How is the balance with the new Alpha 2 changes? Please give your view.

@Cmdr:

Buffing the defense of England would be the only increase to the allies I could fathom.

However, thinking upon it, I think we could do something similar to the Kamikazee rule for England.  England gets 6 Infantry that defend England but cannot leave England for any reason (to include Scotland.)  Once dead, they die.  Each infantry must be paired with a normal infantry unit. (ie, if you had 5 infantry then you could only use 5 England defenders, not the full 6.)

To make it less impactful, maybe they only defend on a 1?

It would make Sea Lion harder while not making England any stronger and not making it impossible for Germany to win.  It would have to be followed up with either moving the VC from Quebec to S. Africa or adding a VC to S. Africa (without making Germany need 9 VCs to win.)  To compensate for a harder shot at England (and thus, a harder shot at Russia too.)

You might be on to something, Cmdr.  England did have the “Home Guard.”  Pretty much a useless militia of civilians, but implementing them as 0/1 Units that can’t move from England proper is a good idea.  Essential, they would act as fodder for other units.  Perhaps the “bid” could be based on the number of Home Guardsmen that one get to play the UK?

@Cmdr:

Buffing the defense of England would be the only increase to the allies I could fathom.

However, thinking upon it, I think we could do something similar to the Kamikazee rule for England.  England gets 6 Infantry that defend England but cannot leave England for any reason (to include Scotland.)  Once dead, they die.  Each infantry must be paired with a normal infantry unit. (ie, if you had 5 infantry then you could only use 5 England defenders, not the full 6.)

To make it less impactful, maybe they only defend on a 1?

It would make Sea Lion harder while not making England any stronger and not making it impossible for Germany to win.  It would have to be followed up with either moving the VC from Quebec to S. Africa or adding a VC to S. Africa (without making Germany need 9 VCs to win.)  To compensate for a harder shot at England (and thus, a harder shot at Russia too.)

sounds promising but must keep sealion viable

Paint up some models in plebian outfits and stick some pitchforks on the end of the guns.  “Civilian” units are massively under represented in AA… probably with good reason, but Russia should get to use them too.

Well, Sea Lion would still be viable, but I figure, with the Home Guard units, it wouldn’t be viable until Round 4 (Just before America enters) or Round 5 (with one round of American reinforcements, which would ease pressure on Japan).

Home Guard:
Cost: 2 IPC
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defend: 1
Max: 5 on England, ONLY, cannot be built anywhere else.

@Cmdr:

Home Guard:
Cost: 2 IPC
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defend: 1
Max: 5 on England, ONLY, cannot be built anywhere else.

Not sure if I like the idea of these units being purchased.  I think a strict number of them should be bid on before the game with the restriction that they cannot move from England/Scotland.

@Cmdr:

Well, Sea Lion would still be viable, but I figure, with the Home Guard units, it wouldn’t be viable until Round 4 (Just before America enters) or Round 5 (with one round of American reinforcements, which would ease pressure on Japan).

Home Guard:
Cost: 2 IPC
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defend: 1
Max: 5 on England, ONLY, cannot be built anywhere else.

I think that deserves a playtest unfortunately I am currently unable to try at this point in time

Interesting idea…

How about if the home guard only appear on the turn that London is invaded? 
In other words, UK gets 3-5 home guard troops (regular infantry) to place immediately prior to combat on the first turn London is attacked.  That would help balance the Sea Lion issue while still allowing UK to do something on the first couple of turns in Africa.

Jennifer, your original idea of removing inf from somewhere else (Africa) and placing it in London is the best.  Adding 3 units would make Sealion on turn 3 dicey at best.

I’m not sure how people are making a turn 4 or 5 Sealion work, though.  UK on turn 4 would have too much to overcome with only 12 TTs.  I think that if London is to be taken, its turn 3 or not at all.

Sealion DOES NOT constitute a game win, by any means.

England is JUST as useless if you bypass them - for turns on end.

Bring on sea-lion - by all means.

Either way I shuffle guys from europe to a territory near uk on R2 and R3. then finish him R4.

there is nothing uk can do. period. Max out the complex on inf try to hold with a fighter, but there is just so much air I sent and tanks and inf  i’d have to miss an entire round and he’d have to hit an entire round before we’re even.

He can attack my drop on R2 and R3. oh sure. and whatever he sends R2 I kill R3. Whatever he sends to attack it R3 won’t be defending UK. so he’ll try to hit it for 1 round and retreat… sometimes that goes bad LOL sometimes that goes good and you still get wooped.

you guys are just very bad.

Like the harder question is: how can you not be able to take UK??? In a LL game or dice? You send pretty much overwhelming odds.
~

Sealion doesn’t constitute a win. I concur. However I believe it is the optimal strategy for axis. However it does make the game really boring.

I rather just give axis a bid under the condition that they cannot take over uk.

Pretty much 15 axis. No attacking UK until after UK has taken his 4th turn (basically you have to do it R5 if at all).

I don’t think its fair that Britain gets a homeguard, if they get one shouldn’t every other power get one?

Germany = Volksturmm
Japan = Volunteer Fighting Force armed with Ceramic grenades, Bushido type stuff.
Russia = Great Patriotic Call to Arms
Italy = … Dunno.
America = Another draft I guess…
ANZAC = Defend the Kangaroos (DTK) lol
France = Just surrender already…

Also R5 uk takedowns are possible. if you buy bombers round 2 and industrial bomb R3-4. You pretty much shut him down. bomb the guy for 20. he can make 5-7 inf? kinda a big difference.

I’d just play with axis bid and no attacking uk till R5+ to include industrial bombing.

@Benerfe:

I don’t think its fair that Britain gets a homeguard, if they get one shouldn’t every other power get one?

Germany = Volksturmm
Japan = Volunteer Fighting Force armed with Ceramic grenades, Bushido type stuff.
Russia = Great Patriotic Call to Arms
Italy = … Dunno.
America = Another draft I guess…
ANZAC = Defend the Kangaroos (DTK) lol
France = Just surrender already…

Missing the point.  The Home Guard is not for historical accuracy; rather, it’s to help balance the game with a little something to deter a G3 Sea Lion.

I still think a bid on the number of Guardsmen is the best idea, because it allows the players themselves to balance the game based on their relative skill and the perceived skill of their opponents.

@Gargantua:

Sealion DOES NOT constitute a game win, by any means.

England is JUST as useless if you bypass them - for turns on end.

Bring on sea-lion - by all means.

If Axis CAN’t win even after conquering UK, there is something really wrong with the game.

All I am saying is there have been several games where I have seen the U.K. fall - get liberated, and turn into an allied win.

It happens.

The game isn’t over JUST because the U.K. fell.

Has the axis played well in those games Gargantua?  Or was the axis played poorly.  It matters.

maybe I’m in the minority here, but I don’t want to play G40 with sealion being the preferred campaign choice.  And on this forum it looks to be the course of action 90pct of the time.  If the UK makes good choices I feel sealion should be disasterous for Germany.

as it is I would prefer to play the axis to avoid sealion, and I LOVE to play as the allies.

I believe it does constitute a game win.

6 IPC for England
2 IPC for Scotland
5 IPC for the National Objective

England cannot build anymore, England cannot be liberated and that means Africa will fall much faster to Italy.

@Gargantua:

All I am saying is there have been several games where I have seen the U.K. fall - get liberated, and turn into an allied win.

It happens.

The game isn’t over JUST because the U.K. fell.

And that doesn’t seem wrong to you?  The Axis lost the game because they conquered England?

Besides, I would argue that the Axis player didn’t know what to do after London was taken.

maybe I’m in the minority here, but I don’t want to play G40 with sealion being the preferred campaign choice.  And on this forum it looks to be the course of action 90pct of the time.  If the UK makes good choices I feel sealion should be disasterous for Germany.

Agreed.

You guys need to get your head out of the way the old games were played.  A capital falling is less of a deal these days.

The game isn’t over JUST because Russia dies either.  If the Allies hold Paris, Rome, or Egypt the Axis is SOL.  Same goes for the Pacific,  is the game over because India gets conquered?  No.  And nothing seems WRONG to me at all.  The game is well balanced.

People fail to realize that because of the scale of the game, Capitals falling - aren’t as end game as they used to be.

I’m struggling to understand your point of contention.  You are saying that you don’t want to see sea lion, and it’s the best axis strategy - nothing allies can do, but then you also say that if U.K. plays it right, sea-lion is “Disasterous” for Germany.  Is that not a total contradiciton?  And an admission that the game is dependant on your player strategy?  And not the setup?

What’s the hope you guys are looking for?  Add 10 inf to England to make sea-lion TOTALLY impossible?  Wow thanks for reducing the game options.  That’s what makes global great,  the Axis can go in whatever direction they like to shoot for the win,  not engage in a scripted out roll fest.

And that doesn’t seem wrong to you?  The Axis lost the game because they conquered England?

It depends on what it cost the axis to take england in the first place.