What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?

5 games completed, 1 game in progress.  Axis = 3, Allies = 2, last game is on Round 2 so too early to tell.

Seems about as balanced as things can get, and while this is way more accurate than the latest gallup poll on which flavor of ice cream is better (Vanilla vs Chocolate) it is not all inclusive by any means.

However, before this we had a dozen or so games and the Axis only won once out of all of those, so this is certainly more balanced - for our group at least - than Alpha 2 is.

i think whatever way you bend it italy is to weak

@Cmdr:

However, before this we had a dozen or so games and the Axis only won once out of all of those, so this is certainly more balanced - for our group at least - than Alpha 2 is.

- for our group at least - : Well said.

Since Alpha+ was so broken we gave up Alpha+ setup and there followers.

Basic setup is the best balanced.

First we balanced it by creating a US bonus on Philippines. Move 1 IPC to Philippines for every Allied win and move back one for every Axis win. Balanced within 7-9 ICP.

Later

We use modified alpha+ bonuses. German extra bonus in France. 5 IPC.
Japan 5 IPC for not declaring war against India/Anzac/US or France Indochina.

We are also discussing changing US entry to turn 4 and Soviet allow to declare war to turn 3.

Easiest way to bid is by bidding on an Philippines bonus. How much out of US 30 ICP bonus being in war should be put to a Philippines island bonus. No extra ICP in the beginning of the game because that destabilizes a complete zone. 12  ICP gives one axis power the possibility to do every thing what they want. Two additional G sub/tr, 2 Japan transports or two Italian subs/tr is way to strong.

Sorry, my english is not that good (working on it), so I’m not sure I understand what you say. If I understand right, you say :

1. Out of the box rules are better than Alpha 2.
2. Out of the box rules are balanced if you give 12 IPC to Axis. (I understand it’s a one time bonus, i.e. not +12IPC every turn)

Please correct me if I misunderstand you. But if I’m right, then I think otherwise. I’m positive that Axis don’t stand a single chance with OOB rules… and giving them 12IPC at start of the game won’t change a thing.

12 IPC Bid may or may not make this more balanced for OOB.  Why?

New South Wales will die on Japan 1 every game without fail.
Japan will have significantly more ground forces in China.

Just my UNTESTED opinion.

@Cmdr:

fun games include cashing in all your pieces and spending it all over again.  Caveat: Any territory worth 2 IPC or more must have an infantry unit per IPC.

I want to try this.

What about ICs and bases?

Would you require minimum’s be spent on naval for some countries?

i like the idea of a few extra german subs in the med or south atlantic, close to african convoys…

@taschuler:

@Cmdr:

fun games include cashing in all your pieces and spending it all over again.  Caveat: Any territory worth 2 IPC or more must have an infantry unit per IPC.

I want to try this.

What about ICs and bases?

Would you require minimum’s be spent on naval for some countries?

There were no naval bases or airbases when I used this last (because they did not exist in classic) but we stated that all facilities (AA Guns and Complexes) had to stay where they were, but you could buy more with your cash.  In this situation, I would say AB/NB would have to stay as well, but you could buy more.

There was no limit on what you spent it on.  If you wanted to cash in 309 IPC for America and get all infantry on E. USA, then you had 103 Infantry on E. USA and nothing else.

Two things stand out in my humble opinion as problems. First the Italian player loses a large portion of his fleet before he can even make his first move even if the Germs fly two fighters to help. Granted part of the time the U.K. will suffer a large number of casualties but it just does not seem right that the Italian player does not even get to make one stratigic decision before he has lost a portion of his navy. The U.S. can have a Pearl Harbor and bounce back because of a huge income. But Italy is poor and for game purposes their fleet should be combined as the U.K. has the initative and moves first. Second problem is the huge U.S. income before they are even at war. With their prewar income and starting units they are able to build a large fleet before their war even starts. If an adjustment were made by lowering their prewar income to more historical levels and then have them make up the difference in gradual steps during later turns. The total IPCs would eventually be the same but the difference would be that the U.S. would not start turn four with a huge fleet and all prepared to go to war. Now if the axis is crazy enough to attack the U.S. on turn one or two then leave the income schedule as it is.

@Cmdr:

There were no naval bases or airbases when I used this last (because they did not exist in classic) but we stated that all facilities (AA Guns and Complexes) had to stay where they were, but you could buy more with your cash.  In this situation, I would say AB/NB would have to stay as well, but you could buy more.

There was no limit on what you spent it on.  If you wanted to cash in 309 IPC for America and get all infantry on E. USA, then you had 103 Infantry on E. USA and nothing else.

Created a post in the House Rules section: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24273.0

@Fishmoto37:

Two things stand out in my humble opinion as problems. First the Italian player loses a large portion of his fleet before he can even make his first move even if the Germs fly two fighters to help. Granted part of the time the U.K. will suffer a large number of casualties but it just does not seem right that the Italian player does not even get to make one stratigic decision before he has lost a portion of his navy. The U.S. can have a Pearl Harbor and bounce back because of a huge income. But Italy is poor and for game purposes their fleet should be combined as the U.K. has the initative and moves first. Second problem is the huge U.S. income before they are even at war. With their prewar income and starting units they are able to build a large fleet before their war even starts. If an adjustment were made by lowering their prewar income to more historical levels and then have them make up the difference in gradual steps during later turns. The total IPCs would eventually be the same but the difference would be that the U.S. would not start turn four with a huge fleet and all prepared to go to war. Now if the axis is crazy enough to attack the U.S. on turn one or two then leave the income schedule as it is.

I agree, I think the easiest way to balance Alpha2 is to change the DOW system, Italy automatically DOW UK/ANZAC/France on I1, but prior to that they cannot be attacked.  The other change I would make is to let China move to Korea so that Japan cannot just ignore China without being completely kicked off the mainland.

This would preserve the Italians at Tobruk and safeguard their fleet, allowing Italy to hold the initiative instead of UK.  Initiative is a big thing in this game, because its all the Axis have going for them, the economics favor the allies.

It sucks as the Italians, but I think UK should retain that freedom to sucker-punch them.  UK risks paying the price elsewhere, so it’s not entirely unfair.  Also I think it should always be possible in this game to go the historical route.  Historically, Taranto did destroy literally half of Italy’s naval power with minimal British losses.    It shouldn’t always be the best idea to be historical, but I think that option should exist.

@Alsch91:

It sucks as the Italians, but I think UK should retain that freedom to sucker-punch them.  UK risks paying the price elsewhere, so it’s not entirely unfair.  Also I think it should always be possible in this game to go the historical route.  Historically, Taranto did destroy literally half of Italy’s naval power with minimal British losses.     It shouldn’t always be the best idea to be historical, but I think that option should exist.

I am all for being historical IF POSSIBLE but in this case for good game play if the Italian fleet could be combined on the setup or could remain neutral until the second round then I think it would be better.

Well there is good gameplay here, in the sense that even though Taranto is very effective at crippling Italy for 2-3 turns, it is very often a mistake for UK to pursue it.  I don’t think Italy should get special treatment just because it’s weaker.  And this is coming from a player that prefers playing the Axis.

I rarely see Taranto, so its a non-issue to me and shows that even if UK doesn’t hit those ships its not enough to keep Italy ascendant those first few rounds.  UK has the initiative in NAfrica.

Tobruk gets hit every game though.  That is the battle that this would negate, and would leave Italy with an army in Africa in order to start.

Uk can still run through the med or position fleet units to deny an Italian NO, but can’t kick Italy in the balls prior to their first move.

I generally move the British fleet to Gibraltar lately, but I am wondering, should I be moving it into the Red Sea and then the Indian Ocean?  Thoughts?

@Cmdr:

I generally move the British fleet to Gibraltar lately, but I am wondering, should I be moving it into the Red Sea and then the Indian Ocean?  Thoughts?

This is great move to do in conjunction with a slow/kill Japan first strategy.  As the Allies, if you bring everything (and I really do mean everything…Anzac planes, Anzac boats, Anzac purchases, French DD, UK Med fleet, UK Malta fighter, UK India naval purchases [main point being carriers to put those extra planes on]) that you can to India (sz 39) You can actually stonewall a J3 or J4 attack into India.  Even with Japan going maximum India Crush, the naval battle needed to clear z39 is only about a 50/50 proposition.

Now you may think that Japan could just land their ground units into Burma on J3 and then attack India on J4.  This would bypass clearing sz 39.  The max that could make it to Burma on J3 is 6 TT (three starting and three purchased on J1).  If Japan does this, India has enough ground units and planes to kill the stack of 12 ground units and therefore Japan has no attack on J4.  If you aren’t lucky enough to kill all of them, Anzac still has several fighters to clear the last remaining ground units so as to prevent an attack.

I know because I did exactly this as the UK in my most recent FTF game.  I thought I would just make it painful for Japan to take India.  It turns out that the Allies can actually stop a full out Japanese India Crush from the starting set-up.  The big key is bringing the UK Med. assets to India.  Now, if you do this Japan really has no where to hide if the US spends big $$$ in the Pacific also.

Need help understanding the balance of Italy. Many gamers speak of moving the German fighter from Hungary and TAC from Poland that are used to attack France on G1 to Southern Italy. How can they get there? It is 3 moves from where they are to France with one left over to Northern Italy? Am I missing something?

Don’t the Italian planes in Northern Italy get to scramble as well as the one in Southern Italy if UK does Toranto in SZ 97?

Please advise.

Correct they cannot reach and must be used in a different battle like Yugo. or not used in battle and noncom’ed there, not a good option.  It’s better to use the ones from either Holland,W.Germ.
 Study the Board and see what planes can reach where.  Italy does need the extra scramble ability to make the U.K. pay for trying to sink it’s fleet.
  Only air bases allow scrambling of 3 planes and the air base is in S.Italy

After a week of vacation I can’t wait to set up a Global war game I’m going threw withdrawl symptoms
  If I had to bet I would say the Allies are going to pull it off because the Axis won the last few like 4 so the odds are against them……We’ll see    actually I don’t care who I pull as long as I get the hot dice