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

Claremorris:

Yes, I believe I mentioned the flaw in the Italian armor on their cruisers.  The ship you mentioned was a cruiser, hence, it died to one shell hit (allegedly, I claim no ownership on your statement).

However, it is clear by a google search (German Warships Med) that the sole purpose of the British fleet in the Med was to protect Malta and the shipping lanes from Gibraltar to Egypt (of which, Malta was the lynch pin).  So I have to disagree with your disagreements until such time as you give me some references to support your claim.  As I said, use the search parameters above and you’ll get the same information I did to make these statements.

As for whether or not the British fleet “could” protect Malta, I have no comment.  I can only say they were sent there specifically to protect Malta, despite their ability or inability to do so.

As for German submarines, perhaps just moving a submarine from the Atlantic to the Med might be a solution?  Perhaps one of the submarines that can hit SZ 106 but not SZ 91, that way you might give England the boost they need to win against a G3 Sea Lion as well (unless England does not build with the intention to stop Sea Lion.)

Two birds, one stone?

@Cmdr Jennifter,

I just played a game where my opponent went all in after Japan first with the first 5 or 6 turns of US spending.  I lost the game though I was able to sack Moscow with Germany.  The problem was Italy got beat in Africa because I never built the Baltic fleet as I choose the Romanian complext G1.  Since my opponent knew I was not going to Sea Lion he sank half of the Italian Navy UK1 and built troops to fight in Africa from UK1.

Japan and America did Naval dances in the Pacifc and I eventually ran away from him to try and help out in Cairo but it was too late as at the point America could spend 100% of its points in the Atlantic.

The highlight for me was the Romanian Complex helped me blast Moscow to the ground even though he had over 70 units sitting in Moscow when the final battle took place.

So I got beat like you said would happen :( I am not sure I played as good as I could of but does appear that attacking Japan first as the Allies is a good way too go.  I was probably too focused on getting Victory cities and not focused enough on winning the economic advantage.  Though I would also argue that stomping Italy to the ground is also a good way to good for the Allies :)

I believe that is the fundamental flaw, Frank.  Japan can zig and zag to avoid losing their fleet, but eventually, they will lose their income and be forced to pull back.  Germany can either go after Russia or England, but in either event, they cannot get enough Victory Cities to win before America comes in to help, or so it has been my experience thus far.

I think Frank has also learned why the Romanian IC is bad.  It telegraphs your moves so that UK knows it doesn’t have to worry about a sealion and can hit Italy hard.

You might have been okay Frank if you had bought fleet G1 and perhaps pushed your offensive on Russia back a turn.

@JimmyHat:

I think Frank has also learned why the Romanian IC is bad.  It telegraphs your moves so that UK knows it doesn’t have to worry about a sealion and can hit Italy hard.

You might have been okay Frank if you had bought fleet G1 and perhaps pushed your offensive on Russia back a turn.

The carrier/2 tran build makes England nervous and does give Germany the utility to reinforce Scandinavia.  I’m not a super fan of it yet, but I see merit in it.

@Cmdr:

Claremorris:

Yes, I believe I mentioned the flaw in the Italian armor on their cruisers.  The ship you mentioned was a cruiser, hence, it died to one shell hit (allegedly, I claim no ownership on your statement).

However, it is clear by a google search (German Warships Med) that the sole purpose of the British fleet in the Med was to protect Malta and the shipping lanes from Gibraltar to Egypt (of which, Malta was the lynch pin).  So I have to disagree with your disagreements until such time as you give me some references to support your claim.  As I said, use the search parameters above and you’ll get the same information I did to make these statements.

As for whether or not the British fleet “could” protect Malta, I have no comment.  I can only say they were sent there specifically to protect Malta, despite their ability or inability to do so.

As for German submarines, perhaps just moving a submarine from the Atlantic to the Med might be a solution?  Perhaps one of the submarines that can hit SZ 106 but not SZ 91, that way you might give England the boost they need to win against a G3 Sea Lion as well (unless England does not build with the intention to stop Sea Lion.)

Two birds, one stone?

From wiki;

"Malta, as part of the British Empire from 1814, was a shipping station and was the headquarters for the Mediterranean Fleet until the mid-1930s. Due to the perceived threat of air-attack from the Italian mainland, the fleet was moved to Alexandria, Egypt shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War. This decision contributed to the continuing ability of the Fleet to sustainably fight against the Axis forces.

There weren’t any warships in Valetta harbour, only submarines used Malta. As for the sea lanes, the Royal Navy failed to keep them open, only at great risk and great loss did Churchill send a few convoys direct through the Med. Otherwise traffic to Egypt was redirected around the Cape. So Malta was important, but its defence was not the most important, and much less the sole purpose of the Royal Navy’s presence in the Med.

As for the German subs, I’d be up to try that. Though that would mean one less sub to throw at the British ships around the UK on G1.

@JimmyHat:

I think Frank has also learned why the Romanian IC is bad.  It telegraphs your moves so that UK knows it doesn’t have to worry about a sealion and can hit Italy hard.

You might have been okay Frank if you had bought fleet G1 and perhaps pushed your offensive on Russia back a turn.

You might be right about that but I wanted to give the Romanian Factory a try for myself.  I was amazed at how much it allowed me to just own Russia.  That being said it was too much for Italy to overcome after losing half their Navy and then have the UK building troops in the SA complex all on UK1.  The Baltic Fleet would have changed all that.

I am starting to think the game might still favor the Allies a bit.  Not saying it is anything like OBB but there are some hard Allied warplans to beat.  I have seen stomp Italy first be very effective while the US then bounces back over to Japan to make sure they can’t win the game.  At that point the Axis are playing with 2 strong countries but 1 next to broken one.  At that point it is hard to win the game on either side of the board victory city wise.  I have also seen reel in Japan first work really well as also.

That being said I may have been playing with too much of a focus on winning victory cities and not the economic advantage.  Maybe it would be better to focus on economics first and victory cities second.

I think it favors the allies a lot!  There are two nearly completely broken allied strategies thus far:

Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans
Pacific Domination

@Cmdr:

Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans

?? Explain please

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

Carpet/Fire bombing with the Americans

?? Explain please

9 or 10 Strategic Bombers hitting Germany, W. Germany each round capping damage as they go.

• 2 Bombers for France
• 3 or 4 Bombers for N. Italy
• 2 Bombers for S. Italy

As you gain more territories against the Axis and have landing zones.

Couldn’t they just buy fighters or something

Yes, but America would also send fighters, so Germany ends up losing fighters in the intercepts and taking damage to the complexes.

Where do fighter escorts stage for a bomb run on Germany?  Carriers off Denmark?

@eudemonist:

Where do fighter escorts stage for a bomb run on Germany?  Carriers off Denmark?

One could stage fighters on carriers for this, but it seems more common to have them on Norway.  Make Norway Russian controlled, reinforce the heck out of it with American aircraft and British ground units and set up your SBR runs from there.

If I lose Norway as Germany, the writing is on the wall for me.

@taschuler:

If I lose Norway as Germany, the writing is on the wall for me.

It’s pretty rare I see Norway survive if Germany does not go Sea Lion.

This American all-pacific strategy sorta requires that A&A40 Europe be broken, doesn’t it?  This requires that Moscow be absolutely impenetrable in the standalone game……it is not.  This strat is testable by playing each game standalone.

This entire strategy requires Moscow to somehow hold out.  Nevermind the Pacific, play Europe alone with no American involvement for 8 turns.  The strategy has nothing to do with the Pacific whatsoever, does it?  It is really a balance question about Europe, specifically the viability of Barbarossa.

If I take UK with Sealion on G3 or G4, I’m going to take Leningrad and Stalingrad both before G8, guaranteed, with no American involvement.  Game over.

Additionally, all the talk of tossing away 3 DD a round to stop American advance by sea is sorta ridiculous when you taken into account noncombat movement, isn’t it?  I kill the Jap DD with air units, then advance in NCM anyway with my entire fleet.  They can block movement of the main fleet for a single round, not round after round losing 24 IPC per round, or whatever number you conjured up to account for losses of DD that nobody actually ever does.  If I want my American fleet in SJ6, I’ll have it there in at most two rounds assuming they’re stationed in Hawaii.

You spend WAY too much time crafting theory, and WAY too little time implementing them.  You have almost no concrete examples of how games have played out for you, it’s just all talk of how things might go, or may go.  Tell me how this strategy works against a good Axis player.

Additionally, as the Japan player, I’m going to grab the DEI for the 20, and Malaya since you’ve got India sending units towards the middle east.  I’ll take Phillipines denying you that NO, so your 75 is now only 70.  I can easily grab two islands, so you’re now at 65.  Guess what I’m at…yes, also 65.  Your strat demands that you outpace my fleet 900 to 500…well, we’re at general parity right now, so I’d like to see your resolution.  ANZAC isn’t building fleet because I’m threatening from my Naval base at…well pick one, Phillipines most likely.

Also, America has to ferry most of their builds from the East coast since the West is limited to 3 units per round until your build on A3.  I just don’t see you stopping my economic gains flat cold to be able to get such a huge lead on fleet size.

Best you can hope for is pressuring Japan from grabbing the final VC, while simultaneously (because I don’t think Europe is broken) pushing for Rome, Egypt, or Paris since my Germany will take Moscow.

Well first off I think it is a poor move for the allies to have Calcutta produce and defend the Middle East.  They should be at most sending 1 inf 1 arm and perhaps an art and that should be enough to capture Iraq. (2 inf added in Persia)  Calcutta’s primary concern after sending that token force west is to capture and hold SE Asia, adding Siam and FIC to their coffers.  Also Calcutta is need to take China’s ass outta the fire and save the day in Asia.

In the All Pacfic American build they don’t deal with the land war, that’s China/Calcutta and perhaps Russias job.  USA takes the islands, controls the seas and perhaps builds an IC in Philippines or Celebres.  If done right I see Japan at most having 6 rounds of fun in the pacific before their options are so limited its flee the pacific or die.