Was KJF really that bad?

Hey,

I was playing the USA this time and I did get Tokyo and starve Japan using Convoy’s with the USA on Korea. This was a cat and mouse with USA and Japan, but the USA had the window to move into SZ 6 to land on Korea by Rnd 8/9. Eventually it was basically till rnd 13-17 to totally kill off Tokyo and for the Allies to win the game. Meanwhile Rome was done by rnd 10 and Berlin by rnd 12.

The game was over by rnd 12 with Rome and Berlin gone, but our group plays itself out to the bitter end. The trick was, was to trick the Japanese that the USA had no interest in the Pacific at the very beginning early rnds and was going all out on the Atlantic, by pulling everything as much they can to Washington territory buy and stack up, in till it was time to sway the game to the Pacific in which this case was by rnd 4 USA were in the war. The Germans thought it was a heavy USA invasion coming across to France.

Knowing I was going to do convoys, the majority of my USA purchase was subs ( and enough air to pair up with AC and trans and land units ). These starved the Chinese territories the Japs had when I was in reach to place my USA subs along the coast. Just add up all of the IPC’s along that coast alone incl FIC and Hong Kong. Eventually they had no money to purchase, it was a matter to just keep bombing Tokyo from Korea before move my land units on transports into Tokyo.

It was risky and bold, but this worked well, however the Japanese were also one city away from winning in the Pacific, but in this case two moves too far out of reach.

That game was a proof that Japan can be taken down, even if it’s to the very last city. It all depends as we know what the Japanese is upto, and those good dice rolls, and working with your team mates.

Bravehart.

I start with a purchase of 3 CVs for the US.  You can get planes to fill them up later on.  It is nice to stack a bunch of fighters in Midway.  If the Japanese are careless, your planes can hit SZ 6 and then land on the carrier group in CZ7.  It doesn’t happen often, but is beautiful when you can pull off that raid.

On turn 2, I transition to subs and fighters as the primary way to damage their fleet.  You can also convoy raid their economy to bits if you can get a few subs into the appropriate sea locations.

Afterwards, I do mostly subs plus a destroyer.  Depending on the Japanese spending and success against China, I transition to the European side.

@suprise:

So here’s the Question How many ALPHA+2 games have you played , and what is the win lose ratio of Axis to Allied , not whether you won or lost, and do you pick your countries  or randomly draw them.
   For us the Axis have taken the last few
   I like the sound of your counter to the Kill Japan First , anyway just wondering how the record looks for your ALPHA+2 win loss as Axis and Allied
   I should probably start a new topic with that question or two table top or lap top

My one on one games, Axis win a lot, but in our 6 player group games, the allies win a lot.

@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

@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!

Just allow defenders to retreat after first round of battle like the attackers can do. That’s one of the rules of axis and allies that don’t make sense to me, defenders can’t retreat. If they are surrounded, I can understand they must make a last stand however.

I think Larry should change the rules for tech to this: buying dice costs 10, and you have to roll a 6 still, but you can then choose the tech you want. And no tokens either.