@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
(Yes, I realized that 101 scrambles out of 100 attacks is mathematically incorrect, I am illustrating a point, not writing a mathematical proof!)
Technically in 100 attacks you could only scramble 100 times, not 101.
Or I could just be poking fun at you pointing out the obvious… By and large I agree that the Axis needs some tweaking.
@Cmdr:
well germany either must have either A a grand master plan that involves sacrificing some air by scrambling, or B should not scramble period
Personally, that’s the route I am leaning towards. Put the fighters in S. Italy so that England has to attack only SZ 97, not both sea zones, but don’t scramble. The option to scramble is there if England does not come in strong enough.
Too bad a lot of players do not do this, most seem to always scramble, and in that case, YUMMY! Killing German fighters have always been the #1 priority of the Allies in these games (as Russian fighters were #1 for the Axis).
Thats my point. Germany should not be foolish enough to scramble like that when its obvious ull need virtually ur entire airforce against russia.
Fine with me, but tell it to the other players who do scramble.
So dont always assume germ will scramble :)
@Cmdr:
Instead of the United States controlling Mexico, Southern Mexico, Central America (Panama Canal) and the West Indies make it so that the Allies control Morocco, Algeria, Tunis and the West Indies.
America could literally control all of those territories as well, and it gives the United States a reason (outside of just denying Italy the N. Africa NO) to take and hold Africa.
Exchanging the Mexico NO with a 5IPC NO for the US (at war) that says- “Allies need to control Algeria, Tunis, Morocco and Gibraltar”. Call it a “strategic foothold in the Mediterrean and Europe.” You don’t even need West Indies.
Realistically, US would be w/o this NO until (at the earliest) round 6-7 and from that point Axis and Allies can jostle back and forth for it. It also sends more units to Europe side and that means less to Japan. I think it does everything we need it to do to balance and solve the US balancing diliema.
I really like this idea- so much so that I believe you wouldn’t even have to change the starting setup- no need for addition of Axis units to capitals (although that could be a tweek if needed after testing game with this new/exchanged NO.) :-) :-) :-)
I just think UK1 being able to crush italy’s efforts in africa so easily needs a change.
That is a bad NO, because Italy could just decide not to capture Algeria/Tunis/Morocco and then US cannot recapture to claim its NO.
That’s why he said the word Allies in his statement, not US.
I just think UK1 being able to crush italy’s efforts in africa so easily needs a change.
When Alpha+2 was designed that was the tradeoff- Brits get Med if Germany goes Sealion. If Germany goes Barbarossa instead then Axis can secure the Med- Germany would be able to send units down there.
Exchanging the Mexico NO with a 5IPC NO for the US (at war) that says- “Allies need to control Algeria, Tunis, Morocco and Gibraltar”. Call it a “strategic foothold in the Mediterrean and Europe.” You don’t even need West Indies.
Realistically, US would be w/o this NO until (at the earliest) round 6-7 and from that point Axis and Allies can jostle back and forth for it. It also sends more units to Europe side and that means less to Japan. I think it does everything we need it to do to balance and solve the US balancing diliema.
Think about it…Rounds 1-3 won’t matter because US is NOT at war anyway- doesn’t get any NOs…so round 4-6 the US would not be ready to attain this NO (exchanged for the Mexican NO)- so that’s a loss of $15 IPCs of material over time. From round 7+ US would have to jostle for it and commit units to keep the NO- taking away some pressure off of Japan.
If US ignores the NO altogether…fine, then they go for the KJF strat that Jen’s mentioned…OK but over 10 rounds (minus the first 3 rounds not at war) US will have $35 IPC LESS of material to work with- will that be enough???
If not, then I would add the units to the captials that I mentioned recently to Toyko, Rome and Berlin
That is a bad NO, because Italy could just decide not to capture Algeria/Tunis/Morocco and then US cannot recapture to claim its NO.
Then they would be French and France is an ally of America, therefore, America would get the NO.
As for the relative ease of England owning Africa, keep in mind the relative ease of Germany owning England and it being a moot point.
I just think UK1 being able to crush italy’s efforts in africa so easily needs a change.
When Alpha+2 was designed that was the tradeoff- Brits get Med if Germany goes Sealion. If Germany goes Barbarossa instead then Axis can secure the Med- Germany would be able to send units down there.
That sounds backwards to me, Brits will lose med if germ goes sealion cause either A, brit economy dies, or B, Abandons med to block sealion. If germ goes barb, britain can send what ever it wants to fight for the med.
Essentially u need to rely on an aggresive UK1 in order to have a guarrentee sealion wont be blocked, then UK will lose in the long run with his economy dead.
Agreed. It’s my personal belief that England was made to be destroyed. Why else move the fleet from SZ 91 to SZ 98? Either Larry is an idiot or he wanted England stripped so as to make Sea Lion easier, I’ll lean towards the second.
If anything, the aircraft in N. Italy should be moved to S. Italy which would make it easier for Germany to consolidate its power and invade Russia harder, faster and stronger…
I like the US NO for North Africa
I hate in Alpha 2 the DEI restriction on Japan. The US shouldn’t be able to declare war till they are attacked or the collect income phase of turn 3.
I like what Questionneer was saying about changing the FIC to encompass Hong Kong and either Shanghai or Manilla. Maybe take those three and add Singapore and give Japan 10 IPC NO for controlling 3/4.
FIC should be just worth 2, not 12 like it is.
Not having taken FIC is worth 10.
and 2 if you take it.
I hate in Alpha 2 the DEI restriction on Japan. The US shouldn’t be able to declare war till they are attacked or the collect income phase of turn 3.
I agree that attacking the DEI should not provoke the US into war. But if this change is made, the DEI should be added to that 10 point NO that Japan loses if they attack FIC. So I’m not sure how much of a net plus the change would be for Japan. I guess being able to prevent India/ANZ from claiming at least some of the DEI makes it worthwhile, but it wouldn’t be a huge economic windfall for Japan.
I also agree the North Africa NO for US instead of the Mexico/Cent Am./West Ind. NO sounds good.
I’m fine with having DEI and FIC together while not at war with anyone but China.
You are right it is 2 or 10, not 12 for FIC.
I agree that attacking the DEI should not provoke the US into war. But if this change is made, the DEI should be added to that 10 point NO that Japan loses if they attack FIC. So I’m not sure how much of a net plus the change would be for Japan. I guess being able to prevent India/ANZ from claiming at least some of the DEI makes it worthwhile, but it wouldn’t be a huge economic windfall for Japan.
I agree with this also. Then Japan still has that risk of losing something when they invade the DEI, but it doesn’t cause their demise, but then it will need to be written so that the UK doesn’t take charge of the DEI, so that there is no declaration of war on them. I guess it wouldn’t matter because in the long run it makes no sense for Japan not to take the DEI as soon as possible because the gains over time are well worth it.
Makes sense for Japan to take it, of course, but it’s strategically and logistically implausible that they will get the DEI for more than one turn and never again thereafter.
