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

@Cmdr:

Japan:  28 Aircraft OOB

• 4 Strategic Bombers
• 10 Tactical Bombers
• 14 Fighters

Japan: 21 Aircraft Alpha 2

• 2 Strategic Bombers
• 8 Tactical Bomber
• 11 Fighters

Difference: -7 Aircraft (-25 Attacking Punch)

• -2 Strategic Bombers
• -2 Tactical Bombers
• -3 Fighters

USA: 12 Aircraft OOB

• 4 Strategic Bombers
• 3 Tactical Bombers
• 5 Fighters

USA: 8 Aircraft Alpha 2

• 1 Strategic Bomber
• 1 Tactical Bomber
• 6 Fighters

Difference: -4 Aircraft (-17 Attacking Punch)

• -3 Strategic Bombers
• -2 Tactical BOmbers
• +1 Fighter

---

It’s a relatively HUGE swing in the balance of power in the Pacific.  Just going with the OOB set up and the Alpha 2 rules may, actually, make Japan too strong, or it may balance things out.  What it won’t do is make the allies stronger.

Also, it does not give the Allies any more aircraft, it removes Allied aircraft.  It does give Japan significantly more aircraft, particularly in long range bombers which is probably a very needed boost in power.

Note: I counted ALL America planes regardless of which board they were on, since it is relatively easy to move them to either board you want early.

You do realize that uk starts with 2 more figs in india and anzac starts with an extra in new zeal in OOB

OOB japan has 14 fig 10 tac 4 strats

Alpha 2 japan has 11 fig 8 tac 2 strats

OOB pacific allies have 14 figs 4 tacs 4 strats

Alpha 2 pacific allies have 12 figs 2 tacs  and 1 strat

OOB japan has 6 tac advantage
Alpha 2 japan has 6 tac 1 strat advantage 1 fig disadvantage
starting conditions air wise wont make a shred of difference

@ghr2:

You do realize that uk starts with 2 more figs in india and anzac starts with an extra in new zeal in OOB

Yes, but since they cannot be added to an American attack, they are mostly irrelevant.  Three of them can be added to America’s defense, but since Australia already has 3 planes for this role in Alpha 2, there is no huge difference.  4 Australian planes ~ 3 Australian planes since only 3 can scramble anyway.

Supposedly this may be a concern if America puts out more aircraft carriers for all the Australian and British planes, but since this does not really make America “stronger” (defined as able to sink the Japanese sooner) it’s also not overly relevant.

However, 7 new aircraft for Japan can all be used simultaniously to attack with.  This could mean the demise of India or Australia sooner, or just significantly more punch, sooner, against the American fleet.

I thought u said that uk/anzacs were relavant in the pacific?  I thought u said they will pick off the extremities of japan and help divide his forces so that the US will have an easier time with the  navy.  They way u have been posting earlier made it seem that UK and ANZ can be big threats unless japan over commits to lock them down

The way it is CURRENTLY set up, yes.  Because British ships can add to America’s defense and Australian fighters can add to American defense.  However, in OOB setup, much of the “added” units for England/Australia cannot add to America’s defense, thus, are not really all that more relevant.

A little, but not as much as an added fighter to America or an added Strategic Bomber to Japan.

There will be two boards this weekend, one the OOB set up the other the Alpha+2 set up the rules will be the Alpha+2
    Four players for sure maybe Six the last Two will know more as the weekend approaches

@Cmdr:

I wouldn’t mind trying the OOB setup with the Alpha 2 rule set.  It might work.  The adjustments on the board would be countered by the increased units Japan starts with.

Interesting. Consumers would not lose immediate value on their purchase with an OOB setup. I rather like the handiness of nation setups on each nation’s box cover.

When you suggest using the rules for Alpha 2 do you mean both the combat rules and the National Objectives?

If it performs well in playtest it would certainly resolve the dickering over which units should be added where.

My, unscientific, untested hypothesis is that the rule set for Alpha 2 with only the one modification of using the original setup charts provided with the rules in the box, may balance things out.  That is, one would use the original setup for the global 1940 game, but use the rule adjustments given in Alpha 2. (National Objectives, Non-Aggression Treaty, etc.)

Why?

1.  There is no naval base in Queensland, thus, certain territories (specifically Hawaii and some of the middle easy, as well as the Philippines) are no longer in range of ships in SZ 54.

2.  Japan gets SIGNIFICANTLY more aircraft.

3.  The Allies also get more aircraft, but to no extent as much as the Japanese do, nor are they concentrated in one nation as the Japanese ones are.

4.  The extra 7 aircraft Japan gets, compounded by 3 rounds of non-interference by America (and probably England and Australia as well) could make a HUGE difference in the campaign for the Russian far east and China.

5.  The location of the Japanese transport in SZ 33 may make the conquest of New South Wales, Queensland or Hawaii more secure earlier in the game.

6.  If for no other reason than America has 23 IPC less fleet, and Japan has 0 IPC less/more fleet but Japan has 7 extra aircraft but America only has 4 extra aircraft.

Point being, Japan gets A LOT more units by comparison than America does.

While this is mitigated by what India and Australia get, and while they play a prominant role in the original theory of Japanese containment, I feel (based only on the layout of the board) that these bonsus will be significantly less beneficial to the Allies and thus, perhaps, balance a theater of operations that is woefully out of balance currently.

@Cmdr:

My, unscientific, untested hypothesis is that the rule set for Alpha 2 with only the one modification of using the original setup charts provided with the rules in the box, may balance things out.  That is, one would use the original setup for the global 1940 game, but use the rule adjustments given in Alpha 2. (National Objectives, Non-Aggression Treaty, etc.)

Okay, thank you for expounding on that. must test…

I am game for testing the hypothesis as well….if anyone wants to pick up the challenge.

@Cmdr:

My, unscientific, untested hypothesis is that the rule set for Alpha 2 with only the one modification of using the original setup charts provided with the rules in the box, may balance things out.  That is, one would use the original setup for the global 1940 game, but use the rule adjustments given in Alpha 2. (National Objectives, Non-Aggression Treaty, etc.)

Wouldn’t this just revive the J3 India Crush?  Or is the J3 India Crush not as much of a game breaker in Global as it was in stand-alone Pacific?

Friend is coming over for a global game.

I think I can make all countries work, except one : America. What generally is a good way of playing the us? How many transports per round. Tanks to support the Infantry, or Art? etc etc

ty

Robert

@JamesG:

@Cmdr:

My, unscientific, untested hypothesis is that the rule set for Alpha 2 with only the one modification of using the original setup charts provided with the rules in the box, may balance things out.  That is, one would use the original setup for the global 1940 game, but use the rule adjustments given in Alpha 2. (National Objectives, Non-Aggression Treaty, etc.)

Wouldn’t this just revive the J3 India Crush?  Or is the J3 India Crush not as much of a game breaker in Global as it was in stand-alone Pacific?

The India crush relied on a major industrial complex in Malaya.  In the alpha 2 rules, Japan could not have a major industrial complex in Malaya since Malaya isn’t an originally orange territory.  Thus, the India crush would be abated, for the most part, as it is in Alpha 2 the way it is currently.

The India crush relied on a major industrial complex in Malaya.  In the alpha 2 rules, Japan could not have a major industrial complex in Malaya since Malaya isn’t an originally orange territory.  Thus, the India crush would be abated, for the most part, as it is in Alpha 2 the way it is currently.

No it didn’t.  India is taken on turn 3 using TTs.  No complex was ever needed.

@jim010:

The India crush relied on a major industrial complex in Malaya.  In the alpha 2 rules, Japan could not have a major industrial complex in Malaya since Malaya isn’t an originally orange territory.  Thus, the India crush would be abated, for the most part, as it is in Alpha 2 the way it is currently.

No it didn’t.  India is taken on turn 3 using TTs.  No complex was ever needed.

Jim, since you are the expert on the J3 India Crush I put this question to you.  Assmuming OOB setup with Alpha 2 rules, do you think the J3 India Crush is the best strategy for Japan in the Global Game when faced with a US going 100% Pacific?

If it is, I don’t think going back to the OOB setup is a good idea.  To be honest I don’t think it is a good idea in general, but that would seal the deal.

@jim010:

The India crush relied on a major industrial complex in Malaya.  In the alpha 2 rules, Japan could not have a major industrial complex in Malaya since Malaya isn’t an originally orange territory.  Thus, the India crush would be abated, for the most part, as it is in Alpha 2 the way it is currently.

No it didn’t.  India is taken on turn 3 using TTs.  No complex was ever needed.

Then your version of the India crush should work just the same regardless of Alpha 2 or OOB rules.  In both versions you start with 3 transports.

@Cmdr:

@jim010:

No it didn’t.  India is taken on turn 3 using TTs.  No complex was ever needed.

Then your version of the India crush should work just the same regardless of Alpha 2 or OOB rules.  In both versions you start with 3 transports.

I’ll leave it to Jim to elaborate, but I think you are wrong.  I’m pretty sure Alpha “broke” the J3 India Crush gambit.

Correct, it doesn’t work in Alpha 2, and it all has to do with the new set-up.  The fleet with the TT in Car was important.

I’ll have to elaborate later, though.

Please do, because the only method I have seen was the major industrial complex in Malaya and then walking to India.

The transport in SZ 33 doesn’t seem all that powerful.  Why?  Because it is no closer or further from India than the transport in SZ 20.  What it is closer too is Hawaii and that is primarily what I am looking at in making the Pacific a balanced theater or operations.  If Japan can take Hawaii on round 1 we get the following

1)  America loses a National Objective
2)  Japan gains a National Objective
** These two changes make up for the lost FIC National Objective
3)  Japan has a landing zone for fighters defending in SZ 62, thus damaging carriers no longer means lost fighters and tactical bombers!
4)  NSW, QUE, W. USA and Alaska are targets of opportunity from Hawaii
5)  Collecting Midway and Wake for the island NO is no longer a suicide mission for transport captains

But I would be equally happy moving all Japanese starting transports to SZ 6.