@Cmdr:
I can see that, James. Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.
I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.
That being said, there is a huge difference between capturing the required number of victory cities and total victory. In a few of our games, we decided to keep playing even though the Axis won with victory cities. In just about every game, eventually the Allies end up overcoming the Axis.
I don’t think the game designers made an attempt to balance the game with total victory in mind. They tried to set it up so the Axis have a chance at winning the game via Victory cities if they play aggressively early on. If they play too conservatively the Allied economic advantage will wear them down over time. The same thing tends to happen if you play on to total victory.
@Cmdr:
Larry gave them [the US] WAY too much money to spend, in my opinion.
Again, I think that was by design to put a clock on the Axis. If they don’t get their Victory Cities quickly enough the US’s power will close their window of opportunity permanently. If you weaken the US you give the Axis more of a shot at winning via Total Victory or a longer term Victory City win. But those games take longer to play out. I think Larry and Co. wanted a game that could be played in fewer turns - at some point either the Axis has won or it becomes obvious the Axis will never win (though it may take time grind them down). With a weaker US a stalemate is more likeley to develop, with neither side having the omph to drive to victory, at least until one side makes a key mistake or gets a great run of dice luck.
It is just one. If the Axis achieves one of the two, it wins.
Pardon the ignorant question, but how do you play with LL?
In Low Luck you add up the Attack points (or Defense points) of the units, and for every multiple of 6 you get a hit, and you roll one die for any left over points to see if you get an additional hit. Attack/Defense points are what that unit hits on.
So 4 Inf on defense have 4*2=8 Defense Points. They get one auto hit and roll a die and get a second hit on 2 or less.
4 Inf, 1 Art, and 2 Tanks on the Attack have (3+2+2+6) 13 Attack Points, so two auto hits and a third hit on a 1.
What Ruanek plays is no luck, where no dice are ever rolled. I think how that works similar but if the leftover points is 3 or less there is no addtional hit, and there is an additional auto hit if the leftover points are 4 or more.
@Cmdr:
If you weaken India, then Russia - by necessity - becomes weaker!
If you want to weaken Russia, then weaken Russia. Don’t weaken India in the hope that it will indirectly weaken Russia.
Anyways, you can never just concentrate on one theater for 3 straight turns unless you plan on losing. You have to give some to Europe side of the board.
That is open to debate. There is some lively discussion in some other threads about the US going 100% in the Pacific in the beginning of the game (about 7-8 turns) in order to crush Japan as an effective fighting force before turning to Europe. The claim is that this strategy overwhelmingly favors the Allies.
I’m not the one making the claim (not sure of it myself), but there are those who would strongly disagree that you can’t concentrate on one side of the board for 3+ turns.
<lurker mode=“” off=“”>The Fnal Countdown. Pretty good little flick.</lurker>
@Cmdr:
As for not impinging on strategy A without leaving strategy C to be abused, the only real solution to this was my solution of requiring America to spend what they earn on each side of the board. THere was never a limitation that they could not then move it to the other side, just like there is no limitation that England or India could not move units from board to board. However, it WOULD force America to delay moving units into one side or the other by at least a round, sometimes two rounds. That gives Japan breathing room against an “all in” allied strategy, maybe enough room that Germany can manage to capture the last victory city they need before America comes pummelling in with carpet bombers and walls of meat (infantry) to stop them.
I disagree this the only real solution, I think shifting some US NO $$ as I mentioned is a real and probably better solution.
For your idea to be a good solution it depends on a one or two turn delay before the US can contain Japan being enough for Germany/Italy to win. And keep in mind that while this would introduce a delay in containing Japan, by the same token the US would have a partial build already in the East one turn closer to Europe when it does switch focus. So Germany/Italy would not get the full benefit of the delay.
Another idea, if Japan is limited to 20 IPC or less, the German war machine goes in hyper-drive, German factories can produce more units, thus Germany gets + 10 IPC and italy gets +3 IPC. That would encourage the allies to contain both Japan and Germany at about equal levels. Likewise, if Germany is limited to 20 IPC or less, Japan gets + 10 IPC NO.
This would give a boost to the Axis no matter which strategy is being employed by the Allies. It is not targetted enough towards Strat C.
I don’t think people are claiming the game is unbalanced overall, but some are claiming that one strategy is unbalanced.
IF that strategy is unbalanced, then the game is unbalanced. Why would you play any other strategy if there is one that will win you the game every time?
True enough, but the trick is to fix the unbalanced strategy without breaking balanced strategies.
Strat C) US goes 100% after Japan and ignores Europe for the most part at the start of the game. The CLAIM is that the US and Pacific Allies can contain Japan before Germany/Italy can win on the Europe board, and then the US can turn its attention 100% on Europe and that the Allies will eventually win the game due to economics. Note that this claim is as yet unproven, and some (including Krieghund) have doubts as the whether Japan can be reliably contained before the Axis achieve victory in Europe.
I also have doubts about this, as everything I read is vague, and the games I’ve seen, Axis are winning some.
I too have my doubts about this, but as I said I think steps should be taken even if Strat C is balanced. In other words, the burden of proof for fixes shouldn’t be “Prove Strat C is unbalanced in favor of the Allies” but “Prove Strat C is at least viable for the Allies.” This assumes you feel as I do that the US going 100% in one direction is not desirable.
My problem is that I don’t like that the Europe side could be a complete lost cause to the Allies, but they win the game if Japan is conquered.
Not sure what you mean here. The current victory conditions of Alpha+ .2 require the Allies to conquer all 3 Axis capitals to win. So the Allies would not win in this case.
Or that Germany is conquered, Italy is hanging by a thread, but Japan wins the game. I don’t like that.
It seems this should only really happen if the US was trying what I called Strat B (or close to it). Basically in this case the US put too much emphasis on Europe and not enough on Japan and so lost the game. I think that is where we want to be – forcing the US to carefully balance its commitments to both regions lest one get out of hand.
I’d like VCs combined again, probably to 13 (or bid for them). I would say that would then require the US split it’s income. I’d play that with someone.
I don’t think that will work. I believe the reason they went to split VC was they found that there was no workable number of combined VC. Either the number was too low and the Axis could reliably blitz to victory before the US could mobilize. Or the number was too high and the US could go 100% one way and kill/contain that side before the other side could gain enough VC to win. And then the US could just switch focus the other way and grind them down.
Again, if you feel the game is unbalanced - meaning allies always win - give more bomus money to Japan
I don’t think people are claiming the game is unbalanced overall, but some are claiming that one strategy is unbalanced.
There are three high level strategies for the Allies, or more specifically the US.
Strat A) US spends some money in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters from the start. I think most feel the game is pretty balanced in this case.
Strat B) US goes 100% after Europe and ignores Japan for the most part at the start of the game. This is a losing strategy for the Allies as Japan can pretty easily win victory in the Pacific with little US intervention there. So a smart allied player won’t try it.
Strat C) US goes 100% after Japan and ignores Europe for the most part at the start of the game. The CLAIM is that the US and Pacific Allies can contain Japan before Germany/Italy can win on the Europe board, and then the US can turn its attention 100% on Europe and that the Allies will eventually win the game due to economics. Note that this claim is as yet unproven, and some (including Krieghund) have doubts as the whether Japan can be reliably contained before the Axis achieve victory in Europe.
Any proposed solution to fix a potential imbalance in Strat C must not impact Strat A. So ideas such as giving more money/equipment to Japan (or Italy) are bad ideas unless you feel the Allies have the advantage even if the US is dividing its spending.
Really the only thing that can be done to “fix” Strat C without changing the balance in Strat A is something that would weaken the US if they pursue Strat C but not weaken them if they pursue Strat A. Alternatively it could be something that strengthens the Axis in the event of Strat C but not Strat A. The easiest way to weaken the US if they go C but not A is to move some of the US NO money from its core territories (such as Mexico) and put it in harm’s way on the Europe board. But it must be put there in places the Axis can easily take if the US ignores the Europe board, but that the Allies can easily take if the US puts some effort into the Europe board. Various suggestions have been put forth on this thread involving shifting the Mexico NO to the Africa/Med theater and I think this is the best way to go.
There is still the issue as to whether Strat C is actually broken – does it really give the Allies an advantage? And if it does not, do we need any fixes? I would argue that even if Strat C is merely balanced we should implement a fix since having the US go 100% in one direction is an undesirable situation for the fun factor overall. Of course if we find that Strat C is just as much a losing proposition for the Allies and Strat B we don’t have to do anything since Strat C will die out just as Strat B has.
@Cmdr:
No it didn’t. India is taken on turn 3 using TTs. No complex was ever needed.
Then your version of the India crush should work just the same regardless of Alpha 2 or OOB rules. In both versions you start with 3 transports.
I’ll leave it to Jim to elaborate, but I think you are wrong. I’m pretty sure Alpha “broke” the J3 India Crush gambit.
The India crush relied on a major industrial complex in Malaya. In the alpha 2 rules, Japan could not have a major industrial complex in Malaya since Malaya isn’t an originally orange territory. Thus, the India crush would be abated, for the most part, as it is in Alpha 2 the way it is currently.
No it didn’t. India is taken on turn 3 using TTs. No complex was ever needed.
Jim, since you are the expert on the J3 India Crush I put this question to you. Assmuming OOB setup with Alpha 2 rules, do you think the J3 India Crush is the best strategy for Japan in the Global Game when faced with a US going 100% Pacific?
If it is, I don’t think going back to the OOB setup is a good idea. To be honest I don’t think it is a good idea in general, but that would seal the deal.
@Cmdr:
My, unscientific, untested hypothesis is that the rule set for Alpha 2 with only the one modification of using the original setup charts provided with the rules in the box, may balance things out. That is, one would use the original setup for the global 1940 game, but use the rule adjustments given in Alpha 2. (National Objectives, Non-Aggression Treaty, etc.)
Wouldn’t this just revive the J3 India Crush? Or is the J3 India Crush not as much of a game breaker in Global as it was in stand-alone Pacific?
You can move FTR’s & Tacs into SZ’s during the combat move phase, in the event your enemy possibly scrambles aircraft?
Yes, you can do this. Since there could potentially be combat, if the defender scrambles, it is a legal combat move.
One thing that may worth considering here is that shifting some US NOs over to the Atlantic may be better for the overall fun factor of the game.
Even if the “US 100% Pacific” strat isn’t broken, but merely viable, do we want it to be viable? Isn’t one of the design goals to have the US be at least somewhat active on both boards? In previous versions of AaA, KGF (to the point of basically ignoring Japan with the US) became a common and effective strategy. G40/Alpha2 took great pains to make sure ignoring Japan with the US is no longer viable. I would assume that allowing the US to instead go KJF and ignore Europe is equally undesirable.
I wish these forums still had a way to give a “thumbs up” or “postive karma” or whatever to signify approval of a post so I could give it to mantlefan’s.
I suppose there could be a third camp, that mantlefan may be part of, that says “If US goes all Pacific, it is a 50-50 shot that the Axis could win on the Europe side before the US can neutralize Japan.”
I guess this camp would say that the game is already balanced in the face of a US all-Pacific strat, and that moving US NOs to the Atlantic side would imbalance things too much towards the Axis since it would slow down the US too much on the Pacific side, giving the Axis a better than 50-50 shot on the Europe side.
I agree that moving some of the US NOs to the Atlantic side of the board is a good idea to encourage US involvement there.
It seems to me that most on boards are in one of two camps.
Camp One – “The game is unbalanced towards the Allies if US goes all-in on the Pacific side and ignore the Atlantic side.” Obviously this camp would want incentives for the US not to ignore the Atlantic.
Camp Two – “If the US ignores Europe, Germany/Italy will win, therefore the US can’t ignore Europe.” Those in this camp already split the US income between the boards. Therefore they should not mind if some of the US NOs are tied to territories they are already fighting for on the Atlantic side.
So moving some of the NOs should at worst have little effect on game balance, and at best improve game balance.
Though I don’t think having the moved US NOs be based on London’s lack of capture is a good idea. If Germany does not go Sea Lion there would be no change in US income and the US could freely concentrate on the Pacific. I think the NOs are better shifted to the North Africa/Med/Mideast areas of the board. This area of the board can be contested by both sides and can go back and forth no matter what grand strategy is being employed, unlike an all-or-nothing Sea Lion gambit.
PS – I also think the Super Battleship idea is too complicated.
PPS – I also think the “abandoned ships” reference in regards to Pearl was tasteless.
I hate in Alpha 2 the DEI restriction on Japan. The US shouldn’t be able to declare war till they are attacked or the collect income phase of turn 3.
I agree that attacking the DEI should not provoke the US into war. But if this change is made, the DEI should be added to that 10 point NO that Japan loses if they attack FIC. So I’m not sure how much of a net plus the change would be for Japan. I guess being able to prevent India/ANZ from claiming at least some of the DEI makes it worthwhile, but it wouldn’t be a huge economic windfall for Japan.
I also agree the North Africa NO for US instead of the Mexico/Cent Am./West Ind. NO sounds good.
But be sure to clarify, the planes are not “on the AC”. They are in the air, and cannot be trapped on the AC if the sub hits (but they won’t be able to land on the AC and will need a landing space within 1 move).
If subs attack an AC, isn’t it the option of the defending AC whether or not to put the planes in the air? If there is no landing place within one move it might be better to leave the planes on board. If they launch and the AC takes a hit but survives, the planes would splash since they can’t land on a damaged AC. In that case it would have been better for the planes to stay on the AC. The planes would be trapped on the damaged AC until the AC can get repaired, but at least they would be alive.