Was KJF really that bad?

I agree with Simon’s conclusion that Moscow falls G6. No need for Sea lion after UK1 DOW on Japan. This game is going to end very badly for the Allies unless the Axis player is very weak. Play some tougher competition!

Ok So first priority is to prevent any German Sealion Attacks. For this you would build Infantry and a few fighters.

You should have about 25-30 income so a Fighter and 6 inf isn’t out of the question.

Once you have secured you home island its time to consider offensive operations.

A good idea is to reinforce Africa ASAP. If you have managed to grab Persia or secure Egypt a factory here is a good way to boost India’s Defenses or annoy Italy.

Amphibious operations against France or Norway can also be considered but this will require many turns investment in fleet building or else the ships will be sunk as quickly as they are built. Typically a decent fleet will need carriers, destroyers and subs to protect the transports.

Typical build might be (

tank + Mech + Inf = 13 (for S-AFRICA)
Plane (str  ftr or tac) 10 - 12
1-2 inf to round out purchases

After about turn 5 you will see which way game is going (based on uS pacific v Atlantic focus) Then you can turn your attention to helping India or reinforcing US moves in Europe.

@Ichabod:

From my perspective when playing Axis…

From my perspective, the Jedi are evil… oh wait… wrong thread…  :-P

@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.

@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

First things first, watch the economics,  as long as you are making MORE money, you are in charge,  and can trade piece for piece all day.

Second thing, remember you only need to NOT LOSE Hawaii and NSW.  Get stacks of ground units into those territories - mixed with planes + an AA and hold.

Third,  as often as possible build Transports and Men.  Take islands, forcing Japan to take them back, even if it costs you the tran to steal the territory in the first place.  Again, try to watch the economics here.

What this all does - is dilute’s Japan’s ability to focus it’s economics on one specific target.  If Japan can’t focus and take it’s objectives, it can’t win.  If you slowly start to swing the economic balance in your favour - 1 island at a time, eventually Japan will run out of gas - and because they lose - you win.

It’s all a widdling factor.  Widdle widdle widdle till you win

@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!