I feel nothing should be changed at all, frankly. Japan is overmatched by the US, to be sure, but to about the same degree that Russia/ UK are by Germany/ Italy. That’s the part of your argument that doesn’t jive with my experience of the game.
Posts made by chompers
-
RE: Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
-
RE: Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
12-15 IPC’s, not 18. And I’m not even convinced it’s necessary, that’s just what my gut is telling me. The US, as the primary force of the Allied side, needs to be unrestricted in it’s ability to deploy on either front as necessary in response to whatever the Axis’s opening moves are. To me, restricting that is a far more drastic change than an extra 4 inf for Japan, whose presence would only really be felt if the US was spending heavily in the Pacific anyway, as otherwise they would just be making an overwhelming Japanese starting advantage in Asia slightly more overwhelming.
-
RE: Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
Yes, I do agree that some minor changes might be needed, but I think you would agree there’s a pretty large disparity between our suggestions. IMHO the scale of some of the changes you’ve suggested are pretty game-breaking. I’d like to add that I believe your analysis of the Pacific theater to be pretty spot-on, but I think you’re underestimating the detrimental effect of zero US investment early in Europe. Frankly, if you (as the axis player) could go into every game in your group knowing that the US was going to dump 80-100% in the Pacific early on, what would hold you back from a G2 Barbarossa with the intent to have the Russians penned into Moscow by turn 6 or 7? You’re a 60-70 point Germany by then, with the ability to sit in Bryansk thumbing your nose at a primarily defensive oriented Russian stack while trickling enough units via the Leningrad and Ukraine minors to (at worst) maintain parity with the Russians or ( more likely) gradually begin to outnumber them as a small group of mobile German units do doughnuts in the interior of Russia gobbling up the rest of its provinces. Heck, I’d see no reason as Japan to not head on down and blow up India J3 or J4 depending on whether the Allied player blocked effectively after a J1 Hainan naval base build, and then follow that up by heading straight for Cairo 2 turns later, dispatching its surviving air to either suicide on Moscow when the time is right or sit in Europe watching the coast (I shudder to think how much more effective this would be if the Japs got their OOB planes back). It could even churn out a batch of tanks or 3 from India to help with Moscow or Cairo, respectively. The US needs to spend in both theaters simply in order to keep the Axis players honest, and prevent them from teaming up in their theater of choice.
My 2 cents.
-
RE: Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
Not seeing what the OP’s talking about after a good 30 games of alpha .2. The time it takes for the US to marginalize Japan with 100% Pacific builds roughly coincides with the time it takes Germany to pressure Russia back into turtling in Moscow, and with no US involvement whatsoever in the Atlantic there is no excuse for the Italians not to be sitting in Cairo around that time too, at which point the EuroAxis is poised to win the game. I’m not even sold on the fact that the US push the Japs back to their homeland within any sort of reasonable time frame at all if the Japs deny the US the decisive naval battle they’re looking for as long as possible while using its starting land and air to pick off the minor allies one at a time. I will agree that things get very dicey for Japan in the face of a full court press from the Allies possibly including UK/ANZAC turn 1 DOW’s plus simultaneous pressure from the Russian inf and whatever forces the Chinese can mount, but Japan starts off with an incredible amount of mobile firepower which can neutralize several of these threats if used wisely (i.e always with land to soak up hits). Yeah Japan will never come close to its 6 VC’s and is ultimately doomed, but that doesn’t mean it rolls over and dies T6. It has been my experience so far that the game’s ever so slightly tilted towards the Allies, but nowhere near to the degree that the suggested changes are in any way justified. A smattering of extra land units in Asia are all that are really needed, 12-15 IPC’s in total IMHO, and Europe is near perfect.
-
RE: Lessons Learned Global 1940
I have found early German investment on deterrence against US and UK naval interference in Europe to pay huge dividends as the game moves into its middle stages. With the G1 CV 2 TRN purchase followed by a minimum of 1 sub every single turn (we’ve taken to calling these insurance or safety subs in our group) and a focus on preserving the Luftwaffe, Germany can have a substantial fleet of subs ready to take hits for Luftwaffe when its inevitably called upon to strike the US and/or rebuilt UK fleets. Having Italian air ready to blow up any destroyer blocks by the Allies to prevent your sub force from converging on Gibraltar is pretty key. This will normally result in one of two things happening: either the US will force the issue early intending to sacrifice its fleet in order to whittle down the Luftwaffe, or they will spend an extra handful of turns to make sure that any attack on their invasion fleet would be suicidal. Either way, the US is forced to spend more points on fleet cover for its transports and less on men, which will allow Germany and Italy more time to push into Russia and more time to prepare adequate defenses in Europe all for the cost of 6-12 IPC’s per turn.
-
RE: Any thoughts on the Minor IC in Southern Ukraine?
My thoughts are it was very considerate of the Russians to build that Minor for Germany.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
One step ahead of you. More units for Germany, less for Russia, weaker US NO, and no more Anzac capturing the Carolines for the US, or UK/US threatening Berlin via seizing Denmark to open the straight. Let me know if I missed anything major, I’m gonna go beat my head against the wall for a bit.
edit Russian Minor IC in Ukraine…interesting, and at least he removed the German initial Barbarossa territory grab N.O. Overall though, seems to have strengthened the Axis slightly while weakening the Allies slightly. I guess he went with what made the majority of players happy, can’t say I blame him.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
That’s been the basic order of purchases for the US just about every game we’ve played of the newest Alpha setup, and it works beautifully at slowing down and/or containing Japan. It’s a kickass setup to really bring some pain to Japan and I’m a huge fan of it. But it’s nowhere near ready on the Atlantic side to do much of anything but die, and then the US will need to spend its next two turns or so worth of IPC’s to get its Atlantic fleet to the point where it can survive a German attack, and then another turn or two in order to have sufficient transports and men to begin dropping into Europe. Which brings me back to my earlier statements, it’s very tough for the US to exert any real pressure on Germany before its gobbled up enough of Russia that it can turn around and begin fending off Allied landings while trickling enough reinforcements to Barbarossa via Leningrad and Stalingrad to eventually take Moscow as well. Once again, why does Germany need even more help? This is just stacking the odds further and further in its favor. I would like to draw attention again to the fact that these games were played without the +3 IPC bonus per territory gained in the initial Barbarossa turn, and yet Larry is looking at adding even more to Germany. If anything, its Japan that ultimately needs the help.
Honestly the only way I’ve found for the US to make a real and lasting impact on the European side after a string of purchases like those you described was through helping the UK retake and hold Cairo while protecting London.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
The US doesn’t have a huge income edge if its splitting its IPC’s between theaters. And you’re ignoring the simple fact that Germany can easily put the Russian player in a position where they have to chose to either fall back a territory or be destroyed, at which point the Germans move one space forward and await the next wave of reinforcements one space behind before moving ahead again. Yes, you can threaten the German stack more by investing in units like planes and tanks or (my personal preference) artillery, but the Germans will always have more than you do as long as they stay mostly stacked up and don’t overextend themselves. Believe me, its not that our Russian players are turning tail and running back to Moscow the moment the Germans show up, nor are they churning out 90-100% inf builds and awaiting the inevitable. Every inch of Russia is fought for, but eventually when faced with the choice of making a stand and dying, or pulling back a space toward your capital to reinforce, the choice (IMHO) is an obvious one.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
I don’t buy that. With regards to Europe, we rarely see Germany losing more than 1 or 2 planex on the UK fleet kills unless the UK player scrambles, at which point he’s inviting sea lion as his fighters are dead. Germany generally comes out of its France battle with its infantry screen dead but all other units pretty much intact, as they can still send in a couple spare tac bombers. It’s usually left in a pretty good position to pursue Barbarrosa in whatever fashion it deems fitting.
My main point I’ve been trying to raise was that the US can’t get away with starting much of a fleet at all in the Atlantic early because its crucial for them to spend in the Pacific early on before Japan gets out of control. All the other allies in the area are mere speed bumps, and if there’s no US navy (that’s close to par with Japan’s) already making its way past Hawaii by the time Japan takes the DEI and begins to kill of the minor Pacific allies, things are going to go downhill really fast. Japan can force the US to spend heavily on fleet to be a threat by spending heavily on fleet in its own right. In short, I have yet to see the US be able to effectively stall Germany without letting Japan off the hook. Why does Germany need even more offensive power?
I get that some of you are better players than me, really. I’m not gonna argue that. But from where our group see things, the Axis are winning the majority of the time no matter who plays what side. Doesn’t that speak to some sort of inherent disadvantage for the Allies? Or do we just magically become “incompetent” when we switch from playing Axis to Allies?
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
See, that’s the part I don’t get. We’ve played about 15 to 20 games total of Alpha using its various setups and the Axis have won about 80% of them, the only time the Allies haven’t lost has been when they managed to contain Japan through ceding most of Africa by retreating to the south and holding there while the Mediterranean UK fleet went into the Pacific to link up with the US and ANZAC fleets. This was the only game we’ve played where the US was actually able to spend enough IPC’s in the Atlantic to overcome the German naval and air force deterrent in a reasonable time frame (before, say, turn 8 or so), which is generally 8-10 planes plus the Baltic fleet (usually a carrier and battleship) as well as one to two subs purchased per turn. The UK atlantic has a tough time ever putting out any sort of navy in time to be threatening as their turn 1 purchase is generally dictated by the Germans, and they’re forced to spend a portion of their IPC’s each turn to hold the Italians back from overrunning all of Africa. This only leaves them with IPC’s in the the mid-teens to commit to fleet each turn, some of which has to be transports for it to have any effectiveness, which the Germans can happily blow to kingdom come every time they approach the shoreline. If the UK slowly builds a fleet off of Canada and holds back until it has a (slim) chance at surviving the German deterrent, its generally not showing up before Germany has enough spare IPC’s to watch its coast as well as continue its push into Russia.
With regards to Russia, I agree that they need some offensive power in their purchases in order to keep the front line as far away from Moscow as they can so that they retain a degree of purchasing power longer into the game. However, its been my experience that whatever Russia does, Germany can do better. Even purchasing a sub a turn Germany still has more IPC’s to spend on attack than Russia has on defense and also has the numerical advantage out the gate in armor as well as parity (roughly) in inf/art/mech. If the German is cautious in his drive into Russia, only moving forward in the north when he’s assured to survive whatever Russian counterattack might come, and sitting comfortably in the south trading the Ukraines with Russia, I don’t see where the Russians really have any option but to begin to fall back eventually. As I’ve said before, this is generally a slow process in our games, but once you do begin to fall back Russia surrenders a lot of the IPC’s it needs to be competitive and loses its ability to divert significant German spending away from the Allied landings that are now occurring in Europe.
I just don’t see how more than 1 Axis power can really be contained effectively by the Allies. Whatever theater you choose to bring the pressure in, the other one goes to hell. If you choose to fight hard in both, you cede the advantage (slightly) to the Axis in each.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
Sure, I understand that. In fact it’s what I do most games when playing as the Allies in order to keep Japan in check, normally beginning with a US4 assault on the Carolines followed by the retaking of the DEI the following turn. I know the US makes enough IPC’s to be able to stick it to Japan if adequately prepared, my initial question was how it does this while being able to pressure Germany enough to keep them from steamrolling Russia, which IMHO they are fully capable of doing if left to their own devices.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
Some great points raised by the both of you, and definitely some ideas for me to try out in the near future. Next volley of questions, however…
It has been my experience so far that without significant offensive US presence in the Pacific keeping the Japanese fleet honest, they’re free to slaughter the smaller allies piecemeal. I look at the Japanese air force as a sort of “Get out of Jail Free” card that can be turned in any time the UK/ANZAC/Russians put any sort of significant pressure on Japan, particularly on the mainland where Jap inf/art can soak up hits for the planes. Without a significant threat being posed to SZ 6 Japan is to move the majority of its Navy down to the Phillippines/DEI while positioning its land forces backed up by air to either corner the Chinese with a move to Shenshi J3 if China retreats and stacks, or to contest Yunan with the UK and China if they decide to make their stand there. At any time the Russians can be dealt with if they get aggressive so long as at least a couple of transports are kept within striking range of Manchuria and Korea and the Japanese airforce is positioned in Kiangsu (or possibly even further away should you decide on an AB build) and therefore I usually empty out the Manchurian and Korean forces into China to create a pretty significant Jap stack in mainland China, one that is capable of either finishing off China or having a go at India. This is with zero investment in land forces. Bearing that in mind, how do you go about stopping Japan if the US is a good 120 IPC’s behind Japan in fleet spending by turn 4-5? I understand that eventually the Japanese starting forces get whittled down by constant allied pressure, but without the US getting directly involved in the fight via a fleet capable of venturing past Hawaii Japan should be hitting its stride economically by this point and can easily replenish its losses. Furthermore, they’re free to strip the Philippines bonus away from the US (granted that happens almost regardless of what the Allies decide to do) and if not tied down defending SZ 6 they can also grab their 5 pt bonus for controlling the majority of that 7 island group. A 70 IPC Japan is fully capable of tangoing with the US via its IPC spending each turn while its starting forces can demolish one of the other Pacific Allies at will.
Whew, some serious rambling there, but I hope you get my point. What are some of your (Gargantua and Kobu) suggestions as to how to effectively contest the Pacific as the Allies if you’re not dumping a good 50-60 American IPC’s in there turn after turn?
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
Gargantua, I really respect your opinion, and I see you have a wealth of knowledge about the game. I also understand that you can never really give turn by turn strategies about how to accomplish stuff like you posted because every game evolves differently. However, few quick questions for you:
What if Germany stacks inf/art at its primary means of attacking Russia? How is Russia coming up with the numbers to stop them before they’re within sight of Moscow if they’re also dispatching units to other theaters? Or finding the IPC’s to match even the starting German armor? It would seem to me that every unit built is critical to the struggle against Germany as they possess both an economic advantage as well as one in unit count. I know its a long road to the heart of Russia, but all too soon the Germans are gonna be knocking on the door and you might be left wishing those spare infantry were a little closer to home.
How is the US holding Hawaii with just 50% of its resources if Japan just churns out navy continuously over its first few turns?
The Germans can afford to drop a sub a turn while maintaining their starting air force (possibly even bulking it up a bit) plus the Baltic fleet as well as the G1 carrier build. This is a powerful deterrent to allied landings unless there is significant fleet coverage. How are the Allies overcoming this by turn 4? Where do the IPC’s come from? Are you playing the US aggressive in the Atlantic to the detriment of the Pacific with the hope of being able to get back in time to save India and/or Australia or retake Hawaii? I’m just not seeing the opportunities arise to exit the Pacific as easily as you’re making it seem to be.
With regards to our allied players improving their game, we really don’t have dedicated players for each country. The results I spoke of are happening regardless of who plays what country.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
Kobu, sorry man but all my games have been played face to face so far. Toyed around with the idea of playing by forum but as it stands the interface for doing so is kind of off-putting.
Japan invests extremely heavily in navy and maintains constant pressure on Hawaii while whatever forces it has to spare head south to snag the DEI. There are different ways of doing this just like there are different Allied methods to counter, but regardless of how it plays out its tough if not impossible for the Allies to hold Hawaii without constant US reinforcement matching Japanese spending.
IMHO, if Germany has made it within a province of Moscow the capital is doomed to fall eventually. The Russian stack should be primarily inf at this point and therefore incapable of pushing back the main German stack even if it has a ( usually slight) numerical edge. Normally Russia has fallen back to Moscow by around turn 9 or 10, and by that point Germany has such an edge in IPC’s over Russia that it can afford to both watch its coasts and in the worst of cases maintain parity with Russia thru reinforcement via Leningrad and/or Stalingrad plus a few stragglers from Europe.
Moscow isn’t really falling before turn 15 or so, normally. But I just can’t see how people can really argue that Germany needs even more power to start with, it already has a huge edge over Russia and any additional units just serve to widen the disparity.
It bears worth mentioning that in about 30 or so OOB setup games in our group, Moscow fell only once.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
Russia’s tried a bunch of different strategies. One game was primarily INF purchases with a plane purchase each of the first 4 turns to give them some province trading power before switching over to about 80% inf 20% art. Another was closer to 50/50 inf/art purchases. We’ve even toyed around with more mobile purchases but Russia IMHO doesn’t really have the luxury of sacrificing numbers for mobility if its facing Germany without US aid. Some games it has tried to stack Bryansk to herd the Germans north and away from the 2 IPC provinces. Other games it has stacked Belarus if it looked like the initial German push was vulnerable to counterattack. Most of the time the bulk of the Russian army guards the north while a smaller force of inf backed by air trades the southern provinces with the Axis. It’s put pressure on Norway whenever the German transports were far enough away from the Baltic to give Russia some breathing room. Believe me, when one way of playing doesn’t seem to be working we’re always looking for a new angle. The simple fact of the matter is if Japan can tie up the US effectively enough the German IPC and unit advantage is already big enough that Russia is doomed to fall back to its interior in relatively short order. Any more power to Germany just makes this battle even more skewed in the Axis favor.
It bears worth mentioning that Moscow isn’t falling quickly in any of these games. The usual objective for Germany is to force Russia back into its interior through superior numbers and then strip IPC’s from them to the point where they’re down into the 15-20 range. At this point Germany can shift to spending most of its IPC’s to ward of the US and UK and is free to finish off Russia at its leisure.
-
RE: Is Germany strong enough in Alpha?
Absolutely. Played 5 games now with his most recent setup and and all but 1 Germany crushed Russia while the UK was held at bay through an early Sea Lion threat in concert with an Italian push into Africa draining their IPC’s. The only time Russia didn’t fall was when the Allies were so successful tying up Japan in the Pacific early on that the US was able to spend in the Atlantic comfortably by around turn 6. Even so, it was only through a multinational defensive stand at Bryansk (Russians plus UK Pacific inf/mech and Uk Atlantic fighters) that the line was held, and eventually Russia probably would have fallen if not for the game being called a draw due to Japan being horribly maimed.
It bears worth mentioning that none of these games were played with the newest German N.O. rewarding IPC’s for the initial push into Russia as our group agreed Germany was already strong enough. The only reason I could see to strengthen Germany any more would be if the US had a chance to break away from 80-100% Pacific spending early on (first 6 turns or so), which a competently played Japan should force them to do almost every time.
-
RE: Let's Talk About Tech, Baby!
Last game I played the US grabbed improved shipyards turn 1. Japan invested 35 IPC’s in tech over her first 3 turns and could only come away with radar. Not fun. Anyone else think radar should have some effect on naval combat? Perhaps giving capital ships AA gun fire or something? It was pretty important in the war at sea.
I like the scheduled tech idea as well, but it would be pretty difficult to balance effectively.
-
RE: Best Russian Buys…
I’ve taken a liking to a 6 art 1 tac R1
7 art 1 fighter R2
alternating between a fighter and a tac every turn thereafter with everything else spent on inf.Gives your Russian stack some teeth while not skimping on numbers too much. A lot depends on what Germany purchases its first couple turns as well as what turn you think they’ll be attacking, however.
-
RE: 6 VC for Japan
There’s nothing the US can buy that can stop the Japs from taking Hawaii turn 3 if they move their starting fleet to Midway J2. Can’t be blocked, and no amount of US purchases can save it or really even put you in a position to take it back US3 since you can only deploy 3 units per turn directly into the Pacific until at war.