How to balance Global 1940?

[Clyde85]

I must disagree with you questioneer, though you do make a very good point, I think the game is more balanced then not. The fact that the game is an uphill battle for the axis isnt a bad thing, as this is a game based on a historical situation, thats how it was for the axis, it really was a gamble. However, the fact that the axis can do so much, much more then was ever even possible realisticly, historically speaking, shows more of a balance then a historical bais.

a. The Soivets do get an extra 18inf, but they are in a pretty much useless area, and given Japans air and naval might, usually wind up dead after 1 or 2 rounds, so they dont do much good to the soviets in their main theater of Europe.

b. This one confuses me, Japan is only 4 spaces away from the WUS, same as the distance between the EUS and Europe. Im not really sure what your trying to say with this, so if you could help me with it.

c. The 9 extra IPCs the Soviets get is an advantage, however, it is so weakly defended, and so easily overrun, with it being very difficult for the soviets to get reinforcments to the area, I would find it as more of a disadvantage. In order to counter and Japanese, the Soviets would have to commit forces, over several turns, away from their main theater, Europe.

d. yeah, no 2 ways about this, the allies are much stronger economicaly, in total agreement here.  :-D

I think alot of these ideas are really good, but I dont think they are nessacary to balance the game. However, as optional rules, I think they would be fun to try. I guess we’ll have to wait a see what Larry dose with it.

[questioneer]

@Clyde85:

I must disagree with you questioneer, though you do make a very good point, I think the game is more balanced then not. The fact that the game is an uphill battle for the axis isnt a bad thing, as this is a game based on a historical situation, thats how it was for the axis, it really was a gamble. However, the fact that the axis can do so much, much more then was ever even possible realisticly, historically speaking, shows more of a balance then a historical bais.

a. The Soivets do get an extra 18inf, but they are in a pretty much useless area, and given Japans air and naval might, usually wind up dead after 1 or 2 rounds, so they dont do much good to the soviets in their main theater of Europe.

b. This one confuses me, Japan is only 4 spaces away from the WUS, same as the distance between the EUS and Europe. Im not really sure what your trying to say with this, so if you could help me with it.

c. The 9 extra IPCs the Soviets get is an advantage, however, it is so weakly defended, and so easily overrun, with it being very difficult for the soviets to get reinforcments to the area, I would find it as more of a disadvantage. In order to counter and Japanese, the Soviets would have to commit forces, over several turns, away from their main theater, Europe.

d. yeah, no 2 ways about this, the allies are much stronger economicaly, in total agreement here.  :-D

I think alot of these ideas are really good, but I dont think they are nessacary to balance the game. However, as optional rules, I think they would be fun to try. I guess we’ll have to wait a see what Larry dose with it.

b and c I will concede to you

b. yes you are right.  I noticed this after I typed it.  If Sealion and then US spend all $$$ in Europe then Japan goes hard toward Alaska and Hawaii –>WUS/Mexico NOT Asia in order to force the US to defend there thus keeping $$$ AWAY from Europe.

c. Very true that’s why I thought this was almost a wash. agreed. You’re right again.

d. US is OK making this much cash as long as Axis have some ways to counter it through getting more territory, using better tactics and strategy and such.

a. This is the only one I disagree with.  Those 18inf ARE huge.  You can DOW on Japan (don’t have to attack by the way) on R1, take the Middle East neutrals, and immediatley move those infantry East.  Yes you lose some 1 point territories but you can gain half those back by getting the neutrals.  Yes it will take several rounds to get them back, however, those 18inf WILL come in handy by rounds 6-7, just when the heat of Germany may be coming.  If Japan chases after them, then they are being distracted from the real counterpunch to Sealion- attacking US!!!  As the Allies, I would more than welcome this.

Plus with the DOW, you can land a Russian fighter in Scotland–> by the time a G3 Sealion arrives.  Germany can’t attack the lone Russian fighter on Scotland G2 because then it would have to DOW on USSR- bad for Axis.

I’m playtesting the G40-Alpha setup with the optional German sub rule to see if this balances the game enough alone because I still think Allies have an edge in this game.

[GrandMasterC]

I think that the Allies definitely have an easier win. They can make a few mistakes and get away with it. They just have to take a beating for a few turns, not lose too much ground, and then start taking it all back. I think the problems is that we are comparing apples and oranges here. The Axis have a very different task. If the Axis haven’t gotten a higher income by about turn 4 or 5, then the game is over imo. @Stefano1189:

Each sub cost 6 IPC which means 2 less infantry\or 1 tank on Russian front, for what? To build a thin naval wall? The Luftwaffe is vital and it’s too small to fight on Russia, Normandy and North Europe ( not to mention Africa). The Americans will come with 8-10 warships, 2-3 destroyers, 1 AC, 2 ftr, 1 BB, 1 Cr… the subs are useless.

I disagree. The subs are cheap and they attack at 2. If positioned right they will always get the attack on a US fleet headed to Europe. By the time the US builds up a fleet the size you are talking about Germany should have 6 subs, easily, plus the remnants of their fleet from killing off the British fleet, plus a bomber. Subs are cannon fodder that attack at 2. Sure, if the US pours all of their money into an Atlantic fleet, they will eventually win, but not before Germany and Japan can wipe out USSR. At this point Germany will have an income to rival the US plus the advantage of the US coming to them.

[domicron]

I think the worst thing you could do with a game of this scope is haphazardly jump in and start trying balance changes when you haven’t really played enough games to have a good baseline to gauge the effectiveness of your changes.

[Blitchga]

I am terrified of the ability of some of these Japanese players out there. If the US spent NOT A THING in the Pacific then hello a Japan making MORE than the US by J5 at the latest. Japan can equalize income with the US very quickly. A Good Japanese player is like a pulsating bubble that will continue to grow on ALL fronts without serious intervention from the US. As an axis player I love to see a US player go all in on one theatre, I will often offer the allies my hand to accept their surrender unless the US wakes up. As an allied player I would offer my hand in surrender if my US player went 100% to one theatre.

[Blitchga]

Sorry I forgot to mention that one thing that people should really do before complaining at all is try out the Alpha set up as it makes the game infinitely better than OOB version.

[ninjanuity]

It seems that all the talk of Japan dominating if the US goes KGF or KIF ignores the very fact that the US went KGF or KIF. Japan could be on or past US income, but they will likely be a couple turns out of position for a west coast attack if they get their income that high. Additionally, heading back towards the US means less pressure on Russia. Meanwhile, one of the European Axis powers will be facing increased Allied pressure.

I love this when I play Japan, of course, but then I have to make the same decisions that the US did. Do I split my forces or focus on one theater? The US going funneling into one theater still seems like a viable strategy, and not the “Japan auto-win” as I’m seeing it implied.

My feel of the game is that it favors the Allies, but not to the degree that it needs re-balancing. I feel that having the Axis as an underdog gives it that historical flavor, but it’s not so far out of reach for them.

[Chompers2]

I played the the against the axis before and I went all in alantic as the allies.  Japan took Alaska and convoy raided WUS.  He tried to load up transports to make an assault on San Fran.  But then I built something along the lines of 25 inf in one turn of America spending with my 3 major factories and Japan could do nothing more.  It wasn’t much longer that Berlin fell to all the spending I had been doing in the Alantic.  Japan may have slowed me a turn or two but they were in no way near to threating Russia.  I believe spending most points in the Alantic theather can work well for US.

That being said I have found it very effective to build up in Hawaii as America.  It is still only two turns to Africa if you build one naval base.  It keeps the Japan player guessing and if they don’t start building a good defensive force then I might go all in Pacific.  If they do buy more Navy then I head for Africa and kill Italy and now Japan has built a bunch of stuff it doesn’t really need.

I have played about 15 games of Global so far with games ranging between 3 hour concessions and 15 hour long fights.  The allies have won most games.  A mistake I think I made as the axis that may have hurt though is trying to take Moscow with Japan.  This is what I used to do a lot in 1942.  Well with the victory city conditions in Global that does not fly anymore.

[Clyde85]

I think with the 52ipcs the US has to start, the US can afford to split its income, before the war starts. With 52ipcs, on turn 1 the US can buy 2 AC and a BB or 2 ftrs. You can modify or buy more smaller ships, but 52 is still alot. One time, just to mess with a buddy, the turn the US got to spend its 80ipcs, I bought 4 battleships and put them all in the Pacific, with the 2 I already had there and the 3AC, fully loaded, I had this super fleet, he was not happy  :evil:

@questioneer:

a. This is the only one I disagree with.  Those 18inf ARE huge.  You can DOW on Japan (don’t have to attack by the way) on R1, take the Middle East neutrals, and immediatley move those infantry East.  Yes you lose some 1 point territories but you can gain half those back by getting the neutrals.  Yes it will take several rounds to get them back, however, those 18inf WILL come in handy by rounds 6-7, just when the heat of Germany may be coming.  If Japan chases after them, then they are being distracted from the real counterpunch to Sealion- attacking US!!!  As the Allies, I would more than welcome this.

I dont disagree with you here, In fact, Ive posted a strat before where the Soviets attack Korea on R1 with 5inf and leave 1 in Amur, and pull the other 12 back to Yakut, or someplace like that, and sending the starting offensive units of the soviets to meet with them. Making the Japanese play whack-a-mole with a stack of 12 soviet inf in Siberia is not a bad thing for the allies at all.

[Guest]

I played in 7 games so far and its 4-3 allies. So far balance seems OK, Sea Lion is not a game killer.

[Stefano1189]

@13thguardsriflediv:

I played in 7 games so far and its 4-3 allies. So far balance seems OK, Sea Lion is not a game killer.

In our games with no Sea Lion the Axis lost in 5-6 turns, with Sea lions lost in 7-8 turns.

All of us are challenging player, except a good player but a little unfit for the Japanese. I will post some screens. Axis is strong, Italy is a beast with 50+ IPC, but a double UK-Anzac is knocking out the Japanese fleet and the return of Chinese army is deadly.

[Blitchga]

See my thread about balance. Called repect: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20622.0

As for balance, no one can say it is or isn’t so lets to come up with strategies rather than pointing fingers.