Do you think Axis is overpowered?

Switch from playing Victory Cities to Global Domination and you’ll find it a far more balanced game. My group don’t do a bid and Allies win probably 65-70% of the time.

Yes, we went through 3 alphas to have insane bids still.  Hey, it’s not like Larry took all of MY suggestions to balance things out, though to be fair, he has commented on SOME of them so…lol.

Ah, good old Alpha 2 when America could whip Japan by itself every time and do so in a timely manner…oh well.  Gone now thankfully, but fun while it was there!  (Fine it wasn’t BY itself, Australia helped…whoopee!  Still did it everytime I could!)

Sea Lion too is gone (another Alpha 2 remnant destroyed that was created BY alpha 2.)

As for the Axis being overpowered.  I agree, it’s the proximity and lack of victory cities.  I said it a few times, but Larry didn’t want to change the map on the board I think.  I wanted Egypt to be a VC, S. Africa to be a VC, and Sikang to be a VC and to raise the number required to win for the Axis by +1 on both boards.  To lower the dmg done by adding the VCs I wanted that stoopid US NO for having all it’s continental states being unconquered toast!  (Sorry, but it’s too hard to take therefore, it’s not really at risk and if it isn’t at risk, why do you get bonuses for having it?  Does Germany get a bonus because West Germany isn’t conquered?  Does Italy get one for not having N. Italy conquered?  No.  So why does the US get one?  Both West Germany and North Italy are insanely easy to conquer compared to taking C. USA or W. USA.)  Woulda been happy if it changed so that America got it if NO American territory was conquered, woulda been FAR superior to me.

But those changes weren’t implemented and people figured out a formula for quickly snatching up VCs on one board or the other to which, the only correction is bidding units.  (Yes I’ve been going through the games, but I kinda had that figured out before release of Second Edition, since it’s essentially what we did in Revised: Enhanced as well!)  The difference is, how many units do YOU need to stop the Axis from winning?  I don’t know what I need yet, but then, I am happy to take the allies without a bid because I am that crazy.

What was so different about Alpha 2 than 3 for Japan and USA? I never understood the love for alpha 2… it was not that different in comparison to other editions.

I never got my Russia bomber. :X That was all I asked for.

Bid yourself a bomber, Cow.

And as for differences in the Pacific, not a whole helluva lot.  I wanted to see a starting Chinese artillery unit tossed in.  However, what did change were the AA Guns which arnt a HUGE deal, but they do add more complexity and KJF was always complex enough anyway.

I’m sure a minor tweak here or there could recover the KJF game, I just don’t feel like doing it right now.  lol.

For those that don’t know, KJF was never about taking Japan, it’s always a method of neutralizing Japan to pull the heat off Russia/England.  You’ll NEVER really get a chance to invade Japan, not if the defender is aware of the situation, what you CAN do is sink the Japanese fleet and park enough boats around Japan to permanently end them as a threat.

I only ever played OOB once or twice with Functionetta.  Most of my experience is with Alpha 2 and Alpha 3.

IMHO, Alpha 2 was far superior to Alpha 3.  As for SE, I don’t really see much of a use between it and Alpha 3.  But that’s just me.

ghr2 did a good job covering it DD - in general the UK/US doesn’t have the old Revised/Anniversary role of pounding on the Atlantic Wall. It’s surprising how easy it is for Germany/Italy to repel and retake even the largest continuous landings while still waging war against Russia. And if Russia has fallen, forget about it.

UK/US need to concentrate on the Med and Middle East, and getting material into Moscow. I’m just getting my eyes opened to the amazing flexibility of large quantities of US bombers… Hank and Allweneedislove have taught me the hard way  :-)

Getting rooted into the Middle East with the UK, and producing lots of infantry is a good move as well.

In the Pacific, you have to be able to move your Allied fleet forward and be able to defend your position. That means carriers and fighters. Battle for the DEI. Again, US bombers can be the icing on the cake once you’ve built a foundational fleet. I haven’t done it yet, but I’ve seen it done to me, and it’s very effective.

Jenn you did KJF to Japan players who were weak.

1. It was before my guides came out.
2. India J3 was no longer “standard” in A2 I believe. Just OOB and A1 I think.
3. I cannot think of any notable players who were remotely good at that time. Not to mention these players had to adapt to a change of strategy when they are already bad.

I mean I will admit I was pretty bad the first couple of goes I had.

They still needed to fix a huge number of things. You were really bad at that time, playing really bad people. A2 was pretty good for the axis. The AA gun changes were primarily to benefit London and India early on.

It effectively gave london 4 more hits before falling, which is super good against sea lion. Opened up more attack options for UK on round 1.
~

You can still do KJF as the allies. It is super effective and the recommended allies strategy. The AA guns actually do not benefit Japan as much as it does the allies. Cannon fodder factor for India is extremely useful especially when the allies fly in additional fighters from ANZAC etc.

Bid yourself a bomber, Cow.

Wise ass.

Rather have the bomber already on the map and players bid lower in the 6-8 range than 10-12.

I wish we still had signatures so mine could be “did KJF before it was cool!”

My KJF was always good. :P  Yes, at times there would be a flaw, something simple to correct like forgetting a sea zone to block with a destroyer, or sometimes something big like having the fleet in the wrong sea zone to counter a possible move, when one existed that met the requirement of the strategy while still countering the move.  As for “bad” playing “bad” well, doesn’t that mean the odds were pretty even, Cow?  Just a thought. Sorry, sitting here smiling, not trying to be mean, just well, defending my Alpha 2 “KJF” which, as I’ve pointed out, and people seem to be realizing, has nothing to do with taking Tokyo!  Holding the Sea of Japan (SZ 6) has and always will be a major goal of MY KJFs.

Anyway, love to hear more of this American strategic bomber strategy for Russia.  I assume it’s a matter of building small amounts over time and working them over so that they can run strategic missions and later be fodder for Russia?

I never said anything about taking Tokyo.

The sz 6 thing is situational, but very effective when it works out. It is a good spot to choo choo fighters to Russia to make it hold while convoying Japan hard.

I do buy carriers one round and the fighters the next just to surge that zone at times. However if Japan has a naval base and airbase in the FIC area, holding that seazone is rough.

I have seen Japan turtle hard enough to prevent the the US from being able to contain it for a while.

@ghr2:

I have seen Japan turtle hard enough to prevent the the US from being able to contain it for a while.

I really have trouble understanding this sentence

turtle = sitting building -> no need for containing

do you mean building subs and DDs and sitting outside vietnam, controlling DEI?

or do you mean building infs for tokyo?

or do you mean something else?

Well the vast majority of bids I see on here involve a UK sub in the med and a UK land unit, usually inf or art, in N Africa.

I think changing the setup to
+1 ANZAC inf to Egypt +1 UK sub SZs 98(with the carrier) + 1 USSR bomber in Russia
And +1 French inf in FIC
Would permanently wipe the bid

Could bid then for either side if players can’t agree on who’s what

I used to think the Axis were overpowered, but after seeing allied play really pick up in the past month in the league, I am not so sure.

Indeed, my experience is that if the Axis get poor luck in the first couple rounds, they irrecoverably fall behind are are doomed.

I mean that during a full pac USA, I have seen Japan rush for his money, and build heavy into air/navy.  He did not push for a vc win right away, but his large fleet made it hard for the US to cripple him in any reasonable amount of time.

Poor luck?  Only if you make it so luck matters in the first place.  Honestly I don’t split my planes anymore to attack UK ships 1st turn with Germany anymore, I just nail 110/109 and call it a day.  My Battleship always survives, no chance of my planes dying.  I’m not seeing where you can possibly have luck involved that would “doom” axis.

Poor luck for the Axis can include the following:

1. the french shoot down a plane in battle for france

2. THe UK shoots down planes in 110/111 battles

3. The UK lucks out and wins in 106

4. Yugoslavia goes crazy and kills 5 infantry

5. The UK gets SUPER lucky and kills not only the Italian BB, but also the Italian and German ftrs while losing only 1 destroyer –- this has actually happened to me twice

6. China gets lucky and defends Yunnan against all out Japanese attack

… it goes on and on…  Basically, the Axis have to attack a lot to get up ahead of the allies, any of these battles can go sideways and if they do… ouch!

I’ve seen France victorious over Germany several times
Either Italy takes it or Germany tries again G2, while France gets to build some inf

5.  Usually italy does not scramble