Posts made by Stockus13

Rolls: 10@1; Total Hits: 310@1: (5, 5, 6, 6, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1)

Rolls: 10@2; Total Hits: 510@2: (3, 1, 1, 5, 4, 1, 3, 2, 6, 1)

Rolls: 10@3; Total Hits: 610@3: (2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3)

Rolls: 1@2 1@3; Total Hits: 11@2: (1)1@3: (6)

Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 01@2: (3)

Yeah this is a problem I have faced before. At the start Germany can out produce Russia. But once your supply lines get stretched  the Russians begin to outnumber you. Also in order to bring new units to the front you have to spend more money on tanks and mech, while the Russians buy cheap units in bulk.

Once you are dealing with regular invasions, or threats of invasion Russia is spending more on the front than Germany is.

The last two face to face games I played the Russians actually attacked the German stack. One time it reduced the army to a shell and I had to fall back to Lenningrad. The second time the Russians outnumberd Germany 80-60, and they destroyed the main army.

I could have countered with resereves but that was the game.

It is very tough for the Germans to kill the Russians. As it should be. I guess it makes the Axis vistories all the sweeter when they are achieved.

I have played all OOB set-up games in person. And several Alpha games online. Between firsthand experience and what I have seen online I have come to several conclusions.

1. The Global game favors the allies in both set-ups.

2. The Axis need average to good dice to have a chace, especially in the early game.

3. Alpha redueces the starting units for both sides……but hurts Japan’s ability to defend itself in the later rounds vs. the USA

In Pacific Alpha seems to work fine. The issue is if Japan attacks R1 in Global both Italy, and Germany are in a world of hurt.

Sealion becomes much harder, and the USA can re-take the UK much sooner even if Sealion is successful.

4. Alpha helps Japan on the mainland for the first few turns as it has some more inf…but hinders its ability to expand and hold islands (its main source of income)

5. The USA has that massive income that never really decreases. 80 IPC going into whatever side of the map it wants. That is more than either Japan, or Germany ever reach alone in almost every game.

The economic balance is set up greatly favoring the allies, and in every game I have played the Axis have never gained economic superiority over the Allies. In some games they have  had better position, but not more money.

I am not saying the game is broken. But it is much harder for the Axis to get victories using the current set-up, OOB or Alpha.

Yeah even if Italy can stop the subs they will not have enough cash for land units to hold Africa.

The convoy raiding would effectively take them out of the game.

From what I have seen online it looks like Alpha is fine for balancing Pacific, but gives the Allies the edge in Global.

Has anyone else had similar thoughts on the balance?

Sure I’m up for E40. What side do you prefer?

I am up for a Global Game, I have my own board, no battlemap.

I am easy with either Axis, or Allies.

PM me if interested.

Rolls: 4@1 4@2 5@3 1@4; Total Hits: 74@1: (6, 3, 2, 3)4@2: (2, 5, 5, 6)5@3: (3, 3, 3, 1, 1)1@4: (4)

It does seem that a gradual buildup for the US would be both more historical and balance the game better. 52 IPC a turn while at peace is a huge ammount of money.

As far as representing history in this type of game……it’s impossible and we could agrue for hours on it.

1. Yes the USA should have more money when at war to represent history. Russia would have a stronger economy later as well.

2. On the other hand the German Army was incredibly massive when compared to all other powers but the Russians.

Troop quality, tank quality, etc. could all be argued. Manpower, and leadership as well.

Why not have Italy be unable to function because of poor historical performance?

The point is this is a fun casual war game to play for fun. If we want to play an exact replica of history then this is not the game to do it in. Just my 2 cents.

The only problem with ignoring them all together is that they can begin to earn alot of money. 12 IPC’s+6 for the Burma road each turn. And that is before they take any other territiory.

If you let China buld 6 inf a turn for several turns, those units add up.

I’m going with the ME-110. Very good overall fighter.

I’m going with the Tiger. Gotta love that armor, and having an 88 for a main gun :)

Plus it is just great to look at.

The real problem is that Russsia starts the war with you by taking Korea. That forces Japan to tackle both China and Russia, or risk losing its foothold on the mainland.

It is a balancing act that is hard to master. Japan can not spread itself too thin in China, but it needs to if it wants to carry out the war in other areas at the same time.

China can be a royal pain, especially if the Burma road remains open.

How do you do that as Japan and still take all the Islands needed, and put pressure on India?

Japan gets spread too thin in our games and does not have enough infantry to take out China. Especially with dealing with Russia slowing you down a trun.

So, the topic speaks for its self. How long does China last in your games.

In the 2 Global games I played so far China has thrived, and is almost impossible to stomp out.

In one game China pushed Japan almost off of the mainland!!

In my groups games we have had one draw leaning towards the allies after 6 turns, called for time.

And we have had one axis victory. The big difference in the games was mostly due to dice, and where the US decided to go.

It seems so far that the game is very well balanced if both sides have equal skill levels, slight allied advantage.

I do have to say that Germany and Japan need to be played by experienced players, one small mistake and it costs them the game.

Yes it actually happened in a game I played last night. The USA massed at Hawaii, and spent all in the pacific turn 1. Turn 2  it went with a more balanced buy, but it kept Japan from expanding as quickly as it could have. Russia also attacked Korea, and was a pest for several rounds.

Japan attacked the UK, and USA on turn 3……but the pacific build and Russian attacks were key in slowing Japan down.

In the end Japan held on long enough for Germany to take all three Russian factories on turn 7. The USA had a massive fleet, but Japan was still making 40 each turn, and had a massive airforce. We mock rolled the battle that would have taken place the next turn if the USA would have attacked…Japan won with 8 fighters remaining in its SZ. USA would have won the land battle if it had won the sea battle.

Second full game of global the first was a draw slightly favoring the allies, this was the first win for the Axis.

If USA had gone full KJF it may have been slightly harder to win.

So from reading on the forums it looks like some test groups only got to try the game three times……

Was that the case forevery test group? It does not seem like all the kinks an balance is likely to be worked out in so few games.

We are now running into issues like the USA building the major IC in Norway, Japans starting air units, USA going KGF…

Anyone else feel that even if the game is not badly unbalanced that it still could have used some more play testing sessions?

Paris G1. Took it with 1 tank remaining. Ouch.