Any time you can go in period garb, do it for the looks. Also have some good answers to obvious questions. Im a mideival reenactor and its great to see the looks when your in costume. When they ask if your in a play or an actor and you say no we always dress like this. Or what do you do, ( carring a great sword or sword and sheild in armor) and we say were in the busines of hurting people
How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.
-
A lot of effort has gone into the USA NO’s to provide Pacific battles and consequences.
The global game is big and long and I have not played enough with Alpha 2 to notice if the USA player can ignore Europe without consequence on a regular basis with various German strategies. Having a different USA NO for the European side can compensate for it if there is an unbalanced situation. We will see.Granted, but I highly doubt they wanted to to be exclusively Pacific battles. If they did, they SERIOUSLY dropped the ball by giving America enough money for two sides of the board but wanting it all spent on one side!
I wouldn’t futz with England, Australia, Germany, Italy or Russian NOs.
The FIC NO could be made permanent unless Japan invades (to counter the insane American income levels.)
OR
The American NO can be left half for London being Free, Half for Gibraltar being Free. (Take the 10 IPC one from the Continental United States. No one is going to invade there anyway.) -
An N.O. for holding your home lands…… sounds like the U.S.A. The best thing about N.O.'s is when you can take them away from your opponent Hawaii,Philippines,Aleutian,wake,midway,guam, soloman. or you could give some to Japan like 10 for the main island 5 for Okinowa and 5 for Iwo Jima PREPOSTEROUS…KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS (who would object to a new game)
-
It was just an idea guy. Obviously the creators wanted the US to have 30 plus IPCs when they went to war. Having 10 of them locked to your territories requires you to think about defense and offence. Having heaps of smaller NOs around the globe then requires you to balance your force. I would prefer this than forcing players to spend so much on this side of the board and so much on this side as this means decisions have already been made on how you play your game. Too many restrictions means no fun. I like this Gibraltor NO as it makes sense. Think of some more Global NOs. I even think having the UK income split between the 2 boards restricts you and takes away some of the challenge to keeping the balance of forces even, if you get my drift. I havnt played tested that scenario yet but someone might have. These are just ideas not set in stone but if we can come up with some good ones and tweak them we may have something to work with.
-
The idea of spreading around the NO’s for America to give incentive to balance its’ forces is a good one. The details of the NO’s are up for debate, but the basic idea is sound.
Remember it took America at least 6 months go on the offensive in North Africa and the South Pacific. It took a good bit longer for America to become absolutely dominant in the Atlantic (no more German subs) or the Pacific. The delay in America capturing the NO’s should match this historical build up (somewhat).
Agreed, even if some NOs required the ALLIES to hold the territories and America comes and reinforces to hold the territories for the NO?? After all it is a team game.
-
30 IPC in NOs implies to me that America needs to be active on both hemispheres, not on one only. With a potential of 80-100 IPC a round, it seems only logical to conclude the game testers split America’s build in every game in which they tested for data, otherwise, they would have seen the grossly disproportionate strategic situation in the Pacific.
What seems the better course, since it is clear to anyone who wasn’t physically present at the time the game was being designed that, America needs to have some of it’s financial power moved to the Atlantic side of the board and thus, either surrender that income or go defend it.
Logical choices include:
- London, since if England fell the American people would have rioted in the streets burning FDR in effigy most likely.
- Gibraltar, since it was the key to locking the Italians into the Mediterranean Sea, it made it very dangerous for Germany to go repair and resupply U-Boats in the Mediterranean Sea and it allowed for easier trade.
- Paris, (see London)
And no, I do not believe anyone is espousing the creation of another NO in addition to what America has, only to move 5 or 10 IPC worth of NOs to the Atlantic board and remove them from the Pacific board. Personally, I would prefer to see 10 of them moved over leaving 20 on the Pacific board should be enough to “encourage Pacific campaigns and naval battles” as someone above mentioned. Hell, even with the 10 moved over, America may still go “all in” for a Pacific campaign.
-
@Cmdr:
What seems the better course, since it is clear to anyone who wasn’t physically present at the time the game was being designed that, America needs to have some of it’s financial power moved to the Atlantic side of the board and thus, either surrender that income or go defend it.
Logical choices include:
- London, since if England fell the American people would have rioted in the streets burning FDR in effigy most likely.
- Gibraltar, since it was the key to locking the Italians into the Mediterranean Sea, it made it very dangerous for Germany to go repair and resupply U-Boats in the Mediterranean Sea and it allowed for easier trade.
- Paris, (see London)
London - I dont think there would have been riots, at the time the US wasnt even in the war. Heck if London is captured the US declares war, i dont think tying an NO to London is at all realistic.
Gibralter - That might be ok
Paris - When the allies reclaim Paris the game is pretty much over so it would be as pointless as the russian NO for Berlin.
-
I disagree. The people of the United States would have seen the cause as lost once London fell. (We Ukranians of Russian ancestry were already preparing for war anyway, so we wouldn’t have cared so much what happened to you angloids.) It would have, most likely, been a much stronger impact than the bombing of some abandoned ships in some puny harbor in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (it was not yet a state!)
Further, strategically speaking (both in game and in history) London is and was of much more importance than Mexico City was and is.
-
Another idea:
Give Japan 2x 3 Hit Battleships to represent the two they had in WWII. They can be denoted (on the board) with a control marker under them and in battlemap with one of the tiles next to them. 3 Hit BBs should, further, be auto repaired to only 1 hit applied at the start of Japan’s purchase units phase regardless of proximity to a friendly naval base and fully repaired if in proximity to a friendly naval base.
Example: Japan takes 2 hits to the Yamamoto (it floats because it is a 3 hit battleship.) The battleship is located next to Guam at the time it is damaged. On Japan’s next turn (provided no one hits the battleship a 3rd time before then) the ship can now absorb two hits before sinking. Should the ship have been located in SZ 6, instead, it would then be able to absorb another 3 hits before sinking.
Japan may have up to 2 Super Battleships (3 hit battleships) originally, +1 if Japan controls Calcutta and +1 if Japan controls Sydney for a maximum of 4 at any time on the board.
Super Battleships cost 24 IPC.
-
@Cmdr:
I disagree. The people of the United States would have seen the cause as lost once London fell. (We Ukranians of Russian ancestry were already preparing for war anyway, so we wouldn’t have cared so much what happened to you angloids.) It would have, most likely, been a much stronger impact than the bombing of some abandoned ships in some puny harbor in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (it was not yet a state!)
I would retract the comment about abandoned ships. It’s not funny nor true. Especially for people who still have family members aboard one of those “abandoned” ships.
-
@Cmdr:
Another idea:
Give Japan 2x 3 Hit Battleships to represent the two they had in WWII. They can be denoted (on the board) with a control marker under them and in battlemap with one of the tiles next to them. 3 Hit BBs should, further, be auto repaired to only 1 hit applied at the start of Japan’s purchase units phase regardless of proximity to a friendly naval base and fully repaired if in proximity to a friendly naval base.
Example: Japan takes 2 hits to the Yamamoto (it floats because it is a 3 hit battleship.) The battleship is located next to Guam at the time it is damaged. On Japan’s next turn (provided no one hits the battleship a 3rd time before then) the ship can now absorb two hits before sinking. Should the ship have been located in SZ 6, instead, it would then be able to absorb another 3 hits before sinking.
Japan may have up to 2 Super Battleships (3 hit battleships) originally, +1 if Japan controls Calcutta and +1 if Japan controls Sydney for a maximum of 4 at any time on the board.
Super Battleships cost 24 IPC.
Seems too complex
-
@Cmdr:
I disagree. The people of the United States would have seen the cause as lost once London fell. (We Ukranians of Russian ancestry were already preparing for war anyway, so we wouldn’t have cared so much what happened to you angloids.) It would have, most likely, been a much stronger impact than the bombing of some abandoned ships in some puny harbor in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (it was not yet a state!)
Further, strategically speaking (both in game and in history) London is and was of much more importance than Mexico City was and is.
Agreed on Mexico.
Riots or otherwise i don’t see a reasonable American NO for London. America’s reward for keeping London in the game is that America keeps an ally. That ought be more than sufficient reason to keep america engaged in the Atlantic.
If the allies can survive the atlantic without America then it would seem to indicate the atlantic allies are too strong. In which case less is more.
-
I agree that moving some of the US NOs to the Atlantic side of the board is a good idea to encourage US involvement there.
It seems to me that most on boards are in one of two camps.
Camp One – “The game is unbalanced towards the Allies if US goes all-in on the Pacific side and ignore the Atlantic side.” Obviously this camp would want incentives for the US not to ignore the Atlantic.
Camp Two – “If the US ignores Europe, Germany/Italy will win, therefore the US can’t ignore Europe.” Those in this camp already split the US income between the boards. Therefore they should not mind if some of the US NOs are tied to territories they are already fighting for on the Atlantic side.
So moving some of the NOs should at worst have little effect on game balance, and at best improve game balance.
Though I don’t think having the moved US NOs be based on London’s lack of capture is a good idea. If Germany does not go Sea Lion there would be no change in US income and the US could freely concentrate on the Pacific. I think the NOs are better shifted to the North Africa/Med/Mideast areas of the board. This area of the board can be contested by both sides and can go back and forth no matter what grand strategy is being employed, unlike an all-or-nothing Sea Lion gambit.
PS – I also think the Super Battleship idea is too complicated.
PPS – I also think the “abandoned ships” reference in regards to Pearl was tasteless.
-
I suppose there could be a third camp, that mantlefan may be part of, that says “If US goes all Pacific, it is a 50-50 shot that the Axis could win on the Europe side before the US can neutralize Japan.”
I guess this camp would say that the game is already balanced in the face of a US all-Pacific strat, and that moving US NOs to the Atlantic side would imbalance things too much towards the Axis since it would slow down the US too much on the Pacific side, giving the Axis a better than 50-50 shot on the Europe side.
-
@mantlefan:
[
People supporting your argument tell others just to “read it” Why are those supporters not reading about your claims of the Soviets in Norway and Denmark? Why are they not reading about your claims of Germany needing at least 13 rounds to take Stalingrad?
[/quote]
Why aren’t you asking these supporters directly? Jen has no more control over her supporters than i have control over your mother.
-
The ships at Pearl Harbor were, for all intents and purposes, abandoned by the United States Navy. They were running on generators supplied from the docks, their engines were on cold steel (off, and cold, would take HOURS if not DAYS to get the fleet moving under their own power again, as a totality for the fleet) the ships didn’t even have enough people to be called a skeleton crew (regulations required more people on board than were actually on board at the time of the attack). Boiled down, if the ships were any more abanadoned than they were at the time of the attack, they would have sunk from leaks in their own hulls. I call that abandoned.
Did I say “undefended?” No. Of course not! America put on a spectacular show, and many lives were lost so that FDR could justify entering WWII, but they were hardly as well defended as America’s Carriers were, by any stretch of the imagination.
The Super BBs are just as complicated as National Objectives. IMHO. However, the option was given to pander to those who wanted more units on the board.
A London NO makes the most sense of any NO proposal on the Atlantic Board. Primarily because London can fall and probably will fall if Germany wants it. Thus, America has to dedicate itself to the liberation or forever give up the NO. IMHO.
-
Mantlefan: Stop complaining and prove the opposite and demonstrate it by your own public record of games you played here on this site.
Stop all this whining with one post after another basically telling others not to listen to Jennifer and just making claims with empty hands.
You are not helping the conversation one bit and just drawing attention to yourself…
-
@Cmdr:
The ships at Pearl Harbor were, for all intents and purposes, abandoned by the United States Navy. They were running on generators supplied from the docks, their engines were on cold steel (off, and cold, would take HOURS if not DAYS to get the fleet moving under their own power again, as a totality for the fleet) the ships didn’t even have enough people to be called a skeleton crew (regulations required more people on board than were actually on board at the time of the attack). Boiled down, if the ships were any more abanadoned than they were at the time of the attack, they would have sunk from leaks in their own hulls. I call that abandoned.
Did I say “undefended?” No. Of course not! America put on a spectacular show, and many lives were lost so that FDR could justify entering WWII, but they were hardly as well defended as America’s Carriers were, by any stretch of the imagination.
The Super BBs are just as complicated as National Objectives. IMHO. However, the option was given to pander to those who wanted more units on the board.
A London NO makes the most sense of any NO proposal on the Atlantic Board. Primarily because London can fall and probably will fall if Germany wants it. Thus, America has to dedicate itself to the liberation or forever give up the NO. IMHO.
The Super BB is more complex than a NO because it requires a counter. It is too complex.
A London NO is redundant and needlessly complex. America’s incentive in the Atlantic is to prevent the loss of an ally. Another NO is not needed.
America should receive fewer IPC. This would require more American teamwork with allies and is historically accurate.
-
maybe edit it where america does not get the 25-30 ipc boost right when it gets into the war, maybe have like 5 ipc added every turn after it goes to war. America was not a peak production for the real war till late 43, early 44.
-
Fair comment mantlefan……is it innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent.
-
I can’t believe I’m going to draw myself into this debate, but…here goes.
I come at it from the opposite perspective, mantlefan. I’ve been looking for quite awhile, and I have not seen a single Axis strategy posted either here or on Larry Harris’ forums that leads to a solid chance of an Axis victory. Even on the few play-by-forum games I’ve skimmed, Axis wins are usually either (a) fluke dice, or (b) bad Allied decisions. Die rolls are part of the game, but if you require them to have a chance at victory I wouldn’t call that game balance.
I can say from our own games that Russia has never fallen. Ever. It’s been an unbroken string of Allied wins. Even with Germany making ~60 and Russia making 25-30, Moscow has held for long enough. We haven’t even tried Sea Lion first and given Russia the extra buildup time…our games have all been variants of Barbarossa. The Axis have attacked G2 (once), G3, G4, and even G5, and still Moscow has never fallen. We’ve had tank/mech builds, ICs in Romania, no ICs in Romania, air force with artillery/infantry, Leningrad first, Stalingrad first, ignoring both and heading for Moscow. All no go. To your point: we don’t routinely see Russia in Norway or even Finland, but it hasn’t ever mattered.
The worst off Russia has ever been was last game, when my regular opponent decided to smash through Turkey to get to the Middle-East/Caucasus and then come up from the south in addition to coming from the west. That was pretty close, and the UK actually had to send some units up from India to reinforce. Of course, by then, Germany had already lost Western Europe, Italy wasn’t anywhere near Cairo anymore, Russia WAS in Norway, and most of the true neutrals were Allied territories thanks to the invasion of Turkey. Taking Moscow would have prolonged the game, but that’s about it. Still, it was a close (if ultimately meaningless) fight. :-D
Now, the US has pretty consistently been spending something in the Atlantic in all of those scenarios (except on US 1). Even without 100% Pacific spending, though, Japan has still had major problems. I don’t know how much detail you are looking for in outlining strategies, and I don’t really understand why you need specifics for the US spending 100% in the Pacific (build a giant fleet, sink the Japanese fleet, throw some transports in to retake islands). However, I can outline what I do do. It’s not 100% Pacific spending, but it’s been working just fine…
When I play Allies, first turn US is two carriers and a battleship for the Pacific. This immediately brings the US up to near-parity with the starting Japanese fleet. Fleet moves from Hawaii back to the Western US, stuff on the Philippines starts heading back too. Planes from Honolulu and the continental US land on the new carriers. After US 1, you basically only have to slightly exceed Japanese naval builds, though I do often spend more than that depending on the European situation. ANZAC and the UK can handle the rest.
US 2 everything sails towards Hawaii, including the stuff from the Philippines (via the Solomons) if it doesn’t get sunk. US 2 buys depend a bit on what Japan does…a few destroyers/subs or maybe strategic bombers depending on where their fleet is. The Atlantic gets destroyers, transports, and maybe a land unit (exact mix depends on which naval forces are still afloat in that theater). I spend about 60/40 Atlantic/Pacific on US 2, with the goal of landing 4 transports on the European half of the map on US 4.
US 3 Japan generally loses the Carolines…committing to its defense really hampers their ability to escort transports and keep pressure on everywhere else. Even if Japan parks their whole fleet in the Carolines and I don’t think the US can win the fight, it’s often worth attacking anyway. It opens up a lot of opportunity for ANZAC and the UK if the Japanese fleet is trivialized, and the US can rebuild their lost fleet a lot faster at this stage of the game. I only stay away from the Carolines if Japan has been spending significantly on naval units to reinforce it, or if they’ve tried something unusual like going for Alaska. In the Atlantic it’s time to go grab the free infantry on Brazil. US 3 buys are generally split about 50/50 between a Pacific fleet and an Atlantic mix of air, sea, and land + transports.
Once the Carolines are gone, Japan is in trouble. Going to India in force means not defending most of the Pacific for 3 rounds. Japan loses the Philippines, followed by their DEI NO. Australia is easier for Japan to take if you do it quickly, but harder to hold and there’s not as much strategic advantage to owning it once you’re there. Japan crumbles incredibly quickly once they hit the tipping point and can’t hold the DEI. It’s usually only 2-3 rounds after that before they can’t sustain an offense, and maybe another couple after that until they are trivialized.
On US 4+, if Japan is still floating a navy, I generally buy a new loaded carrier or replacement airplanes for empty carriers, depending. Throw in 1-2 subs or destroyers as cheap support, and that leaves somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of your income for the Atlantic depending on NOs. I don’t generally have many active US transports in the Pacific…I leave that to ANZAC and the UK, as they need the income more. If Japan has lost their navy and can’t or isn’t rebuilding, I might throw loaded transports out there instead of the cheap naval units.
Turn 4 is when the US starts taking targets of opportunity if Japan is out of position. If the Japanese fleet is sitting on the Philippines or some other standoff location, that’s also fine. The US still has more income at this point as well as two additional allies running around the Pacific. Just keep building up until you can smash their fleet…the more they spend on offense in Asia, the quicker they fall behind at sea and get crushed.
Now, how can Japan match the US naval builds and still post some kind of credible threat on land? They have to be spending about 40 just to keep up at sea, and that doesn’t even include ANZAC’s purchases. They need another 20+ to keep some kind of offense going vs. China and India. How are they making 65-70IPC (or, I suppose, eliminating a mainland opponent) by J 3? We can’t find a way for Japan to get it all together fast enough without either (a) bringing the US into the war on J 1, or (b) buying a bunch of carriers to get their air force out to sea. Either of those strategies creates a bunch of other problems. Getting the US into the war early lets them stick a giant fleet in the Pacific (or even SZ 6) very quickly while still landing in the Atlantic by US 4 or 5. Buying carriers and moving the Japanese air force out to sea seems to work better, but it slows them down in Asia and time isn’t on their side with a lower income. You’re counting on Germany to win in that case, and as I mentioned Moscow has always held long enough for the UK and the US to be landing in Europe in force.
If there is indeed a sound Axis strategy, I’d love to hear it. It’s my turn to play Axis next and I’m sick of seeing them lose :-) I’m almost desperate enough to try Sea Lion, though if G3 Sea Lion is the only viable German opening I’d still argue that this version of Alpha has problems (and I’m not at all sure that G3 Sea Lion has a bright future).
Incidentally, I can’t believe some people this thread wanted to make China more powerful. CHINA. Japan faces four opponents, and even the least powerful of them is supposed to put up some kind of fight? Where is Japan supposed to make progress if every one of those four opponents is a legitimate source of resistance? That’s like saying France should be able to stick around until G3-G4. The Axis start with fewer units on the board AND less income. They need to make progress rapidly somewhere to stand any chance at all.
Suggested Topics
