ALERT- Last shot for Alpha+3 changes for FINAL Alpha

[Jennifer]

@Ruanek:

@Cmdr:

But Sea Lion is still viable.  The only difference is that England does not have to abandon the entire world to make Sea Lion hard on the Germans, now they can engage on the global scale I think they were always intended to work on and not have to figure Germany is going to murder them if they dont give up their attacks on Africa, Med and give up their fleet.

Yeah, I didn’t present my point clearly.  Sea Lion is still viable, but it’s not as easy or necessary.

Agreed.

[special forces]

@mantlefan:

@Cmdr:

But Sea Lion is still viable.  The only difference is that England does not have to abandon the entire world to make Sea Lion hard on the Germans, now they can engage on the global scale I think they were always intended to work on and not have to figure Germany is going to murder them if they dont give up their attacks on Africa, Med and give up their fleet.

:roll:

Not this again. Just because it’s possible for Germany to take London DOES NOT MEAN that it is a reliably winning strategy anymore.

“Sealion is  still possible” DOES NOT EQUAL “Sealion is still a good strat”

Well, from what i read here, she didn’t say that.

[Kobu]

@Cmdr:

But Sea Lion is still viable.  The only difference is that England does not have to abandon the entire world to make Sea Lion hard on the Germans, now they can engage on the global scale I think they were always intended to work on and not have to figure Germany is going to murder them if they dont give up their attacks on Africa, Med and give up their fleet.

I don’t think it was ever viable against a competent Allied player. It was just a better shot than getting bogged down in Russia. Now Russia is the best hope, but it’s in no way easier than before.

[Jennifer]

I said 1 AA Gun can take out 3 planes, I never claimed that Russia only had one AA Gun period.  Russia has 3 planes, period, at the start of the game, so 1 german AA Gun can, theoretically, shoot down all 3 Russian planes if they attack.  However, no matter how good your dice, 1 Russian AA Gun cannot ever shoot down 11 German planes in Alpha 3.

I also agree that Sea Lion was NEVER profitable against a determined allied opponent.  It ALWAYS cost more than you got out of it, and it was ALWAYS easy to convoy raid to death by the Americans netting Germany only 5 IPC a round after expending at least 200 IPC taking it. (AA Gun losses, units stuck there, 10 transports being placed, etc, etc, etc.)  It is, however, still a viable strategy.  You CAN take London, and it CAN be a good idea.  It IS a good strategy still.  I’d rank Alpha 3 Sea Lion equal too Alpha 2 Barbarossa.  They’re both still possible, but that does not mean that either are the optimal strategy.

I still say being able to take out England AND France before Russia AND America are in play is a bone headed move by the game developers.  I am very glad to see they rectifed that.  Very glad.  Just like they killed Crush India with the Alphas, they killed Sea Lion pre-WWII in the alphas.  There were tears of blood over the loss of Kill India first, it was said that Japan had no chance to do anything anymore, that the Axis now had no way to win the game…and then the good players figured out new strategies.  The same will be true now that Sea Lion isn’t the success it used to be, now that people have to really put thought into Sea Lion and take advantage of tactical errors of their opponents.  The cry babies will leave, and the players will figure out new strategies.

In both cases, loss of CIF and OSL, I am glad.  It should be hard to take a capitol.  It shouldn’t be a walkin.  And, except for France which is really designed as an IPC boost to the Axis, really only on the map for historicalness, there should be no loss of capitol before Round 4 except if a player makes a big mistake.

[Col. Ty Webb]

She said three units added. She’s right. The UK had one AA gun, and got three more added for a total of four.

Sorry to interupt the pissing contest.

[Jennifer]

@mantlefan:

I do not see why I am being taken to task for 1. Being accused of not counting when the thing I am being attacked for was actually accounted for in a post that was probably deleted BY THE PERSON ATTACKING ME and 2. Also being taken to task over counting units in a way that looks at practical reality over useless technicality.

Jen, if you can actually make an argument that Germany is stronger relative to russia after these changes, please make it.

Since you probably can’t (except on the thinnest of reeds), please admit that your assessment was incorrect and that Russia is actually (even if only minorly so) stronger relative to Germany.

I know that I probably TECHNICALLY misplaced a period or semicolon, but if you could stop throwing up smoke screens and technicalities and get to the actual issue (Is Germany stronger relative to russia after A3 or is Russia Stronger relative to Germany after A3) the game would be grateful.

I have explained on MANY occasions in NUMEROUS threads.  Why dont you go back and read some of them?

Give you hints:

1)  Fighters, Tactical Bombers, Strategic Bombers
2)  Income
3)  AA Guns
4)  Postion
5)  Allies

Germany is much stronger than Russia, especially if they dont go blowing all their income for 3 rounds attempting to get England.

[Jennifer]

@mantlefan:

Who gained more on the Eastern Front from A2 to A3? Did the Germans or Russians (or Axis or Allies if you rather) gain more from Alpha +.2 to Alpha+.3?

On the German/Russian front, Russia get 2 AA Guns (EXTRA) for a Total of 4, Germany got 4 AA Guns for a total of 6.

As for new units (defined as not facilities or AA Guns) neither side got more.

If you take out Sea Lion, Germany has + 84 IPC not spent on transports, Russia has nothing extra.  Japan can still pummel the crud out of Russia since the few infatnry they get from Mongolia is really not relevant to any form of defense. Instead of getting IPC, Russia now gets nothing but a few more infantry that will get destroyed while Japan advances.  Italy is in the same position to push forward has they always have been.  Germany has SIGNIFICANTLY more money to spend on Russia, and plenty of AA Guns to throw on the front lines, making Russia spend Armor or risk fighters.    Russia can also put some AA Guns on the front, but Germany is in a much better position to suicide units to take them out than Russia ever will be.

England wont fall.  So what?  Once Russia is done, Germany has won the game, essentially, now it’s a matter of keeping England on it’s knees and reinforcing Europe to the point no invasion can possibly succeed, then rack up cash and drop a huge fleet in SZ 113 and take out England (assuming the Allies have not yet conceeded the game.)

[Jennifer]

I am, of coure, ballparking here.  I’ve detailed each move pretty much in other threads, as I’ve mentioned before.  Nutshell:  Germany got more AA Guns than Russia did in the new rules, Italy also got extra guns.  Without dumping all that extra money you were spending on transports, you can now out man the Russians.  The Russians can no longer get a free 12 IPC to spend in Moscow, Novgorod, Volgorod, now they get a few infantry in the middle of nowhere will they get annhillated by the Japanese.  Russia has been very weakened, but if all you have ever done is Sea Lion, you may not really notice how significant the shift was on the German/Russian/Italian front.

[Jennifer]

Alpha 2 and Alpha 3 are pretty different.  Same rules for the most part, yes, but different situations.

Russia no longer gets 12 IPC when Japan attacks.  They get 6 Infantry.  That seems like more, until you think about it. Those six infantry are in the middle of no where.  They’re going to get chewed up and spat out by the Japanese.  So let’s just pretend they do not exist, at best they are going to get 2 hits on average, at worst they will get nothing, and the odds are heavily stacked towards nothing, they will be split up for the most part, and will be over whelmed by the Japanese.  Net effect: No more non-aggresion treaty.

Germany is no longer going Sea Lion.  That’s 84 less IPC spent on transports, and at least 100 IPC worth of ground units that wont be destroyed by England.

Net so far:

-12 Russia
+184 Germany
= +196 Axis, -196 Allies

That’s generally half the Russian army right there.  But that’s not all.

Germany is perfectly capable of losing 60-70 IPC if Russia attacks, but Russia cannot afford the same.  So Germany spreads out a bit, making sure to use all their lovely new guns to threaten any Russia counter.  Russia has two options.

1. They attack, risking planes or losing Armor.
2. They retreat, losing territory sooner than they would have in other versions.

The main issue here is that Russia has 3 starting planes and each German gun can shoot at each one if attacked.  Germany starts with 11 planes and Russian guns cannot shoot at each and everyone one when attacked, it would need 4 guns to do that and they only have 4 guns on the front.  That means Germany can overwhelm the Russian guns rendering them next to useless, but Russia cannot render any of the German guns next to useless.

Yes, they could take out a small stack of Germans.  They have 3x 17% chances of losing a plane.  They will probably need armor (given the stacks I am talking about.)  They will definitely lose them all in the German/Italian counter attack.  They cannot attack a forward territory and reinforce it with planes like Germany can if Italy attacks a territory.

This corners Russia.  Do they sacrifice armor and risk planes, or do they get pushed back faster and thus have less to defend Moscow with?  Now that we’re not doing Sea Lion and rather just raiding them into the stone age, England is still a non-entity on the board, but now we’re risking only 18 IPC for London/Scotland, not 200+ IPC (units lost PLUS units that were not lost, but could have been if the dice went badly.  Hence, Risk as opposed to assumed losses.)

So, in essence, we are really talking about two different games.  Game 1: Alpha 2 Sea Lion.  Game 2:  Alpha 2 or Alpha 3 Barbarossa.

[Imperious Leader]

Well we don’t allow thread fights and we pretty much don’t see how it benefits all the other people who may post but won’t because the thread got hijacked. Of course it happens sometimes but really a no no. The goal is to move the conversation in a positive direction and not a retaliatory or accusatory battle of post endurance.

They do have professional wrestling so we don’t need it here too. This is just a place to exchange ideas in a polite manner ( for the most part).

[theROCmonster]

By 1943 Russia had 2-5 times as many tanks as germany on every front. 2-10 times as many planes. 2-5 times as many artillery pieces, and 2-5 times as many infantry units. Remember Germany had to send 15-20 % against the allies in the west. Norway, france, Homeland Germany, Denmark, and other occupied states, while as Russia had nearly all of its forces Against Germany since Japan was NEVER going to attack russia after it had previous battles against Russia and saw it was hopeless as well as Japan had its hands full against the other Allies. This is just Russia VS. Germany. The allies (UK, Canada, and US) had 10 times as many tanks as Germany and 10 times as many aircraft. Japan was equally screwed. US built over 100 Carriers in WW2. Japan had a total in the 20’s, but never at one time due to battle losses. The US built over 1,300 warships. Japan could never have handled this. No matter what you say the Axis had about a 5% chance to win WW2. this only if Moscow would have gotten taken, but if you read military history you will see that this probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway seeing as how Russia moved its factories back into Siberal in the Ural mountains region. Germany never could have taken Russia due to Russia’s huge size as well as huge manpower advantage, industrial advantage, only one front to deal with, and the fact that their front lines were in Russia meaning tanks and airplanes could drive and fly strait into the battle off the assembly line. While as Germany’s front lines in 1942 were far from Germany’s industry. If the game was ever played to history allies would win 98 percent of the time with two equally skilled players IMO. This is why the game is made to recreate history sort of, while being playable so that both sides have an equal chance of winning.