Was KJF really that bad?

@drummerinheat:

Does the blue color for the oceans match?  My Pacific side is a liter or more faded blue than the Europe side.  Even the replacement was off colored.

I have the same, and I never even noticed it until someone else mentioned it to me. Now I can’t un-see it :p

Still, the difference is quite minor–enough to not even notice for five months and a half dozen games.

As you say, in OOB 2nd edition, West India is Pacific (but not OOB 1st edition).  But more than likely all answers at this point will be addressed as a 2nd edition question, unless someone specifically says OOB rules for first edition.

@Cmdr:

@thatonekid:

you really cant take haw j1 can you?? i mean, theres 2 inf and 2 figs there, if they only have 1 trns full of people, then the odds are likely not in their favor.

Yes you can, out of the box Japan may bring:  5 ground units (4 from Japan, 1 from Carolines) and 3 shore bombardments since the only “enemy” ship is a transport.

American only has: 2 Infantry, Fighter, Tactical Bomber, Strategic Bomber to defend with.

It’s only like 33% odds, but I’ve seen some people go for Sea Lion or an attack on a massive army with less odds of success.

thats true, but i dont play with OOB rules.

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

I like it the way it is . 1 on 1 is different than 3 on 3. I also think the table top is different than the computer screen.  The Axis had 2 wins this weekend and of the 17 games we’ve played with the ALPHA+2 rules and set up were still about 50/50.  The skill level is about even on our table

Generally I send 2 ss to SZ 111, 2 to SZ 106, and 1 to SZ 91. Killing the cruiser is nice because it gives Italy a bit more freedom, yet killing the trans & sub in SZ 106 is more important IMHO because it slows a canadian reinforcement army and gives your subs more freedom as UK will only have 1 dd. SZ 111 is necessary because you don’t really want to trade airforce for a bb and dd, especially since UK will likely scramble because you have no way of soaking up hits, while they have 1 free hit.

@Plasticdeathbydice:

$6.00 bucks an hour?!?!  At the rate my buddies drink - it is costing me $6.00 every ten minutes!

Exactly.  Over time the game does not add a significant cost to your gaming experience.  If you sick to AA50 you still have to buy that booze.

$6/hr is relatively high - ask me what it works out to this time next year.  Also I didn’t account for the games of Pacific alone I’ve already played.  This will be down to pennies an hour in no time.

@Koningstiger:

I do believe it’s worth it, but at the same time, I find A&A50 the better game (ease and relative quickness of play)

To each their own.  Some people might prefer AA42 to AA50 for the same reason, but probably not many because AA50 is only a little bit bigger and more elaborate than AA42.  Global is way bigger than AA50.  I personally think they’re all excellent.

One thing really cool about Global is that Germany (at this point seemingly) has a legitimate decision to make in terms of England or Russia.  What’s even cooler is that if England falls the Allies can still win!  I love this game!

bump