To start off my opponent and me are A&A newbies so keep that in mind here.
We played 3 games of AAE40 with Alpha.2 rules and in all games the Allies won. First two games we more to gain experience and learn the mechanics and probably were not the best examples of how to play the Axis as I think the Axis were played way to conservative.
Our 3th game was a lot better and for the first 3 - 4 rounds it actually looked like the Axis could pull it off. Axis faked a Sealion built up and did a minor punch and took Scottland in G2 to help Italy succeed against UK in Africa and Middle-East (who in round 4 and 5 were doing 40-45 IPC) and started off Barbarossa in G2. As the distance to Moscow is pretty far creating long supply lines the couldn’t keep the pace in the campaign. In round 5 and 6 the US started to come in to play causing issues for Italy in the Med. Sea and Africa and were preparing for a landing in France/Holland-area. This seemed to be the turning point in the war resulting in surrender by the Axis in round 7 while they were knocking on Moscow’s door. Russia was able to withstand the pressure on Moscow and was actually running very well by taking Romania (where Axis had a minor IC) and Hungary forcing the Germans to defend instead of attack Moscow. (this was my lesson learned as that was very costly especially as it had an IC but probably still didn’t cause the complete fall of the Axis in my opinion)
After doing the math on Italy’s turn in round 7 it was clear that they were outproduced by the Allies who were doing approx. 50 (US) + 40 (Russia) + 30 (UK) = 120 Allies vs. approx. 45 (Germany) + 35 (Italy) = 80 Axis. As Germany and Italy had to go into defense it was clear to me (playing the Axis this time) that I could not win this over the long term. (in round 5 and 6 the IPC’s were looking a lot better still and were probably 110 vs 95, with a recapture of Romania which looked still possible in round 5-6 the balance would have been pretty close to even again)
We played it using the suggested Alpha .2+ rules meaning 9 IPC extra per round for Russia. As said were both pretty much newbies but we are not sure that the Alpha .2+ rules are really balanced as it seems hard to win as the Axis. Especially the 9 IPC extra per round for Russia seem to be important and gave us the idea that it makes it really hard for Germany to successfully do Barbarossa. The Russian player was almost only buying Tanks with only a little as cannon fodder.
Only scenario left for the Axis would be to go for a Sealion which seems to be the best option and should give Germany time to build up defense on Russian border and make the battles around the UK more transparent as the UK is out of play there. Only concern I have is what then would happen in the Mid-East?
OK, long story I guess but my main questions are:
1.) what are others experiences with Alpha .2+ and the strength of the Axis?
2.) do others share the opinion that the extra 9 IPC for Russia might be too much as without Barbarossa it means 3x 28+9 = 111 for Russia where Germany probably will be doing 3x 45 (avg.) + 17 from France = 147? This sounds doesn’t sound like a lot extra to do the Sealion move as that needs a lot of resources also to be successful.
3.) is the Barbarossa move indeed not that easy or are we just lousy players/newbies?
4.) was the loss of Romania with its minor IC the turning point in this battle as it’s +6 IPC for Russia and -3 for Germany giving them a IC in striking distance? It also impacted Italy’s moves as they needed to help Germany out to defend this against this keeping them from being able to build up for stopping the incoming US-troops in Med. Sea and Africa.
5.) should Sealion be the number 1 move for Germany followed by Barbarossa?
I would appreciate your help here and keep in mind that we are still newbs willing to learn/wanting to get better.