I created a Macro-enabled worksheet to help with the banking in AA Global, Alpha +2. It keeps track of income, bonus and banks for each of the 9 countries (with separate banks for UK), and has a handy purchase calculator for tracking your buys. I’ve recently added an archive sheet, so you have a visual representation of the economies.

Installation:

You’ll need Excel 2007 (maybe 2003 will work, I’m not sure) to use this spreadsheet – make sure to enable macros.

1. Download the spreadsheet.
2. Rename the extension from .xls to .xlsm (I had to change it to upload it to this forum).
3. Open the renamed spreadsheet.

AAG40_Bank_Alpha2.xls
Instructions.doc

• Buy mobile ground units (I prefer mechs only)

• Take France and Normandy with all available ground and enough aircraft to ensure as little tank losses as possible (and no airplane losses).

• Use remaining airforce, navy and subs to sink as much of the fleet around the British Isles as possible (use subs against the non-destroyer stacks when possible)

• Move infantry and artillary from southern germany and at least one of the Romanian infantry into Yugo and retreat after first round of combat to Romania

• Land 2 of the France attack planes in Italy to protect italian fleet.

• Take Finland and Bulgaria.

This strategy neutralizes the immediate UK threat while setting you up for a G2 Barbarossa. Also, even without the additional German navy/transports, the UK player will need to spend some of their income to stop Sealion – the last time I used this strategy, the UK player saw my Barbarossa tell, went full into Africa on UK1, trusting on a lone surviving cruiser to stop Sealion. On I1, I flew my Italian airforce up and sunk the crusier, and I was able to take London G2 with a single loaded transport, battleship support and the remaining German airforce.

Low Luck works in favor of the Allies – at least in the early game.

The Axis start with the more mobile army, giving them more flexibility in the early game. Flexible units enables a flexible strategy – if one of your battles goes sour, you can pull your reinforcing tanks back to attack another front; if you roll better than expected for a battle, maybe you want to pour into the gap using units you were saving for another battle. This flexibility and unpredictablilty is one of the best tools the Axis have in the first few rounds (and given the number of “Alpha 2 is unbalanced for the Allies” posts, one of the least appreciated).

Low Luck takes all of that unpredictablity away. I couldn’t imagine trying to conquer Russia as Germany if the Russians could see exactly what they needed to keep in each territory to perfectly defend. In my regular games, sometimes I win those close battles and sometimes I lose, but my advantage comes from my ability to react to the randomness, not from “getting lucky”.

There is an additional effect on game play balance, because Low Luck favors one type of player over the other. The players who spend hours staring at the intial set-up, hatching the perfect plan of attack or defense love Low Luck, because with the exception of some small battles, there’s no chance that the dice will derail their plans. The players who are skilled at quickly adjusting their strategy to the changing battlefield (i.e., the players that always seem to find a way to attack that one weak spot you thought was out of harm’s way) find the usefulness of their skills diminished. When the game goes as predicted, there’s less chance to find the hidden opportunities that seem to pepper regular games.

Low Luck basically turns Axis and Allies from a messy war simulator into a complicated game of chess. Whether or not that’s what you’re looking for, keep in mind that it takes away an advantage for both the Axis and players who are skilled at making quick adjustments to strategy in an unpredictable environment.

China wasn’t producing its own combat aircraft until the mid-50’s.

Remember that in the Alpha +2 rules, West India income goes to India and Western Canada income goes to London.

In well-meaning discussions to improve this game, I’m seeing a lot of historical “facts” stated, and sometimes they’re completely inaccurate.

If you’re going to make a historical claim, please cite a source.

There has been so much written about this war that it’s ridiculous that we should be spreading misinformation.

Here’s a free State Dep. resource for pre-war conditions: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/paw/

As Japan, I like to spend the first three turns building and loading transports in preparation for my attack. I stage forces at Japan and the Carolines.  If you keep a big enough force in the Carolines ready for your first strike, you can put some pressure on Anzac to build (ultimately useless) infantry instead of a fighter or small navy. I wouldn’t recommend actually going for NSW unless it’s a slam dunk, (partly because it isn’t too hard for the US to retake and partly because it’s way out of your way), but if the Anzac player ignores your Carolines fleet, it can be very satisfying to snatch Syndey for a few rounds. If they bulk up their defense, I go for more conventional J3 targets (PH, DEI, Hawaii and the 7 NO islands). I always try to take the Solomons if I can, netting up to 15 lost IPCs a round for the allies.

When the Pacific war is in full swing, the state of the central Pacific usually depends on whether or not I was able to grab Hawaii (I’m a big fan of that move unless the US is going all out in the Pacific, in which case I just make the battles slow and ugly until Germany wins it all). If Hawaii is in my hands, I’ll usually send a small fleet down to take New Zealand, more to keep Anzac occupied than for the money. Basically, if Anzac is focused on liberating their islands, they won’t be landing fighters on recent US captures. If the US decides to help Anzac retake New Zealand, all the better. As Japan I would love it if a distraction like New Zealand occupied the navies of two of my opponents.

I also have the latest macro-enabled Excel spreadsheet available if anybody wants that. It keeps track of Income, Bonuses, and Banks and has a calculator for unit purchases. It also archives the banks at the end of each turn and creates a graph, so you can review the progress of each country in the game.

I’m a little surprised that Sealion or Romanian Major are the two “standard strategies” for Germany. I wouldn’t use either one if I really wanted to win Europe.

I’ve found that buying mechs almost exclusively for the first three turns as Germany (with a little left over for subs or whatever other little things you might need) puts too much pressure on Russia for them to handle. If they turtle to Moscow, grab their other victory cities and head for the Middle East/Caucus money. If they try to defend everything, position your full force in the middle and attack the weakest of the three cities, of just go for Moscow.

I still not seeing the unbalance in alpha +2 that you’re talking about. How exactly are the Allies beating you that you don’t see any way to counter?

Also, suggesting that the US split their income with the existing Alpha +2 victory conditions doesn’t make any sense to me.

Think about it: for a forced US income split to give an advantage to the Axis, the US had to have been winning the game by dumping all of its income into one theater, otherwise you wouldn’t need to force a split. Given the “either theater” victory conditions for the Axis in +2, this also means that the Axis, left completely alone by the US in one of the theaters, can’t get the necessary victory cities.

Really?

You’re saying that if the US goes all out in the Pacific, your Germany can’t take the necessary Russian cities? That if the US goes for a Europe only strategy, your Japan can’t become a monster?

As the Axis, you only need to win one of the boards to win the game. You’re claiming that the Axis can’t win one a board without any US involvment at all. I think you need to revisit your Axis strategy.