Russian tanks are great if Germany decides to swing down towards the Middle East instead of a straight march to Moscow. They are not going prevent the stackwalk any better than artillery except perhaps if the calculations show that the extra firepower will slow down a critical step like Rostov or Belarus. Hence it could be good to build the tanks on turns 3 or 4, depending on the German DoW. No need for them on Round 1.
Latest ALPHA+ setup
-
it seems to me that Italy cannot compete with the new changes. if it attacks with its entire navy against the British med fleet, then it might win but with very heavy losses. also, Tobruk is way to weak! it can barley concur Alexandria. if it does it gets kicked out of Africa by the British 8th army. the extra infantry in Southern Italy are nice, but cant go anywhere. if Italy either attacks the British or vice verse, then the transports are basically dead because of the French Navy. What im trying to say is that Italy is way too weak and needs more in the central med and N. Africa. sorry if im ranting on.
-
@WILD:
I’ve playtested a game where UK got lucky in Z97 and Tobruk and was able to cripple Italy. However, if Germany had moved just 1 plane to South Italy, an attack on Z97 would be unviable.
None of that matters because Japan was able to take Hawaii and Sydney, with the US unable to respond due to the fact that it only had minors.
Yep that is my thinking too. I like the minors though. I think the Jap (axis) victory conditions shouldn’t be immediately at 6 VC, at least give the US its turn to counter it. Same for the Euro side. Other wise we’ll have a lot of 3-4 turn games.
I’m glad we play until someone cry’s uncle.
Yeah, I could immediately retake Hawaii if Japan didn’t win immediately.
However, there’s still a problem if Germany does Sealion. japan’s moves prevent the US from saving the UK. The UK must choose between attacking Italy or giving Italy Africa and protecting itself.
-
Have to agree with Calvin here. My group never even tried to play the 6 VC Axis win in the Pacific because it looked waaaay too easy to achieve. We’ve had some good games playing with a 7 VC goal for the Pacific side. Of course all 3 games its actually been the EuroAxis that’ve won it.
-
@WILD:
I’ve playtested a game where UK got lucky in Z97 and Tobruk and was able to cripple Italy. However, if Germany had moved just 1 plane to South Italy, an attack on Z97 would be unviable.
None of that matters because Japan was able to take Hawaii and Sydney, with the US unable to respond due to the fact that it only had minors.
Yep that is my thinking too. I like the minors though. I think the Jap (axis) victory conditions shouldn’t be immediately at 6 VC, at least give the US its turn to counter it. Same for the Euro side. Other wise we’ll have a lot of 3-4 turn games.
I’m glad we play until someone cry’s uncle.
Yeah, I could immediately retake Hawaii if Japan didn’t win immediately.
However, there’s still a problem if Germany does Sealion. japan’s moves prevent the US from saving the UK. The UK must choose between attacking Italy or giving Italy Africa and protecting itself.
I don’t see a problem with making tough choices. The US should have its own back yard cleaned up (stop Jap/axis victory), before it try’s to stop a German Sea lion, or make a run for the Med. Actually this would be a good axis strat to force the US from a big Euro push (as was intended). The US could always fly some ftrs to def UK once at war to try to get Germany to back out. I don’t have a problem with the US having to take back the 6th VC if indeed it is changed to allow them to counter, (as it should be, where’s Krieghunds stand on this?). If it delays a UK liberation, or allied domination in the Med so be it
Its not like the axis can set-up victory conditions on both boards in the early rounds, and the US has to take back a VC on both boards. If it happens (not sure it could), then the US would have been brought into the war early and its IC would be upgraded in round 1 or 2.
Maybe the axis victory in the individual theaters should also include a few VC from the other board (Just a few TBD), and the allies should have until the end of the US turn to counter it. There is still a combined collection of VC’s from both boards for the axis to win right? Have that # lowered if you have achieved the individual theater goals (but allow a US counter).
Krieghund, do you have an option on this? Do you see how easy it is for Japan to get 6 VC’s, and end the game prematurely with the US unable to mobilizes (minor IC’s, which I like), or counter? Are we way off on this, and there is something we are not accounting for?
-
Bill, it is nearly impossible for the US to save Hawaii with just a minor IC. Add that to the fact that, even if UK defends as much as possible, Germany can still take it G4 since the US is busy in the Pacific, makes this setup unappealing. Once again, people complain that Italy doesn’t do well but overlook the fact that neither does the UK.
-
The UK is much harder to take with the new scramble rules. Germany just getting enough ships to ensure a landing makes things harder. Navy and air buys are much easier for the UK to do to counter instead of buying nothing but stacks of infantry. I’ve been looking at the odds in a game I’m playing against Infrastructure and each step as Germany prepares is dicey. I nearly had a “safe” attack planned out one round but a couple dice rolls that didn’t go my way ensured that he would have made the amphibious assault a very difficult proposition.
What is going on in the Pacific that you are losing it so easily?
-
Look at my game vs allweneedislove.
Keep in mind Germany no longer needs to build a Carrier to protect his fleet from UK air attack, meaning more can be spent on transports.
-
I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).
I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.
I would still like to hear from Krieghund on this and see what his stand is on this topic, or possible solutions. Is there something you/we are missing. He is always open to us and is the voice of reason w/Larry most times.
This is still all a testing thing at this point, it is not a done deal. Larry may have stopped the back-n-forth communications (can’t blame him its time consuming & nerve racking), but he is still checking post on his site and reading stuff. Look at the bottom of the pages and you’ll see a Larry in the “who’s browsing this forum” all times of the day & night. Hell I just checked he’s there now.
-
I reviewed your game Calvin. It does seem that with that Med change, it is pretty hard for the UK to fend off Sealion just as before. It doesn’t seem like a desirable change.
You did mop up Italy pretty well as I expected. If the Pacific hadn’t collapsed, you may have come out even. But is the game fun with Italy crippled and the UK wiped out, as could happen nearly every game? I don’t believe so.
This could perhaps be rectified by just giving the UK more infantry stationed to begin with. It’s not like they’d be doing much but defending, so I don’t think it would hurt Germany too much.
The new Med set up is nice because it gives UK different options and allows for an actual Taranto raid. That is, if fewer eggs were put into the SZ 97 basket. Pump up the forces a bit in Tobruk too and maybe this will work.
On the Pacific side, I think the mistake was abandoning Hawaii. Even with 3 production, I believe the US has enough to to set up a counter strike and basically end Japan if they are going for both Hawaii and Queensland simultaneously.
-
The reason I abandoned Hawaii was that Japan was threatening WUS. I knew that building 3 defending units wouldn’t help much, so I built a defending fleet.
-
So, you were thinking of a turn 3 attack on the US from Alaska? I suppose it’s actually doable, but I think there’s an easy fix.
Japan cannot enter sea zones around North America or Hawaii without declaring war. That would either let the US block with ships, or jump up to war time production.
-
I’m figuring out the odds for that attack and it’s pretty close assuming the US moves and builds correctly on turn 2. I’m not sure it’s a big problem other than the Axis player being obnoxious and trying it every game for a dicey victory.
The rule I suggested still seems to take care of it and would make sense. FDR would have no trouble declaring war seeing a Japanese armada parked outside Alaska.
-
Yeah, I could immediately retake Hawaii if Japan didn’t win immediately.
usa would not have been able to take it back if japan left pickets.
However, there’s still a problem if Germany does Sealion. japan’s moves prevent the US from saving the UK. The UK must choose between attacking Italy or giving Italy Africa and protecting itself.
the choice of uk effectively crippling italy or holding its capital should be a no brainer. uk should hold its capital.
-
The UK is much harder to take with the new scramble rules. Germany just getting enough ships to ensure a landing makes things harder. Navy and air buys are much easier for the UK to do to counter instead of buying nothing but stacks of infantry.
the new scramble rules coupled with 2 added german air units makes sealion EASIER, not harder.
germany on rd1 does not need a carrier, instead it can buy 2 transports because of scramble rule.
uk being able to scramble does not help uk defend sealion at all.
2 new german planes makes uk navy even easier to sink
-
@WILD:
I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).
the problem with 7vc is that usa could go 100% resources in europe for the early and mid game. only coming back into the pacific once japan has 6vcs then just defend hawaii.
i am not sure that the victory condition of 6vcs in the pacific immediately wins the game needs to be changed. i still need to try more games. but if it does need to be changed i think that the victory condition of 6vcs held for a round would probably be better.
@WILD:
I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.
sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.
-
We’re keeping an eye on this, as it is a concern. I’m looking forward to seeing your experiences with it.
-
apparently its slightly unbalanced to the axis now. some people have suggested ditch the split US NO or the minor to major rule or increase to 7 VCs. i think that 6 VCs, minor to major and split US NO is overkill. maybe if its only 2 out of 3 of those might make it more balanced such that US still needs to intervene in the pacific but can also help more in europe. for example keep split NO and minor to major but increase to 7 VCs or keep 6 VCs and split NO but ditch minor to major. something like that
-
@WILD:
I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).
the problem with 7vc is that usa could go 100% resources in europe for the early and mid game. only coming back into the pacific once japan has 6vcs then just defend hawaii.
i am not sure that the victory condition of 6vcs in the pacific immediately wins the game needs to be changed. i still need to try more games. but if it does need to be changed i think that the victory condition of 6vcs held for a round would probably be better.
@WILD:
I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.
sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.
Try it with the approved setup. If all your opponent does is huddle, it’s probably easy. With good purchases and movement on the part of the UK, it’s very hard to set up. With the Med changes, Sealion becomes much easier.
-
@WILD:
I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).
the problem with 7vc is that usa could go 100% resources in europe for the early and mid game. only coming back into the pacific once japan has 6vcs then just defend hawaii.
i am not sure that the victory condition of 6vcs in the pacific immediately wins the game needs to be changed. i still need to try more games. but if it does need to be changed i think that the victory condition of 6vcs held for a round would probably be better.
@WILD:
I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.
sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.
Try it with the approved setup. If all your opponent does is huddle, it’s probably easy. With good purchases and movement on the part of the UK, it’s very hard to set up. With the Med changes, Sealion becomes much easier.
I should say I had poor luck on my G1 attacks leaving destroyers sitting on the map and my subs at the bottom of the Atlantic. That plus the scramble rule made it very prohibitive to make the actual naval attack before the assault. The long way around could have been blocked by a single destroyer.
Regardless, it would be nice I think to have some extra starting inf on England so the UK has a few choices when they see that transport buy.
-
sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.
Try it with the approved setup.
all the games i have been playing have been.
If all your opponent does is huddle, it’s probably easy.
uk has to buy all ground units and huddle up to make it as hard and costly as possible for germany to execute sealion.
With good purchases and movement on the part of the UK, it’s very hard to set up.
it is not that difficult to set up sealion. g2 buy all transports, g3 take uk.
With the Med changes, Sealion becomes much easier.
with the carrier and destroyer in sz91 moving into the med, uk has less of a threat to the german navy that finishes in sz112. this allows germany to buy more transports on g1, for an easier g3 sealion or even a g2 sealion if uk is not careful.
Suggested Topics
