If this has been covered on the boards already, I apologize, I haven't been able to follow all the threads.
It appears to us that the eventual axis win both times was attributable to Japan building forces their full 3 turns, focusing on taking out China during that time period and poising themselves across the pacific to defend against an American attack. As long as the Japanese do not attack the US in the pacific, there is no other way for the US to enter war against Japan, correct?
Europe played out VERY evenly (congratulations on that design!), requiring a bit of American intervention to keep Germany and Italy from getting to their key cities, as it should be.
The game got to a stage where it looked like key cities would just keep going back and forth, but the problem is that nobody ever got, or could get, close to taking Tokyo. Japan's defensive build-up with essentially free territory pick-ups in China basically guaranteed an Axis win with Europe being so balanced.
ANZAC never did much (but did keep Sydney to the end), UK pacific lost Calcutta around turn 5 or 6 and never really recovered. Russia made a small push, but never was able to commit anything to backing it up, and Japan eventually gained that ground back, shortly before winning.
None of us are incredibly experienced players - any suggestions on how to avoid Japan's early moves setting up a nearly unstoppable blockade (assuming Europe continues in stalemate) would be appreciated.
Barring some really good rolls, not a lot. Alpha 2 is too much disbalanced in Axis favor, my gaming group has found this also. Its too easy to beat down Russia to 25 IPCs or so at which point Germany only needs to plough in 40-45 or so to win and can slowly start building to defend against Anglo-American landings. A powerful German fleet, having added a few subs each turn can help deter Allied fleet for some time.Grindcrusher wrote:We are now on turn7 on our Alpha+2 game. Russia did everything in it's power from game start to hold the front. No distractions on the pacific board. Germany did pretty much the exact same thing as in last game, invading on 2nd turn.
Moscow has now fallen, turn 7. Seen it coming from G2... 105 IPC in the Berlin bank next round. 16 of those are from taking moscow, the rest from territories and NO.
My question is, how are you supposed to do anything about Germany taking Soviet? And when this happens, how are you supposed to stop Germany from taking Egypt and winning the game?
Some people think Germany winning most of the time = balance. I'll stick to Alpha 1I've read how a lot of you find A+2 very well balanced, and I know you are all probably very experienced players (I've only been playing A&A for about a year), but I just can't see it. Am I missing something?! How on earth is Soviet supposed to fight of the invaders?? Germany having the whole of Soviet feels like game over...
I think I agree with you here. Game seems a little too much in axis favor. And the problem is on the Eastern Front. What innitially looked to be a dynamic front now looks to be a direct push back to moscow. If Russia diverts forces to try to hold their IC's the german army takes Moscow. Smash the small army, then procede with push. By turn 6 or 7 Russia is contained in Moscow and Germany collects A TON of cash via NO's. Granted, Moscow doesn't fall on the initial thrust, but a 10-20 IPC (depending on weather Russia has surrendered the SFE) income for Russia won't hold out very long when she is isolated as she is in G40. A good axis player will be able to execute this every time. I am not sure what the remedy is.
more pieces for Russia?
fewer for Germany?
a couple NO's for Russia? (persian supply route NO?)
fewer German NO's?
I'll say this: mech inf have opened a can of worms. They've REPLACED armor on the Eastern Front instead of augmenting them.
Well, compared to Alpha+.1 Germany now has enough resources to take Moscow, but that's only a good thing because with alpha+.1 Germany simply couldn't take it before turn 9-10 even if the US and UK were not menacing the West at all. Now Germany can indeed win Russia and the only way to stop it is to force it to defend the western coast.m7574 wrote:
I think I agree with you here. Game seems a little too much in axis favor.
Moscow can resist only if the US get to UK and Western Europe (preferably soon), and this sure can be done, even now. A possible issue is to understand whether the Allies have a fair game in holding back the Axis in both the Atlantic and the Pacific at the same time and reach an economy powerful enough to win the game, but that can be only assessed through a number of games being actually played, and the eastern front is only one part of the whole picture.
My opinion now is that game seems to be balanced, or anyway more balanced than before, but I played only one game, and the only thing I could assess was the fireworks of the eastern front, with close battles, strategy and tactics developed like never before, and the edge was actually Russian. So the eastern front seemed quite good to me (at least if started on turn 4 after a successful SeaLion). What happened in your games?
I have a question concerning the following new victory conditions:
5. Victory Conditions
The game ends after one side or the other achieves one of its objective, listed below, and maintains it for a complete round of play. In addition, a side must control at least one of its own capitals at the end of that round in order to win.
A. Victory for the Allies if: All Axis capitals are under allied control.
B. Victory for the axis if they control 6 of the 8 victory cities on the Pacific board.
C. Victory for the axis if they control 8 of the 11 victory cities on the Europe board.
Does this new rule mean that the Axis need only achieve B or C? Or does it mean that the Axis must achieve both B and C for a total of 14 victory cities? Can rule change number 5 be altered in some way so your intent can be made more clear?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests