Was KJF really that bad?

@sire-fred Caroline is off limits til turn 4 and ql is useful for operations in the far south. That is convenient for the Japanese. They can threaten Calcutta and shield themselves at the same time.

Okay tried more UK on Japan action… found that Italy makes UK money quickly and that it is not worth it. LOL.

@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.

Yes, Carriers and aircraft move independently, but the rulebook just states, that warships may not move …! It states nowhere, that aircraft can’t move to any seazone. They are not allowed to land on any allied terretorry or aircraftcarrier, but they can of course fly ther and if there is a legal landing spot, land there. The planes are not restricted to not move into the atlantic, they (in most cases) can’t land and therefore can’t stay there.

@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.

@kcdzim:

@SalothSar:

USA kills it

Are you even paying attention, or just mass spamming/trolling?

We’re talking about UK1.  Not US6.

i do not think he is purposefully spamming, but he is spamming. i have just read many salothsar responses that are one word or less than a full sentence. his posts do not add anything to most threads. he posts opinions as if his are superior to others and has made personal attacks.

salothsar, i recommend you be less negative towards others.

@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!