I think with the split victory conditions, the Brits spending NOTHING in the Pacific would quickly lead to an Axis victory via Japan.

I dunno, to me it just feels like a ‘cheap’ way out (as in, we couldnt balance the game ‘globally’, so we put an artificial ‘crutch’ in to force the Brits to spend in the Pacific).

To me, the split money is what makes the Pacific feel more like a side-show. In AA50, every IPC that Japan took from Britain in the Pacific was one less IPC Germany/Italy had to deal with. It also meant that there was a real reason (beyond artificial VC locations) for Britain and the US to fight for those IPCs in the Pacific. I think it gave AA50 a very dynamic feeling across the globe.

Global feels more like 2 games being played simultaneously, with a lot less interaction. Western UK really couldnt care less about India UK unless Japan threatens a single-theatre win. But barring that, Britain is losing nothing by losing her colonies in the Far East (which feels wrong IMO). To me, a better solution could be found to ‘Britain dumping all it’s money into Europe’ than the artificial split. Perhaps a minimum amount has to be spent in the Pacific or something (so every IPC would still matter to the Western UK, no matter the source).

In any case, I think this split income is one of the most disappointing aspect of Global since it really creates separation between the theatres that did not exist in the earlier titles.

from your post it sounds like the Italian navy situation has a big impact on the game, which even one more plane in UK would have a big impact on in turn.

Exactly. But that’s why I think it’s important to be able to explore the various strategies and opening gambits a few times before tweaking it further. Maybe that bomber is too much, but maybe using it down there costs the Brits elsewhere. The point being, is that no one can reasonably tell after just a game or two and given the investment in time (and space) Global takes, it’s very unlikely that there will be consensus feedback any time in the near future.

So changing/tweaking/massaging the start-ups every few weeks greatly reduces the chances of actually knowing if the PREVIOUS set-up was balanced or not.

Caveat:
If Larry Harris is under some form of a timetable for a 2nd printing or something, then by all means the changes have to come fast and furious. But barring that, I’d say it’s time to let it bake for a while IMO.

Personally I think at this point it should just stand as it is for a while and let people play. I mean, it’s a LONG game and people can’t get many plays in so it’s quite possible what looks like a balance issue in one or two games might just be play-style or even bad luck, yet the people who are losing those games can quite easily report the set up as a ‘problem’.

Case in point:

We played 2 games over the holidays with the Alpha +1 set up. In the first game, the Italians overran most of the Med and had a competitive navy etc. After that game, the Brit player thought he was just overmatched in the Med and didnt like the set up.

In the 2nd game, the Brits played differently (different player as well) and Italians lost half their fleet in the first round and the other half shortly thereafter. Italy was eventually run out of Africa and was pretty much a non-entity for the majority of the game. At the conclusion of that game, the Italian player was convinced that the Brit Med set up would never allow the Italians a chance in the Med.

Now that is two COMPLETELY different sets of conclusions drawn from the exact same set up, but played differently, the game came out very differently (luck wasnt a major factor in either game).

In addition, I pointed out to the 2nd Italian player that simply moving a German plane or two down into Italy on G1 would likely be more than sufficient to keep the Italians alive on UK1. So again, ‘opinion’ around the table reversed itself back to ‘UK will be overrun’ lol.

Soooo, IMO it’s time to leave well enough alone for a while and let people try alternate strategies with the SAME SETUP. And to be honest, the tweaks being made at this point are pretty minor so I dont think +1 Inf here or +1 Fighter - 1 Tac there is going to have anywhere near as much impact as a change in strategy (or even a few dice rolls either way).

Don’t get me wrong, I think the changes made in the Alpha setup(S) have been great for the game. The new Scramble rules are fantastic and a MUCH needed change. But they also completely change the complexion of the naval war in the game and it’s going to take a fair amount of time before people are experienced enough with it to be able to draw consistent conclusions.

My experience is that whenever you see massive naval ‘Mexican stand-offs’ on the board like that, one side or the other is being screwed pretty heavily buy it. Having that much hardware just sitting looking at each other is generally a serious waste of resources for someone.

My guess is that one side (can’t really tell which without knowing the full game situation that led up to this) is perfectly happy to stand off the other and perpetuate the stalemate but the other side is being pressed by their allies to DO SOMETHING!

I think the US has too much income before war, but then again, her fleet is much smaller than it really was (compared to other nations…I mean, RUSSIA has a BB and the US only has ONE?).

Of course the US also lost a lot of at surface power at Pearl which will likely not happen in A&A so I guess the trade-off is that they start with less power, but get the money to build it. This means it’s likely not going to be deployed forward in attack position like it would be if they actually started with their historical forces.

But if anything, the US ‘at war’ income is LOW compared to reality. I agree though that giving the US their ‘real’ income would be a game-ender. Really as of Dec 7, 1941, WW2 was no longer in doubt…it was just a matter of time from there.

In the game, I think 52+30 is a decent compromise. Compared to other nations, that is not really that much higher and as was pointed out above, the US has a ‘shipping fee’ on nearly everything they want to send to war. I think this keeps the US from getting out of hand.

Thanks for reposting it here. Sifting through 80+ pages in that other thread to find the updates is a bit on the tedious side.

What about with the new ‘Alpha Setup’? Same dead? Three TRs and attack?

Personally I dont think that’ll work quite as well anymore, but I could be wrong.

The thing is, that if someone is winning by getting lucky on tech, they could just as easily be winning by getting lucky on the combat dice.

But unlike combat dice, tech is a bigger risk/reward. If you get lucky by spending 5 IPCs and getting something good, that’s worth quite a lot of good luck in combat. Conversely, if you get hosed and spend 40+ IPCs and dont get a tech, you are likely dooming yourself far worse than simply rolling bad in a battle here and there (depending on the scale of the battle).

I agree with allweneedislove in that if you play the averages, tech is probably not worth it. But that’s not what tech is about in the standard rules. Tech IS about ‘keeping your opponent honest’ because that investment COULD pay off into something really dangerous and that affects his planning (or should). And for that, the tech cost MIGHT be worth it with average luck.

So from a ‘balance’ standpoint, using the AA50 tech tokens might actually bring the tech back to cost effectiveness rather than making it ‘overpowered’ due to the higher incomes?