (one on every island perhaps). I would also move the Italian air to South Italy and/or add an airbase to North Italy.

  • The problem people are complaining about is Japan being too weak. Give them a few No’s to get early.  Kwangtung is a good start. I think they should get one for having both Korea and Manchuria. If they had that it would give them that extra five out of the gate to help build a complex or transport. Not to mention we all know Japan took Manchuria for its valued resources making it one of there first objectives.

  • Now we’re talking.  Putting a Japanese NO would negate my plan of ignoring China.  Put one that includes much of the North China coast, reasoning being:

    If Japan had been pushed back from their continental possessions by the feeble China then they would take a subsequent PR hit back at home, hence the loss of the 5 ipcs.

    I also agree Japan is too weak and has little to fight for in relation to NO’s.

  • yes, i also conclude that japan needs 1 or two more transports. i mean, to collect their NO’s and conquer land they need like 7 trns round 3 or 4. add NO’s that are easier, or more trns.

  • Customizer

    Yes, I agree as well.  I have always thought the Japanese NOs were too few and too hard to obtain.
    1 – 5 of 7 islands – this one is okay.  Plus it’s in direct opposition to the US 5 of 7 NO, which makes it better for game play.  Either Japan gets it or US gets it or neither.
    2 – 5 IPCs for each Western “power” center.  Calcutta and Sydney are both capitals, which makes them very hard.  Western US?  Again VERY hard, plus  in Pacific by itself that’s a US capital.  So the only one that is reasonably possible is Honolulu, which requires Japan to commit that direction instead of other places, like the DEI or India.
    3 – 5 IPCs for controlling all four of the DEI.  This one can be very hard to achieve and even harder to maintain, especially once US is in the war and going heavy in the Pacific.  Many times, Japan won’t even get this one for 3-4 rounds and a lot of times, they will end up losing it right away due to small Indian and ANZAC task forces and US pressure up north.
    4 – 10 IPCs for NOT invading FIC and being at peace with US, UK and ANZAC.  This is easy enough to get, but it doesn’t promote Japanese expansionism, which is really what Japan was about, expanding their empire.

    I think Japan should have some more NOs that are a little easier to obtain and harder to take away.
    1 – Perhaps a 5 IPC when Japan takes Philippines and Malaya, maybe add Hong Kong to that.
    How about a couple regarding China?
    2 – 5 IPCs when Burma road is closed off.  That would make a direct conflict with the Chinese Burma Road NO.
    3 – 5 IPCs when all Chinese units are eliminated AND/OR all Chinese territories are in Axis control.

  • Just an idea I think I may try in our group. You roll 2 dice. The first is to give Axis a Minor IC. The dice roll is to keep it random. The second is to give the Axis the opportunity to get another bonus.

    Dice 1: Minor IC
    1: Romania
    2: Manchuria
    3: Shantung
    4: Slovakia
    5: Poland
    6: Kiangsu

    Dice 2: 5 IPC Bonus
    1: Germany- Paris
    2: Japan- Kwangtung & Malaya
    3: Japan- Philippines & Malaya
    4: Japan- FIC
    5: Germany- Western Ukraine & Ukraine
    6: One time 10 IPC bonus given out to each Axis power at beginning of game

  • I don’t like the idea of giving the Axis another complex only because it takes away from YOU being in charge of where it goes. For example if romania had a complex at the beginning of the game you as a German player feel compelled to use it. I think with extra cash it allows you the player to decide complex or more navy, army whatever. I think Japan’s No’s are hard to achieve and hold you have to give them one they can achieve rather easily. I also believe Germany should get something for Paris it was a big deal at the time.

  • One of my biggest problems with the game is the Russians in the Pacific theater. It’s not fun when the Japanese get or have to kill the Russian infantry there and force the Russians to turtle even more. Japan should have to get through china before it can attack Russia. This would make it more focused on China. Get rid of the Russian infantry in East Russia, and not allow attacks through Buyartia. The Russians there are meant to be defensive, so why not just get rid of them and make it impassable?

    Another thing is that Japan should be more focused on logistics. Instead of factories, Japan should be given more transports and infantry on Japan, which would create supply chains to ferry units into China. I also think that a transport should be able to load in one sea zone  be able to drop of in in a friendly sea zone (A zone in which you can control all the territories that touch it), and still use the remaining moves. Why would you have to stop in a sea zone that you control, especially when you control the ports.

    Finally, if these changes were to take place, America should have increase strength, to keep the now stronger Japs busy, and to still allow the Americans access to Europe.

    To me, this would make the game more fun by adding a more logistical sense to it, what to you guys think?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator


    My ‘other’ is another Jap trn somewhere mildly useful.

    Could be unbalanced.

    I like the National Objective in Kwangtung (Hong Kong) idea.  I like a Philippines NO for Japan as well.  +1 MI in E. Poland, Hungary and Romania might be worth looking into as well.

  • They all look like good ideas, have any of you tried some of these ideas in 5 to 10 games and see if they are to little or to much.
      How about dug in defenders they defend on a 3  wow never mind that would be to much
      My idea is to use the OOB set up instead of the Global rules one, just for Japan. That would give them the TT at the Caroline islands and a few more planes.  It’s been a while since I’ve compared them.
      I have never tried it, but I think it will happen in the next few weeks, everybody seems to say  Yea Japan thats the way it is, if you cant win early (the Axis) then they dont (Japan) stand a chance, and how do you incorporate the loss at mid way loosing their veteran pilots, nukes and some others I would imagine
      only time will tell and who here on the forum wouldnt buy another W.W.II game

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    “dug in” reminds me of the house rule that island defenders defend on a 3 for the first round.  However, the counter to that was American Marines that attacked on a 2 on the first round.

  • Just an idea, It’s good to have them all on he table. Maybe the Pacific from 2000 or so  opening round of defense for the Allies at a one, except China

  • i voted for paris NO.

    i wonder why it has been active in europe1940 with a weaker russia and a strong usa and got deactivated in global1940 with a stronger russia and a even more stronger usa.

  • I still think getting rid of the Russian infantry their would be better, so it gives Japan less to worry about, and let’s them focus on China and their navy.

  • I mentioned to Larry on his site about giving Japan 5ipcs for the complete conquest of china. He thought about it and said he doubts he would do it. I personally think this needs to happen. Japan has to pile assets at china for very little gain. Yeah they get the IPC’s but other than that it’s worthless. If Japan leaves it alone they get blasted by tons of chinese infantry so they have to go after it. If you look at the current NO’s there is one for the conquest of all nations except Italy and Japan. Why not China? We are trying to help Japan a little this would help.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

    I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

    Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 149
  • 3
  • 12
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures