Please elaborate.
Possible Changes from Larry
-
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568&start=240
I found this on Larry’s website today. What do you think of the possible changes?
-
Nice, but he did not adress the “True Neutral” issue. It must be possible to attack a True Neutral without the rest of the world turning against you.
The most radical change is that AA-guns will be destroyed, and not captured. I always said that AA-guns should be in nation specific colours.
-
Nice, but he did not adress the “True Neutral” issue. It must be possible to attack a True Neutral without the rest of the world turning against you.
I agree, nor did he address the issue of the UK1 Taranto attack.
-
The most radical change is that AA-guns will be destroyed, and not captured. I always said that AA-guns should be in nation specific colours.
Finally another victory. Been saying that for 5 years
-
Nice, but he did not adress the “True Neutral” issue. It must be possible to attack a True Neutral without the rest of the world turning against you.
I agree, nor did he address the issue of the UK1 Taranto attack.
He also did not address the issue of the entire Home Fleet dying on G1
-
On the bright side, at least the US NO will be split into sub-categories and it will actually give them a reason to fight in the pacific.
-
Don’t worry, somebody will try still ignore Japan :-D
-
I have to say that I like some of the changes and not some of the others. At first I thought they were making the allies stronger(which is not needed) but I like the changes to the USA NO. I don’t think it really stops the USA from going germany first though 15 ipc isn’t a huge loss.
-
-
@Larry:
**I see a slightly reinforced UK in both the Eur40 game and the Global game. I’d like to keep the sealion attack possible – if you want those kinds of kicks, but I’d also like to give the UK player a more interesting experience. I’m looking for a new UK setup that will make Sealion less tempting for Germany. At the same time I want to maintain that exciting possibility. I’m thinking of adding another French infantry and perhaps another Brit infantry to the UK’s setup. I’m also considering allowing a very special rule uniquely for Great Britain. British Government in exile. The UK’s capital is automatically transferred to Canada should the UK fall to a Sealion. The Germans would still gain the British unspent IPCs but the British player can remain in the game directing his remaining forces. I also want to pay a tribute to the ANZAC forces by adding another ANZAC infantry to Egypt. I also want to add another to New South Wales.
Sincerely,
Larry Harris
Creator of Axis & Allies**I think this change is one that needs to be play tested very thoroughly before we are gung-ho about implementing this.
If the UK is going to get two more infantry, that makes Sealion statistically much harder to do. It is very costly to do even now because of the very heavy naval build that it requires Germany to do. By allowing UK Europe to effectively remain in the game by collecting income and build in Canada, you have vastly reduced the incentive for Germany to even do Sealion in the first place! A large part of the incentive for the current Sealion attack is that you deprive the Allies of the UK Europe money for a number of rounds. Without that incentive, would an even harder Sealion attack be worth it?
-
I have to say that I like some of the changes and not some of the others. At first I thought they were making the allies stronger(which is not needed) but I like the changes to the USA NO. I don’t think it really stops the USA from going germany first though 15 ipc isn’t a huge loss.
True but that is still one less fully loaded transport or bomber headed to Europe.
-
You can bomb from greenland I believe.
-
Alantic ocean needs to be BIGGER
-
I have to say that I like some of the changes and not some of the others. At first I thought they were making the allies stronger(which is not needed) but I like the changes to the USA NO. I don’t think it really stops the USA from going germany first though 15 ipc isn’t a huge loss.
True but that is still one less fully loaded transport or bomber headed to Europe.
This is true however I don’t think its enough to make a difference IMO.
-
@Larry:
**I see a slightly reinforced UK in both the Eur40 game and the Global game. I’d like to keep the sealion attack possible – if you want those kinds of kicks, but I’d also like to give the UK player a more interesting experience. I’m looking for a new UK setup that will make Sealion less tempting for Germany. At the same time I want to maintain that exciting possibility. I’m thinking of adding another French infantry and perhaps another Brit infantry to the UK’s setup. I’m also considering allowing a very special rule uniquely for Great Britain. British Government in exile. The UK’s capital is automatically transferred to Canada should the UK fall to a Sealion. The Germans would still gain the British unspent IPCs but the British player can remain in the game directing his remaining forces. I also want to pay a tribute to the ANZAC forces by adding another ANZAC infantry to Egypt. I also want to add another to New South Wales.
Sincerely,
Larry Harris
Creator of Axis & Allies**I think this change is one that needs to be play tested very thoroughly before we are gung-ho about implementing this.
If the UK is going to get two more infantry, that makes Sealion statistically much harder to do. It is very costly to do even now because of the very heavy naval build that it requires Germany to do. By allowing UK Europe to effectively remain in the game by collecting income and build in Canada, you have vastly reduced the incentive for Germany to even do Sealion in the first place! A large part of the incentive for the current Sealion attack is that you deprive the Allies of the UK Europe money for a number of rounds. Without that incentive, would an even harder Sealion attack be worth it?
With the US being forced into the Pacific with some units, I don’t think this will make much difference. You will definitely see less effort in Europe by the US with these changes. By the way, it only brings G3 Sealion closer to 50-60% chance of winning, G4 is still unstoppable. So I say…Go Canada!!!
Definitely need to beef up the Italian navy though.
-
My friend when the dice betray you nothing is unstopable lol.
-
With the US being forced into the Pacific with some units, I don’t think this will make much difference. You will definitely see less effort in Europe by the US with these changes. By the way, it only brings G3 Sealion closer to 50-60% chance of winning, G4 is still unstoppable. So I say…Go Canada!!!
Definitely need to beef up the Italian navy though.
Yes, but a G4 sealion is pretty late isn’t it? It leaves Germany out of position with russia breathing down their neck. And at only 50-60% chance of a win, who will ever perform the sealion on G3? I don’t know about you, but I’m loathe to make an all-in attack that I can’t retreat from if something goes wrong in the first round of combat. And since it doesn’t guarantee a win, now it seems even more risky as the payoff has never guaranteed itself to deliver.
-
I’m interested in the Japanese attempts to get “their” victory cities. Admittedly most of my games are played with global domination in mind. Eliminate your ability to fight then figure out where the Axis victory cities are lol.
The minor IC thing. Japan having to defend too many territories in SE Asia rather sucks for the Axis. Then again limiting that Norway American major factory helps.
-
I wonder about the major ic thing because japan starts with Chinese labeled territories and of japan can’t build a major ic the. It will severly limit their capability to wage war. If their isn’t an exception for japan because their starting in that territory would make it on of their starting territories. I’m courious to see how that will be done
-
These changes are awesome. Gonna get to work on testing them out sometime this week.
Suggested Topics
