I don’t necessarily need Krieg or Larry, if you can explain it to me…
I just don’t get the point.
Oh, OK, great, I think I can explain. Just a sec…
I think the US NO for the Europe map would be better served in Africa.
I see it as more of an incentive to go after liberating Paris. But perhaps one in Africa could work better to get the US to want to be involved in Europe.
I really don’t like all the rule changes in AAG40. I mean changing a setup to balance things is one thing. But to completely rework the rules is something that is better done in another game (maybe scrambling was ok, because that was needed, but the new AA thing shouldn’t change within a game.
Nevertheless I don’t understand the Mongolia rule. As I understand it the Russians can attack Japan R4 any time and still Japan cannot attack Amur from Korea\Manchuria?
Yes. Barring an oral “gentleman’s agreement” (that is made to be broken), Russia can attack Japan at any time, including R1. Japan can attack Amur from Korea/Manchuria, but then Mongolia all becomes Russian.
But when Russia pulls back
I’m not so sure Russia will want to pull back, to prevent blow by over the North by Japan.
Japan could land with a Transport there and NCM everything up?
Yes. And this is another reason Russia might not pull back from Amur.
Or they could attack from Siberia without provoking the Mogols?
Yes.
And what about the Planes? Are only the ones in Man\Kor not allowed to attack?
That’s a good question. I would predict that it’s only the ground forces, so if you amphibious assault Amur, planes from Man/Kor could join. After all, you could fly them out to sea and back… I dunno, that’s a good question.
But yeah, as Russia I leave forces in Amur so that Japan can’t take over all of Eastern Russia without incurring the wrath of the Mongolians, and so that Japan can’t waltz past Amur to the north.
I just don’t get the point.
I don’t either. Another loophole-ridden rule that gives incentives for situations that make little sense (like invading Amur from anywhere but the South, and the Mongolians are cool with it?)… At least Alpha2 rule was cleaner…
Thanks Gamerman01, thats what I thought too.
Whatever, guess we’ll have to test it.
Thanks Gamerman01, thats what I thought too.
Whatever, guess we’ll have to test it.
I asked Krieg your aircraft question in the 1940 rules discussion thread.
Feel free to post any rules questions you have, on that thread. Krieghund frequents it.
And what about the Planes? Are only the ones in Man\Kor not allowed to attack?
Correct.
Okay Krieghund, but what if I declare my planes in Korea to be moving
Korea - SZ 6 - SZ 5 - Amur?
They non-com back to Man/Kor, but didn’t actually cross the Man-Amu border in Combat move.
Wow, you guys are pretty down. All valid points though… Play testing will make the final case I suppose.
That said, how would you make Alpha 3? What key changes would you make (specifically) if you were larry? Maybe this forum can come up with a Beta1 (if enough agree) and play test it?
Just a thought…
You might actually have something here. I mean Larry is running in circles and doesn’t seem to have a handle on this game. AA gun in Paris???WHY?!
This version is missing….everything? He has a 107 page thread on his site asking for suggestions to improve the game in regards to Alpha3. Out of those 107 pages, I think he only addressed one point! That was the klunky DOW system, of course he didn’t clear it up, but I think he made an improvement in the Russia/Japan war area by including Mongolia. Speaking of which, why can there not be rules for each neutral country again? (or neutral blocks)
**China? unadressed
**US NO’s? Made an attempt at fixing them without realizing the whole reason the Allies don’t want to take France is because it means giving Germany another payday
**Japanese NOs? fixed their names to inner/outer defense ring, but left them as the same stupid all islands
**Axis Med situation–not fixed. Italy is left more out to dry, and has a blocking ship that UK must breeze past if they intend to move to the Atlantic with that shipping.
**Russian NO–still just as useless.
Multiple convoy raiding zones-fixed this, now you can’t convoy a zone for more than its worth.
The major issue I see and am not sure to the answer is that to create a Beta1 or whatever, we would need to know the direction Larry is going. I think based on all his incarnations of the game, that he goes for a ‘ticking time bomb’ approach to the game. US is going to roll someone, its just a matter of time. So this game’s balance is can the Axis win before the overpowering might of the Allies takes its toll.
.
The AA gun in Paris makes that attack harder, but to be honest, I often wondered why Paris didn’t have one in the first place.
It was to limit wild results G1. Nobody wants to play a game where you lose 5 aircraft attacking Paris. I think it made ubersense to NOT have an aa gun there, event hough France’s OOB should include one.
No German NO for control of London? are you kidding me? Alpha +3 is sucking the fun out of playing The Axis. We tried so hard to develop strategies for an underdog Axis against a favorable allied rule set and now the new rules are cutting all those plans off at the knees. I guess alpha +4 will make it impossible for the Axis to fight Russia.
I think based on all his incarnations of the game, that he goes for a ‘ticking time bomb’ approach to the game. US is going to roll someone, its just a matter of time. So this game’s balance is can the Axis win before the overpowering might of the Allies takes its toll.
This is true. Lots of people complained about this at his website about the US making too much money and, to paraphrase his response one time:
“Tough luck. Time is not on the Axis side…as it should be”
All setup and ready to play.
The AA Gun 3 shots per gun sounds interesting. Makes sense to me that infinite shots no longer apply and that you have to invest in your air defense.
I have used my stock of white AA guns and Grey AA guns on the board. Grey IC’s for majors and minors I’m using the OOB minors on the board. I bought another original axis and allies game off of craigslist and raided my stashes from other games and put them in a nice tool box for parts. The map looks really cool!
Larry Removed the UK NO of No Subs! Thats Awesome for Germany. Of course the incentive is in Convoying not having a single sub just survive somewhere on the map.
I guess I have to bypass Amur and stage for a Mongolian invasion if I do decide to go into Amur.
I have a plan for my match today, lets see if I can pull it out. If I can get my photo journal to work I’ll post the match online. course it was 450 pictures approximately for 10 turns of global and it takes time to get them together.
Very excited to play the Axis today.
I think based on all his incarnations of the game, that he goes for a ‘ticking time bomb’ approach to the game. US is going to roll someone, its just a matter of time. So this game’s balance is can the Axis win before the overpowering might of the Allies takes its toll.
This is true. Lots of people complained about this at his website about the US making too much money and, to paraphrase his response one time:
“Tough luck. Time is not on the Axis side…as it should be”
Translation: We can’t all play the allies all the time…… Sooner or latter, you will have to play the Axis and lose.
Young Grasshopper,
That isn’t quite the translation I would say. It was more along the lines that the Axis have to make rapid, early progress towards victory or else be crushed by the Allies when the US enters. Which, is exactly how he wants it.
Guys,
Did you notice that America should make less money? Assuming there are no Americans in Paris and America does not have the Phillippines then America should only make 70 IPC’s per turn. This is less than the 75+ they normally made in Alpha 2. Granted they could get more with captured territory in Europe or Asia but they could do that in Alpha 2 as well.
If this change is combined with loss of the UK NO of no German subs in Atlantic, then the Allies have lost 10 IPC’s a turn that were relatively easy to obtain. This is a plus for the Axis in my book.
Sea Lion is much harder in Alpha 3 than in Alpha 2 because of the change in the AA Guns taking hits now. But maybe it was too easy in Alpha 2. Now if you want to invade England you will need to wear down the Brits in economic warfare. A submarine campaign combined with a bomber campaign may be necessary step before Sea Lion. I never really did like the idea that Sea Lion was as easy as - kill British Navy on G1, build TR fleet on G2, and invade on G3. There were not many strategic decisions for the UK to make, just build infantry in England, fly all the planes home, and hope the Americans get here soon. May be more fun for the Axis and Allies to play out a German submarine campaign now that German submarines do 3 convoy damage.
So far, without any playtesting, I like what I see.
Fellas,
Do Strategic Bombers hit for 1 die of damage they bomb (a d6) or 1 die +2?
Alpha 3 rules state they do just 1 die of damage to the target. This will be a change back to the original rules if correct.
Good point redjac. US is going to be making less during the game, and with London holding there is no additional fundages to be gained in Africa. My best Allied game was a 50-50 split for US where I kept Japan in check and launched an invasion of Africa. Once those ipcs started coming my way US was over 100ipcs and a real powerhouse.
This is definitely a balance towards the axis.
***EDIT: don’t misconstrue my post to think I believe Alpha 3 to be balanced towards the Axis. I’m just saying this is a sway their way. I also haven’t been over the NO’s quite as much as others, so I"m going off redjac’s info. US making less money is a boon for axis obviously.
The only thing different about the American NOs is that they added 1 more. How is that making less money? The UK never makes the no U-Boat NO after a successful sealion, however, Germany dosen’t receive an NO for holding London. How does Germany not deserve an NO bonus for capturing London? Screw it, I’m going for Sealion anyway…… but I will have to wait until G4.
Guys,
Did you notice that America should make less money? Assuming there are no Americans in Paris and America does not have the Phillippines then America should only make 70 IPC’s per turn. This is less than the 75+ they normally made in Alpha 2. Granted they could get more with captured territory in Europe or Asia but they could do that in Alpha 2 as well.
If this change is combined with loss of the UK NO of no German subs in Atlantic, then the Allies have lost 10 IPC’s a turn that were relatively easy to obtain. This is a plus for the Axis in my book.
Sea Lion is much harder in Alpha 3 than in Alpha 2 because of the change in the AA Guns taking hits now. But maybe it was too easy in Alpha 2. Now if you want to invade England you will need to wear down the Brits in economic warfare. A submarine campaign combined with a bomber campaign may be necessary step before Sea Lion. I never really did like the idea that Sea Lion was as easy as - kill British Navy on G1, build TR fleet on G2, and invade on G3. There were not many strategic decisions for the UK to make, just build infantry in England, fly all the planes home, and hope the Americans get here soon. May be more fun for the Axis and Allies to play out a German submarine campaign now that German submarines do 3 convoy damage.
So far, without any playtesting, I like what I see.
I agree US and UK combined make less money. IF japan is successful in Asia and India and takes the DEI and keeps the US out of the phillipines it can match the economic might now JPN 73 to the US 72. That said is it all in Axis on Russia now with Asia moving East from Kiangsu now since building an IC in manchuria or Korea is a waste? OR is it take India, DEI and China to get that 73 IPCs and still have a huge military advantage before turning to hit Russia in force?
I think Im going to play it before going negative.
I think the Sea Lion strat is off the table with the AA Guns representing the Radar deterrant that the British had in the Battle of Britian. It SHOULD be hard and low odds, high risk to take Britian. Realistically, it should be HARD for the Axis to win. If you did a vietnam or civil war game would you make it an even fight? It should be hard for those who historically lost to win. I have my own ideas about Vietnam that could make it seriously hard for America to win in Vietnam, but thats something I’m developing on my own. As for the Civil War if the South could win or was on EVEN footing with the Union it wouldn’t be the Civil War.
Global 1940 is totally geared for the serious gamer and I believe that the Axis should be hard as hell to win with most of the time. Italy has more power than ever in this version tho which I like and dislike. Historically the Italian fleet sucked but in Alpha 3 they seem to be in good postion to support Italy getting 10 IPC’s NO in clearing the med. and the NO in taking Greece southern france and gibraltar in a few turns and heck even egypt dependng on how UK london does.
Getting excited about playing today!
