I have played the new Alpha+2 several times and I am currently playing a 2 player game of global with a player of equal experience. We have played the game over several sessions over several weeks and neither of us have made any significant tactical errors. We have even lost track of how many rounds we have played (at least 10).
The game appears to be completely balanced east and west. The game also appears to be never ending. But we love the game and will continue to play until someone gives up. A significant bet is on the line.
So in summary I vote no significant changes to Alpha+2. In our large group games it appears player skill decides the winner (as it should).
when I’m done with finals and the new mod comes up (last one keeps crashing).
Dou mean my module or TMTS’s one? I guess TMTS since this is alpha chat, but I’d prefer be sure :-)
I like the game balance in this version in that it actually plays differently. Each theater acts individually yet still blends into the world game map as a whole. US and UK cannot effectively ship 20 FIG to Russia like they have in previous games unless they have already dealt with Italy and Japan and have them successfully contained (i.e., Russia is its own separate theater for the majority of the game). In the Pacific, however, playing as a team for the Allies is required. More territories and more money on the game board means that traditional infantry-push strategies will be ineffective; it will be up to the tactics and strategies of the players to see their conquests through to capture the capitals.
Thumbs up for Alpha2+ !!
I’ve played it several times now and though I discover new threats, tactics and opportunities every play, I never had the impression either axis or allies have an unfair advantage.
@Cmdr:
Russia is perfectly able to stop the German incursion and repell it without the assistance of England or America.
Still don’t agree with this.
@Cmdr:
There are HUGELY significant odds that England/France will own all of N. Africa and the Middle East, and that England will have a minor IC off Egypt.
I think this premise is flawed as well.
I won’t agree the game is balanced until either America’s financial situation is reduced or America is encouraged to invest in both wars. As it stands, the game is too heavily biased towards the allies since Russia, England and France can pretty much hold their own against Germany until Japan is crushed (reduced significantly, and easily maintained with a bare minimum effort from America and full effort from Australia).
By “hold their own” (as I am CONSTANTLY forced to explain) I do not mean WIN. I mean NOT LOSE. There is a VERY significant difference between those statements! As long as Moscow, Toronto and Washington DC do not fall, the Allies are HOLDING THEIR OWN against Germany, because Germany cannot win without one of those three Victory Cities. Considering two of them require significant naval power, it is safe to assume the one that will be attacked is Moscow. Russia is MORE than capable to keep pressure on the front and retreat ONLY when absolutely necessary to maintain their defensive punch. Maneuvering like this, it seems highly plausible that Russia can hold out for 11 or 12 rounds before variation in dice results could display a need for Allied intervention.
11 or 12 rounds is roughly 4 rounds more than is needed, worst case scenario, to bottle up Japan and gives England (India) and America 4 rounds to move into Africa, Europe and Russia. WIth America getting roughly 80 IPC a round and India at least 20 IPC a round, that should be enough to come to the defense of Russia (30ish IPC a round by then). Even if Italy is gettin 30 IPC a round, Germany 60 IPC a round and Japan 20 IPC a round (maximal I can possibly envision Japan having before the allies need to turn back to Europe.)
From there, it’s matter of time. The Allies can afford to throw away tanks after infantry, the financial situation is that far in their advantage.
I’ve said it before, I will say it again, and again and AGAIN. If something is not done to distract America, then the game will never be balanced. Some players have said they invest in both theaters, to you, I say Kudos. Play the way you want, don’t be a power player! However, keep in mind the optimal strategy is to utterly destroy Japan (it has no chance if you dedicate to it) and ignore Germany for the most part. It doesn’t even matter if you lose London (granted, do as much damage as possible, of course!). Once Japan is bottled, China is secured, all you have to do is walk up through Persia and sail over to liberate London/Africa.
@Cmdr:
WIth America getting roughly 80 IPC a round and India at least 20 IPC a round, that should be enough to come to the defense of Russia (30ish IPC a round by then). Even if Italy is gettin 30 IPC a round, Germany 60 IPC a round and Japan 20 IPC a round (maximal I can possibly envision Japan having before the allies need to turn back to Europe.)
I cannot see how can India get 20 IPCs each round beyond round 3. Even with the changes made to alpha’s. If the idea is still a J3 attack with a total catch of DEI, India should not colect more than 5-6 IPCs (10 if one island is not taken by Japan). But maybe people are doing J1 attacks… I guess that no wonder what version, I’m always out of the mainstream strategies :lol:
But, if India is really doing 20 IPCs most of games, I agree that alpha is unbalanced. But I cannot talk much because I continue refusing to do free testing work for WOTC :roll:
It’s either India or Australia getting 20+ IPC a round. Japan cannot possibily hold it all, however. It is relatively simple to pile a 300 IPC fleet in SZ 42 (Java) take Java, build an airbase on Java and land 3 Australian fighters to protect the fleet even more if that’s what I need to do.
I prefer to have India make 20 IPC a round, since that gives me more money to go into Caucasus with, however, some prefer to let Australia earn 20 IPC, either way, it’s a moot issue. Japan cannot survive. Once it’s at war, it effectively has no National Objectives, there’s no way a good Allied player is going to let them have an NO for more than 1 or 2 rounds (even then…I fail to see how the Allied player did not put him or herself in position to irrevokably take the NO away and sink anything Japan left away from the main fleet.)
Japan CAN protect home island, that’s not all that hard to do really. But it is not the objective, the objective is to limit Japan to Home island, SZ 6 and immediate zones and that shouldn’t be hard to do by round 5 or 6 in most games, 8 or 9 at the very latest, giving America 4 rounds to build fleet and move them to Europe before Russia’s in dire straits as well as England a few rounds to start sending units into Persia to kick the Italians out.
@Cmdr:
WIth America getting roughly 80 IPC a round and India at least 20 IPC a round, that should be enough to come to the defense of Russia (30ish IPC a round by then). Even if Italy is gettin 30 IPC a round, Germany 60 IPC a round and Japan 20 IPC a round (maximal I can possibly envision Japan having before the allies need to turn back to Europe.)
I cannot see how can India get 20 IPCs each round beyond round 3. Even with the changes made to alpha’s. If the idea is still a J3 attack with a total catch of DEI, India should not colect more than 5-6 IPCs (10 if one island is not taken by Japan). But maybe people are doing J1 attacks… I guess that no wonder what version, I’m always out of the mainstream strategies :lol:
But, if India is really doing 20 IPCs most of games, I agree that alpha is unbalanced. But I cannot talk much because I continue refusing to do free testing work for WOTC :roll:
I agree here…how is India making 20+ per round- by round 3-4 they should only be making like 6IPCs a turn. :? I do believe Japan needs something units but not as much as you claim for this reason. But like Func said if you are right then it is indeed imbalance and needs adjustment.
@Cmdr:
It’s either India or Australia getting 20+ IPC a round. Japan cannot possibily hold it all, however. It is relatively simple to pile a 300 IPC fleet in SZ 42 (Java) take Java, build an airbase on Java and land 3 Australian fighters to protect the fleet even more if that’s what I need to do.
I prefer to have India make 20 IPC a round, since that gives me more money to go into Caucasus with, however, some prefer to let Australia earn 20 IPC, either way, it’s a moot issue. Japan cannot survive. Once it’s at war, it effectively has no National Objectives, there’s no way a good Allied player is going to let them have an NO for more than 1 or 2 rounds (even then…I fail to see how the Allied player did not put him or herself in position to irrevokably take the NO away and sink anything Japan left away from the main fleet.)
Japan CAN protect home island, that’s not all that hard to do really. But it is not the objective, the objective is to limit Japan to Home island, SZ 6 and immediate zones and that shouldn’t be hard to do by round 5 or 6 in most games, 8 or 9 at the very latest, giving America 4 rounds to build fleet and move them to Europe before Russia’s in dire straits as well as England a few rounds to start sending units into Persia to kick the Italians out.
Ah I see…however you must have to put 100% US effort into Pacific to do this well right??? In that case you are just giving the Euro Axis all of Europe and Africa. I doubt that Britain and Russia can “hold their own” that long- you say 11-12 rounds w/o American intervention??? Interesting…I can kinda of see it yet kinda of not because your looking into deep rounds. Its like thinking 10+ moves ahead in a chess game- however, this is easier when known openings are established as they are starting to be in AAGlobal. I’d like to play you a game/or watch a game and see it in practice first.
@Cmdr:
As long as Moscow, Toronto and Washington DC do not fall, the Allies are HOLDING THEIR OWN against Germany, because Germany cannot win without one of those three Victory Cities.
I’m not sure of the basis of this statement. The European Axis can indeed win without controlling any of these cities. Only eight of the eleven victory cities on the Europe board are required to win.
Just started reading this thread, and while I’m not quite sure if I believe jennifer, I have definitely thought from the beginning that America needed incentives in Europe as well as the pacific. Just a thought, but if this is the only thing that needs balancing (which it probably isn’t but could be a start) then a really easy fix could be to reduce america’s NO for holding the continental US from 10 to 5, and then give them a NO of 5 to hold a territory and have troops in Europe. I think this is similar to what anniversary did. And another bonus of this is that it gives a slight, slight incentive to hold Sicily or sardinia if the rest of Europe is too well defended. Plus, while not a hard objective, this is definitely realistic (b/c it was America’s goal since the start to invade france and such) and could even create the debate again with Britain as to whether or not invade Africa first or go straight to france. Plus, I think the general consensus is that even w/o the US crush of japan, the allies are slightly disadvantaged. This reduces America’s income by about maybe 15-20 ipcs over the 4 or so turns it would take to capture normandy or sicily or something. Thoughts?
Germany controls (maybe, with GOOD dice and a not-so-good Allied player):
Poland
Novgorod
East Germany
France
England
Italy controls
S. Italy
Egypt
If Russia cannot hold Moscow and Stalingrad for 12 measly rounds, then the player is obviously outmatched.
Germany should have gotten smacked in the face in France, blown most of it’s income for Transports on the next round and gotten smacked in the face and the belly in England.
Italy should have been smacked in the belly in the Med.
Russia is unscathed for 4 rounds.
Even if Italy can get to Africa, it is not “All of Africa” by any means, it’s Egypt, Alexandria, Tobruk, Libya and maybe Tunis. Middle East it’s probably Jordan, Syria and Iraq with stacks of units in C. Persia until England and Russia have to withdraw, and that’s much later in the game.
What if you moved the Alaskan NO to Brazil?
Yeah, I’m still convinced the best fix is:
Add 4inf, 1art to Japan
Add 2inf, 2art to SItaly
Erase US NO #5- the Mexican NO
That’s minus $5 per round for US. Plus $30 worth of land units for Axis (though they have to take the time to deploy them). This gives the Axis the flexibility to buy other things since they won’t need Inf, Art for a while since they would be stocked up. Also, putting them on the capitals will not hurt opening balance and make Axis a crusher at the beginning. Plus, putting a $5 per round squeeze on the US ought to help put the right amount of pressure needed for US to make more resourceful choices instead of acting like a careless lottery winner after round 4.
@Cmdr:
It’s either India or Australia getting 20+ IPC a round. Japan cannot possibily hold it all, however. It is relatively simple to pile a 300 IPC fleet in SZ 42 (Java) take Java, build an airbase on Java and land 3 Australian fighters to protect the fleet even more if that’s what I need to do.
I definitively need to play at least 1 game of alpha2 to be sure, but I cannot see how ANZAC can make 20 IPCs. 15 maybe (the islands NO), but more … I can ensure you that, at least in OOB, if Japan plays well, ANZAC will colect 10 IPCs/round (maybe 15 in some cases), 5-6 for India and 4-12 for China. The strategy was simple in OOB: first China, then India, then turn to the east for the final victory. Unless that Larry messed totally the things with this alpha2 :roll: , it should be not different from OOB.
A point that I should rise is that many players are too used to ignoring Japan, thus now are too puzzled to play as Japan against an active USA. Such players need to practice naval warfare a bit more (saving NBs, the dinamic is much similar to Revised and AA50) before crying “Japan cannot win”
And the “I have to ignore some power to win” strats are getting very annoying. Global is so big that doesn’t allow much strategical or tactical errors. Surrendering a theater from the begining never was the better idea, no matter how many times has been done, and it’s even more certain in Global. Try ignore Germany as USA and you’ll get some submarines annoying convoy zones, and probably even the fall of Brazil, Panama or Cuba, at minimal german costs (maybe even raids on Canada or Scotland). And of course this superior income will be used almost totally against USSR, because England has much to do against Italy. USSR has much less income that Japan (if Japan plays right), etc.
10 IPC For all Australian Territories
5 IPC NO for all Australian Territories
5 IPC NO for New Guinea
= 20 IPC
Generally, my Australia also has Java (4 IPC), Celebes (3 IPC), Formosa (1 IPC) for a total of 28 IPC by the time Japan is bottled up. Sometimes they also have Sumatra, why? Because it allows me to use nothing but Australia to keep Japan bottled up (32 IPC a round, Japan is earning that or less by then anyway. But Australia needs a second IC to make efficient use of the income.)
Leaves England with 23 IPC (17 Starting + 1 Siam + 5 NO Original Territories = 23 IPC.)
America, meanwhile, has 52 IPC + 30 NO = 82 IPC and that doesn’t even include capturing anything of monetary value from Japan.
Therefore, by at the very latest round 11 or 12, there should be 328 IPC in American war units/transport units moving into Africa/Europe + 92 in British units moving up into Caucasus to bolster the Russian defense who, probably, are limited to Gorod Volga and Gorod Moskva (Stalingrad and Moscow) preventing a German win.
That with 23 IPC a round of British units coming up and 82 IPC (or more) of American units going over. And all that assumes Brazil was never even annexed!
Functionetta:
Yes, the game is drastically different then OOB.
China should be earning 18 IPC a round in the beginning and the end with a reduction to 9 IPC a round in the middle. Towards the end, China should have a significant force of Artillery to assist them in keeping Japanese land forces at bay.
Unless Japan gets lucky with the dice, or neglects certain aspects so they can ignore everything and go after only China, in which case, China should be liberated in most part by round 6 or 7 by British forces.
Keep in mind, Japan lost A LOT of planes in Alpha 2, more NOs were put in, and some NOs were increased in strength.
@Cmdr:
Leaves England with 23 IPC (17 Starting + 1 Siam + 5 NO Original Territories = 23 IPC.)
If the Japanese can take a whole two territories, (Kwangtung and Borneo), that is reduced by more than half.
If your Japan can’t even take Kwangtung, yeah, that’s a problem.
If ANZAC has seized Java, Celebes, Sumatra, and Dutch New Guinea, that’s a problem, too.
I don’t think either of those is all that common, though. I guess that means our Allied players must really suck, right?
Seizing them for one round early in the game isn’t the problem, the problem is Japans complete lack of ability for holding them, hence why I said around turn 8 ish. By then Japan should easily be beat back to Manchuria/Korea, Soviet Far East and Japan itself with probably Okinawa and Iwo Jima for a grand total of 22 IPC (if they trade Jehol back and forth with China.)
@Cmdr:
Keep in mind,
the Axis combined earn 115 IPC, including most round 4 attacks and NOs.
the Allies combined earn 196 IPC, including most NOs and Territories by round 4
Ah…I thought this calculation included a 20+ India and ANZAC.
