What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?

Hi guys.  I will be playing me first Global 1940 game this weekend and i was wondering how balanced Alpha 2 setup is when using global.  Is it about a 50/50 win/loss ratio between the Axis and Allies or do the Allies have an advantage that needs to be balanced out with a bid?  We are playing 2v2 and all players are about equal in skill and experience.  Thanks.

We haven’t really run into the problem of Russia attacking Japan Turn 1, mostly because of what Japan starts with in Korea and Manchuria would obliterate the Inf they could use.
Japan usually attacks Russia on their first turn (at least in the group I play with), so it’s almost always Russia getting the fuzzy end of the lollypop.

C

@Cmdr:

Spend 6 IPC to take out the Russian NO, Wrath.  A submarine in SZ 125 takes away the objective as well as a destroyer does.  It also requires the allies to send a destroyer to go kill it, instead of using only planes.

A submarine isnt a war ship according to our definition of the rules but I wont argue about that. The price of 8 ipc is still worth it.

Russia was buffed in Alpha 2 because many Axis players blew their strength on England, dedicating all of their power to taking it out and thus, not having enough to hit Russia with.  Now that England is no longer a prized posession, but more of a “well, I need one more VC to win, and it is underdefended” move, Russia is getting really easy to take out.

Dont care if russia is buffed, Germany is so much more buffed with their extra planes and units, thats why I find that theather a bit balanced.

Looking ONLY at the game board for the first 3 rounds (bringing you to Germany Round 4, Purchase New Units) one can see that the Axis are more than double Russia’s strength with more than double their income.  That means England and India need to be focused on sending reinforcements to Russia to prevent them from falling (and thus, negating the need to block SZ 125).  With the NonAggression arrangement being virtually nullified, there is no reason not to invade early and heavy with Japan and more reason TOO do it, to remove even more IPC from the Russians. 
So yes, Wrath, I agree, Barbarossa is probably the better avenue and makes Victory more assured, not assured, but more than attempting Sea Lion.    I don’t see Russia ever getting their Objectives (any of them).

If you go after russia on round 4 as germany you are to late imho, you are better off attacking round 2 (with a fake attack on yugoslavia) or on r3.

@urmomsmom7:

I think they are trying to say that since England doesn’t get an NO for no German subs on the board it doesn’t give Germany the need to build subs and in general building units towards England

That makes partial sense.  I still think you need submarines for Germany, but a lot less.  Before you needed 4 in SZ 109, 2 in SZ 106, 2 in SZ 82.  Now you need 2 in SZ 109, 1 in SZ 106 and 1 in SZ 82 to get almost the same results as before.

What the change does, however, is weaken England to the tune of 5 IPC a round.  There’s not a bat’s chance in hades that England and America are putting units in Paris until the game is already over (but the axis won’t concede).  Essentially, what Larry did, was to remove 10 IPC a round from the Allies give the Axis a significant boost in buying power in relation to the what the Allies used to get.

It also means that the Allies dont ahve to go beserk trying to kill every submarine on the board too.

If the US is forced to split it’s income their could come a time where it could haved saved the day at Hawaii or get much needed support to a victory city in Europe but it’s hands will have been tied because of polictial rules and the Axis will win.

To be honest I don’t really want to win that way.  I respect your position but I do disagree with it.  I would love to see the Axis made a little stronger but I am actually feel pretty comfortable with the USA staying as is for the most part.

tell nutbar to play by alpha 2

@13thguardsriflediv:

Planes were mostly used to attack sz 111, 112, Yugo and France. It is why sz 110 did not get hit. The other seazones west of England and east of Canada were hit by subs. No German fighters landed in southern Italy to help against Taranto which was an oversight.

UK would have thought twice if without the cruiser and facing three fighters. But maybe not, sometimes I like dicey battles (no risk no glory).

If the U.K. pulls that carrier out of the Med. then it can join the Indian fleet to help defend the Indies and if the U.S. is building enough navy in the Pacific the allies can put a lot of pressure on Japan. Japan cannot move south unless they bring a sizeable navy which will leave the home islands open to invasion by the U.S.

Fighters that are damaged roughly lose around half their abilities @: attack: 2, defense: 2, Movement: 2, they also gain 5 damage points. The reason to this change, was so that players would feel more enthused to strategic bomb knowing they wouldn’t lose a fighter, instead, they could continue using the fighter just at a damaged level. The downgrade in its abilities would be a temporary result until the fighter is repaired at half the price (5 IPCs) of a new fighter.

Fighters that missed or didn’t get hit, are free to return to base like in the OoB rules.

One other thing i forgot to mention, bombers that are not accompanied with escorts are considered ‘locked on’ therefore are subject to interceptor fire @ 1d6 of damage per defending interceptor.

These rules make bombers and interceptors very powerful units. It encourages players to strategic bomb with 2d6 of damage, however there is also the risk of interceptor ‘lock on’ that would minimize the bombers full 2d6 damage potential.