Well done gentlemen, always trying to recruit new War at Sea players.
Alpha + 2 > Alpha - 3
-
I don’t know why Most people are ripping apart the new AA rules, ok so they soak hits, this only helps on the initial setup and to be honest it only really gonna help the defender if he/she thinks their going to loose the territory anyways. cost 5 attack 0 defense 0 only good for 3 shots on aircraft it’s expensive fodder and people should be thinking twice about using them to soak hits, this would be a last desperate choice for me. I think it adds a good dynamic to the game allows players to build up air defences instead of the single gun does it all as it was before.
-
Peck,
Remember that the AA guns are targeting the attackers most powerful units ‘exclusively’, and each one now has a 50% chance of making one hit. The fact that they ‘may’ be taken as causualties means that you now have a choice, much as an attacker must decide in the last rounds of attack to take aircraft as causualties if occupation is to occur.
-
Mantlefan. I disagree because you haven’t played a game yet. Come back after four playtests and then I’ll be interested in your very vehement opinions.
-
DTDeGrave - rmember that AA Guns used to have unlimited power against aircraft… 15 fighters meant 15 shots. That was a 100% chance to kill 2.5, by the math you’re using. Now, we’ve been given the tools to make more nuanced choices with positioning, and with purchasing. I’m thinking a few more AA with Russia, even with 6 already on the board, is a nice idea. I’m thinking that Italy will want a few more to defend the underbelly, considering that the US will have an ever-expanding air presence.
I don’t believe 5 IPCs for an AA Gun will feel like such a hard purchase to make, now that they’re considered a casualty (finally).
-
Please explain to me where the chances of hitting aircraft has increased… The maximum amount of shots an aa can shoot is the amount of planes being brought into the battle( same as before) but if you bring in more aircraft then aa’s can shoot these planes get a free ride.
As for uk and sealion, taking an enemy capital before turn 6 should never happen in the first place. You should only be able to take uk with Germany by making a full commitment or a major blunder on uks part
-
It should be very interesting with the allies reduced income, maybe during playtesting they found that the allies needed a little help because the reduced income hurt too much. I will give my full honest opinion after about 10 games.
-
Good point Peck - it’s important to note that if Sealion were as easy for Germany in WWII as it had been in Global, it probably would have happened, and none of us would be playing A&A. Or we’d be playing a different version, in which the Axis always win or we get shot in the back of the head. We’d all be descendants of parents of beaten nations, and we’d be celebrating Hitler Remebrance Day, and looking forward to the next 930 years of the Thousand Year Reich.
The game is ok with a tough-to-achieve Sealion.
-
The more I think about it the new aa rules hurt the allies. In the case of large airforces (Germany and japan) their power is diminished, allies now have to spend ipcs to have the same protection they had before.
-
@mantlefan:
In a game that was at best decently balanced, at worst favoring the allies, the amount of help for the allies at the expense of the axis is appalling. Italy gets 2 ships moved (and this is interesting for what britain can attack now) and a bomber “upgrade”, and Germany gets a sub boost but practically everything else is more helpful for the Allies.
A. Sealion is nerfed. Good! Sea Lion on round 3 always struck me as seriously WRONG. Sea Lion is still possible on Round 4, if you dont want to take advantage of Germany’s over powering submarines instead.
1. Russia can attack if G3 sealion is successful eliminating the crucial repositioning for germany.
2. AA guns not only help britain better defend UK, but now the volatility of France G1 only increases in its danger for Germany. Do we really need more potential horse**** to happen on the first axis turn, ruining it before it even really started?
AWESOME! It was an idea I, and possibly others, wanted! It’s just plain STUPID that Germany can strip itself defenseless and a nation as aggressive as Russia cannot take advantage of it! I, honestly, wanted a rule that said Russia can attack if Germany has less infantry in Hungary, Poland and Romania as Russia does in Baltic States, E. Poland and Bessarabia, but this is good too! Think of a strategy, don’t count on one sucker punch to win a game for you.3. The extra commitment to France means also that less can be put against the royal navy and the other two territories of france (assuming south france is your thing)
Right, 1 aa gun makes you commit hundreds more men to France. I think Larry’s idea was to make Germany choose some attacks, instead of getting to do everything. My opinion, give up W. France. You are probably not going to do Sea Lion, so that fighter is not going to make England impenetrable anyway. Since you can neuter them with a couple of Submarines and fighters cannot shoot at submarines without a destroyer, problem solved.4. FOUR AA GUNS IN UK!
Yes, now they can shoot at 12 attacking Aircraft. What’s your point? You’d rather them only have 1 so you can send 3 escorts and 3 bombers to automatically cap dmg on England every round?B. For some reason, Japan’s options against the US needed to be more limited, with the 2 SZ restriction. Even if the effect is not big, what is the actual benefit?
Here I agree with you. I think Larry is a bit too much in love with The United States. He seems hell bent in every game to make them so ridiculously overpowered that if you cannot figure out a way to snipe them early, you’ll never get them. We had a Kill America strategy, but now it cannot be employed (reaffirming my opinion of Larry’s “American Exceptionalist” attitude.)C. Now Japan gets nothing for being invaded by the USSR, and if Japan does invade the USSR, Russia can really muddy things up in china easier. I guess Japan can invade Amur from the sea. IF you read the text carefully, Japan can amphib assault and then NC move in from Korea/Manchu.
Yes, Japan can attack from SZ 5 as long as no planes, infantry, artillery, or armor come from Korea or Manchuria. Otherwise, Russia can get +6 Infantry and a bunch of neutrals worth 0 IPC. BTW, I like this one rule. I like it A LOT. It will actually make me consider attacking China instead of just ignoring it, crushing Russia like an over-ripe grape and giggling as the allies have no alternative but surrender.D. IMO, the new Japanese NO is even harder to get than the old one that they barely ever had a chance to get.
yes it is harder to get, however, America is down 2 NOs now if they go all in on the Pacific instead of 1, so it should be more common to see American intervention in the Atlantic earlier. Since I already have to take many of these islands to prevent them from being bases for the allies, this does not impact my far reaching plans too much.E. Strategic bombing is now just scary. Escorts now also have first strike like bombers, and the attacker doesn’t even have to lose bombers anymore, aside from aa. It’s almost completely asinine to send up interceptors now
If we look at what the problems allegedly were (Jen, haven’t you been saying for months that axis was too weak???) present with alpha +2, how can this be seen as an improvement? These changes are OBVIOUSLY a bigger boost for the Allies than the Axis. If anyone disagrees, please say why. Maybe I missed something. Even that Italian naval movement can be more harmful for the axis. Since depending on whether or not the cruiser by Gib survives, they can take out their usual ships plus an extra DD.
Yes, I felt that the axis were too weak in Alpha 2 and many of the tournament bids seem to agree with that assertation. Most of the bids are coming in at 9-15 IPC for the axis with very few removing an AA Gun to get the Axis (which essentially is a moot point since that AA Gun rarely does anything other than force you to put it on the map.)I like the new rules. It’s more incentive for me to attack since now if you put interceptors up, I get a good shot of killing them (if I am SBRing then it’s probably in my favor to trade a fighter for a fighter AND drop a few bombs). One of the major conversations was the lack of SBR in the game. I’ve always liked SBR (mainly because in Classic it was the only way to get Japan or England.)
Maybe the new AA rules aren’t so bad, but England probably doesn’t need 4 if this game wants to have more than one dimension, and France definitely does not need any in the initial setup without some compensation for Germany.
I really think you are blowing that out of proportion. It is much harder to get the aircraft from the Med to England now, due to the destroyer moving. Also, those AA Guns have 0 defense and 0 attack ability. Further, they cost 5 IPC so they are probably not getting replaced which means you can overwhelm the air defense of England if you want too. Remember, unlike old versions, AA Guns can only fire 3 shots, and only if there are at least 3 aircraft attacking! Before it was 1 shot per aircraft regardless of how many there were.
There seems to be quite a bit of complaining really. I think many of the changes are great! (okay, so many of them I either heartedly agreed too on Larry’s site or voiced myself.) Some I think are missing (Axis win if Germany has Moscow and 6 other victory cities, +12 infantry in China for Japan, ability to replace the Chinese fighter with an American one flown over, etc).
-
The more I think about it the new aa rules hurt the allies. In the case of large airforces (Germany and japan) their power is diminished, allies now have to spend ipcs to have the same protection they had before.
Agreed, which is why I think England has 4 AA Guns. It allows England to have a shot at every attacking German aircraft if they build no more aircraft and bring all to bear on England. The fodder value is negligable really, a one turn delay by Germany would give them SIGNIFICANTLY more punch to hit England with if they really wanted it. (I think 2 submarines are a much better value, honestly.)
England: 6 IPC
Scotland: 2 IPC1 German submarine does 3 dmg, 2 submarines can knock out England AND Scotland from SZ 109.
-
Peck,
Remember that the AA guns are targeting the attackers most powerful units ‘exclusively’, and each one now has a 50% chance of making one hit. The fact that they ‘may’ be taken as causualties means that you now have a choice, much as an attacker must decide in the last rounds of attack to take aircraft as causualties if occupation is to occur.
No they do not!
AA Guns target ALL aircraft, not specific ones. So the attacker can still select fighter, tactical bomber or strategic bomber.
AA Guns can only fire ONCE per aircraft UP TO three attacking aircraft each. (so for all 4 guns to fire all their shots, Germany has to attack with 12 or more aircraft.) They do not fire 3 times at each plane. -
DTDeGrave - rmember that AA Guns used to have unlimited power against aircraft… 15 fighters meant 15 shots. That was a 100% chance to kill 2.5, by the math you’re using. Now, we’ve been given the tools to make more nuanced choices with positioning, and with purchasing. I’m thinking a few more AA with Russia, even with 6 already on the board, is a nice idea. I’m thinking that Italy will want a few more to defend the underbelly, considering that the US will have an ever-expanding air presence.
I don’t believe 5 IPCs for an AA Gun will feel like such a hard purchase to make, now that they’re considered a casualty (finally).
Eh, 6 for Russia is probably enough, I dont think I’d need to buy more. India, Japan and 1 for S. Africa would most likely be all that you see built, and the defender would almost certianly have to rebuild one on a capitol each round if it was attacked consistently.
-
Good point Peck - it’s important to note that if Sealion were as easy for Germany in WWII as it had been in Global, it probably would have happened, and none of us would be playing A&A. Or we’d be playing a different version, in which the Axis always win or we get shot in the back of the head. We’d all be descendants of parents of beaten nations, and we’d be celebrating Hitler Remebrance Day, and looking forward to the next 930 years of the Thousand Year Reich.
The game is ok with a tough-to-achieve Sealion.
Oh Jeezum. It WAS easy. Had Hitler been as smart as me playing this game, he would have spent the first half of the conquest of France on building a carrier task force and transports, and then a butt load of trns with the resource stockpiles of France! In Real Life he spent those resources on more tanks to fight Russia! Thank god this isn’t a historical recreation game because then it would be totally one sided, scripted, and boring as hell!
If Axis have initiative and Allies have time on their side, then lets give the Axis options so that each game is different. Keeps the Axis player interested trying new strategies and the allied players interested in trying to stop varied strategies.
***EDIT:
I wish people like Jen and others had read that 10+ page exhaustive study on Sealion. They would have seen that a G3 sealion was off the table if they followed the right moves. Of course now its REALLY off the table, and the UK London bait might start showing back up. Will we see Italy getting hosed before they get to go again? Loss of Army and fleet?Edit2: Jenn, why do you think bringing Mongolia into the mix specifically on Russia’s side is going to make Japan more inclined to fight in China?
-
Also mantlefan, do what I do and ignore any responses that are asinine. Perhaps people with poor thinking skills like Stalingradski needs to playtest a game to know the true value of a unit, but some of us can think outside the box. Just ignore stuff like that, I do when Jenn goes on one of her ‘American is awesome’ rants. One last question for Jenn is how is it harder for UK to get aircraft from the Med to England now? (comment u made based on Italian ships in Med)
I don’t really have any problem with the new aa rules other than they are very different than the rules I’ve been using throughout these games. I HATE the aa gun in Paris but that’s because I thought it was such a brilliant move to not have one there in the first place.
Moscow entering the war when london falls is not the end for Germany either. There’s still poland for Russia to run through. Provided the Reds can be stopped at the gates of Berlin then Sealion might not be dead.
The mongolia thing was smart but implemented stupidly. Japan’s NO is worded smartly but implemented stupidly on the board. The islands are too far away and you have to hold them all to keep the objective. The earlier island NO for US/Japan caused a lot of action in the Mid Pacific, I hope this does it as well.
-
Mantle, I disagree, you DO need playtesting. Some of your statements are obvious, England has 4 more units to destroy to win, so yes it will be more difficult to capture. However, France only has 1 more unit and I rarely, if ever, see anyone attack with planes to begin with, so the volatility is negligable at best. Your big shift is going to be not attacking W. France most likely, not a significant change in France itself. So that one DEFINITELY needs play testing.
As for things that strike me as wrong that should be removed being your argument, I think you are really being irrational. It was not removed because I felt it was wrong, it was removed because Larry thought it was wrong and play testing confirmed it was wrong. I happen to agree with that assessment.
Is an Alpha 3 sea lion possible? Not only yes, but HELL YES it is. I do not feel it is possible on round 3 if England is dedicated to stopping it, but it should be possible with certaintude on round 4 if Germany really wants it.
The German Submarine/Bomber combination is a perfectly good alternative to blowing 7-10 transports and 14-40 ground units and a dozen aircraft to take England. It does not allow Russia to enter the war early, and saves Germany significant money. I fail to see why anyone would claim an economic strategy against England as a bad idea. You can easily cripply them with minimal risk.
Risk: Destroyer built by England.
Plan: Sink the destroyer with 5 planes and 2 submarines. You kill the destroyer every time and, if they scramble, you probably kill a plane or three too.
Verdict: Win for GermanyRisk: AA Gun
Plan: Overwhelm the gun with superior airpower.
Verdict: Germany may or may not lose a bomber to the AA Gun. (Odds: 17%. Average Damage: 4 IPC, Average Damage Taken: 2 IPC) Win for GermanyRisk: Interceptors
Plan: Escorts
Verdict: Possible trading of planes. Win for Germany. England cannot afford to replace planes when sustaining significant economic attacks, Germany can.As for France: I risk no planes, none, not a single one. I will NEVER lose a plane to the AA Gun in France on Germany 1-7 because I will never bring a plane. I don’t need one, no one does! Why do you need to bring planes? You have not described for us, in detail, what you are attacking and why you claim to be taking so many casualties. Perhaps you need to find an odds calculator and play a few games so you can learn how to minimize your losses?
Agreed, since England does not need to fall until after Russia is controlled, the 4 AA Guns present are negligable.
Yes, if America goes all in after Japan, Japan will be crushed. With America’s resources moved significantly father away, perhaps unattainable in some circumstances, there is a huge shift of power in the Pacific. Keep up. One is a statement in Alpha 2, one is a statement in Alpha 3. There are slight, but significant changes! (10 IPC swing in the Pacific being one of them.)
Yes, I will get all the islands as the Japanese. I fail to see an issue here. Perhaps you need to use your imagination a bit. I am sure you can see the logic behind my statement, if not, I am sure your opponent will educate you and you will see it first hand one day.
How did the changes effect balance? I detailed this above. To recap (you fail to be able to go back and read what was said, we have had this issue before many times.)
1) 10 IPC swing in the Pacific in Japan’s favor.
2) German interdiction is increased 150% reducing cost to Germany, increasing cost to the allies.
3) German interests are no longer to sack London, but to castrate it economically.
4) Russia will see increased pressure earlier, allowing the Axis an easier time sacking it.
5) British/American NO now unattainable until the end of the game, 20 IPC swing in Germany’s favor in the Atlantic
6) Decentrallized Italian fleet requires significant investment by the British to sink 2 transports, as opposed to alpha 2, most likely scenario: Italy starts with double the transport in the Med than it normally has on it’s turn.
7) With increased U-Boat pressence, Russian NO in SZ 125 should never be attained, except with significant American intervention, drawing significant resources from the Pacific making Japan’s position stronger.
8) Non-Aggression treaty makes more sense. (Two players agree to the conditions. Could be 12 IPC to the victem, could be 100 IPC to the victem, could be whatever.)There are probably more that I have not seen yet.
Yes, Germany starts with 11 planes. Had you actually read what I said instead of looking for nits to pick to start a fight, you would have noticed I said that Germany should build 4 more planes early in the game giving them a total of 15, of which 12 shouldn’t be too difficult to muster. However, I am also noting that England, without investing anything, cannot shoot AA Guns at more than 12 planes period. Not 36 shots, 3 at each, only 1 shot at each up to 3 shots per AA Gun.
Jimmy, I have never stated that Sea Lion was ever ON the table. (Nor have I said it was OFF the table, historically speaking.) I am stating that had Germany stripped men off the front lines against Russia, that Russia would have attacked earlier. This is detailed significantly in Russian history books and many American history books (that are detailed enough to speak of Russian tactics) also have this data. Russia was not taken by surprise by Germany, they knew a conflict was brewing, they were just hoping that there would be opportunity to attack when it was in their favor. The reason Sea Lion was not attempted, was almost certainly because Germany KNEW it would have a massive Russian wave of infantry invading it if it pulled the men and machines needed to win off the Russian front.
Hence, the change that Russia can attack Germany if London falls (which might not happen before R4 now anyway, making it moot) is historically accurate and game balancing.
As for why it is harder to get Aircraft from (say) SZ 98 to England is because they need some of those planes to hit the Destroyer off Malta before going to Gibraltar, otherwise, the Italians will destroy the planes in Gibraltar (as there won’t be a British blocking unit.)
I am not saying impossible, but it is slightly harder than it was in Alpha 2.
I agree that the earlier NO was better (5 of 7) but since America no longer has that NO, I am not going to quibble over making it a little harder on Japan to get it. Following a traditional path of India to Australia to Hawaii for Japan, it shouldnt take much effort to get them. Once you are entrenched, punching China into Sushi shouldnt be too hard. You’ll have Hawaii, New South wales, DEI, Permiter and Calucutta NOs. If you just spent NO money on China (having ignored it mostly) you are already out producing it.
-
For the record, I think these changes make the game significantly more difficult for BOTH sides, however, it is MORE harder for the Allies than it is for the Axis. If that makes sense. I hope these changes prove to be balanced and no ridiculous strategy (G3 Sea Lion for instance) proves destabalizing.
-
1) 10 IPC swing in Japan’s favor because America will either NEVER get the French NO or will have to remove units from the Pacific to go get it. At the very least, 1 transport and 1 infantry (10 IPC.)
2) Japan NO “Impossible” to get. Patently false. I mean, if you just think about it, you’d realise it is not IMPOSSIBLE, maybe difficult, maybe strategy altering a little, but not IMPOSSIBLE to get. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.
India to Australia to Hawaii. Oh wow, look, you get DEI and those islands in the South Pacific that route. Hmm, I bet that’s how the play testers did it. Good thing they did listen to me, huh?
3) Capability has been demonstrated. 2 Submarines remove 8 IPC from British isles, 1 submarine destroyer Canada’s income. 3 SUbmarines take out Africa’s income. England puts out a destroyer, German naval/air power sinks it before submarines are lost. Britian scrambles, German aircraft shoot down planes making it even more of a win for Germany. German bombers sack London, damage is cumulative and England cannot afford to buy it down.
4) I’ve demonstrated this too. Since Germany is not moving 11+ aircraft to England and Germany is not moving 20-40 ground units to attack England, then Russia has 20-40 more ground units threatening it. (German aircraft are in range as well, and yes, smacking a huge stack of Russians is worth giving England a 1 round break on damage.) Significant increase in threat from Germany. Should prove a sack of Moscow rounds earlier.
5) Think about it. You’ll see it I’m sure. If not, ask someone else.
6) England CAN attack two or three different sea zones if it wants to fracture it’s naval/airpower to do so. And? Odds are you’ll only get 1 of the transports the one off Malta. One is protected by blockers the other has aircraft to help. Sure, you could mobilize it all in that sea zone ignoring SZ 96 (malta) but then you are still only getting 1 and I dont have to scramble if I dont want too.
- Japan will get that NO, I promise it. Unless America completely ignores the Atlantic, in which case, America should be weakened enough that Japan can cause a stalemate. We had, previously, worked it out that Japan needed 7 IPC a round to push the Americans back. 5 IPC less for America is close enough that a wise player could still force America back, while the average player should be able to force a stalemate. This assumes minimal interaction in China, however.
8) Nah, the Non-agro wont be worse. It will probably be better. I’d bet it’ll default to the Mongolian alteration only and no other benefit. That would still be significantly better than 12 IPC to Russia.
-
@Cmdr:
Jimmy, I have never stated that Sea Lion was ever ON the table. (Nor have I said it was OFF the table, historically speaking.) I am stating that had Germany stripped men off the front lines against Russia, that Russia would have attacked earlier. This is detailed significantly in Russian history books and many American history books (that are detailed enough to speak of Russian tactics) also have this data. Russia was not taken by surprise by Germany, they knew a conflict was brewing, they were just hoping that there would be opportunity to attack when it was in their favor. The reason Sea Lion was not attempted, was almost certainly because Germany KNEW it would have a massive Russian wave of infantry invading it if it pulled the men and machines needed to win off the Russian front.
***yeah…you don’t need to recite history to me. We all know things. Trust me when I say it will be hard for anyone to find something on WW2 that I don’t know. I’m sure IL has some but otherwise just skip it.:) I will say trying to deduce the mind of Hitler is not going to work, we don’t know what he was planning. Hitler was probably confident his troops could fight off the Russians just like they did last time.Hence, the change that Russia can attack Germany if London falls (which might not happen before R4 now anyway, making it moot) is historically accurate and game balancing.
***love this change because it means Russia attacks Germany. Doesn’t bring Hitler into the mix.:)As for why it is harder to get Aircraft from (say) SZ 98 to England is because they need some of those planes to hit the Destroyer off Malta before going to Gibraltar, otherwise, the Italians will destroy the planes in Gibraltar (as there won’t be a British blocking unit.)
***hmmm. But the planes in Gibraltar are still in range to defend UK for a G3 invasion. Just like Alpha2. I don’t see it yet.I am not saying impossible, but it is slightly harder than it was in Alpha 2.
I agree that the earlier NO was better (5 of 7) but since America no longer has that NO, I am not going to quibble over making it a little harder on Japan to get it. Following a traditional path of India to Australia to Hawaii for Japan, it shouldnt take much effort to get them. Once you are entrenched, punching China into Sushi shouldnt be too hard. You’ll have Hawaii, New South wales, DEI, Permiter and Calucutta NOs. If you just spent NO money on China (having ignored it mostly) you are already out producing it.
***I bet there’s a better path, I’m thinking Japan picks on one of the weaker nations with its whole airforce. The counter being building more aa guns as India/anzac, and then getting invaded with ground troops cause those aa guns don’t fight. -
Wow, Jimmy, could you use the color change operation when you write in a quote? It would make it a lot easier to keep track.
In Alpha 2 (and probably Alpha 3 too) I like hitting India hard and fast (Round 4) then hitting Australia hard and fast. From there my aft is secure and I can bring units to bear on Hawaii. Just from the NOs I can put enough into China to keep them back (5 Calcutta, 5 Sydney, 5 DEI, 5 Pacific Islands which will still be easy to get from Australia for 20 IPC into China vs China’s 9-15 IPC income and I get to move planes back and forth as needed, they dont.)
-
Sometimes with Anti-Air Guns its all about luck. 3 weeks ago I had just that I rolled 6 out of 6 ones and changed the course of the war and the look on Adolph’s face
I think all of the opening moves are going to be available it will just be a matter of how well you can carry out your plan to make all of the next moves possible to reach your goal
I think it will be a little more challenging
Suggested Topics
