Real simple, what are the ‘tweaks’ between the 2nd Edition and the latest Alpha rules? Thanks. Is it just the setup changes?
AA.Org Official Alpha 3 Thread
-
Oh, KNP, no I was not assuming Russia had to take the territories from Germany or Italy! They do not have too! They only need to control the territory!!!
Also, under the rules, IRELAND counts! Just how hard is it for Russia to get Ireland? Not very. Same with Crete. And yes, Spain and Portugal count too. The only European territories that do not count are: Scotland, England, France, W. France, S. France, Iceland, Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus. All other territories (neutral or not) count as a 3 IPC NO for Russia now.
One thing I suggested is that, perhaps, if we are keeping this rule, then any American or British attack on any True Neutral not only makes all true neutrals pro-Axis but any on the Europe map are immediately controlled by Germany and any on the Pacific map are immediately controlled by Japan. After all, the allies were the “good guys” in the war, many of these nations just wanted to be left alone and felt that the allies would rescue them if they were attacked. Being betrayed so bitterly would almost certianly end in alliances with Axis powers, for their own protection. In terms of game effect, imagine all those German units popping up in S. America. They could be beaten back, but it’s going to be a heavy distraction for America for at least two turns.
-
Hey Jen, that’s a VERY interesting idea. Japan wouldn’t get much but a few worthless territories and six extra infantry, plus the chance to take a few undefended territories in central Soviet Union. However, Germany would really get a boost. Imagine 8 German infantry popping up in South America, not to mention an extra 20 infantry just for Spain, Sweeden and Turkey (assuming those haven’t been taken yet). Also, 4 German infantry right close to Calcutta. Imagine the large IPC jump in Germany’s economy. I think they would stand to gain 14-16 more IPCs, minus whatever country the US/UK took of course.
As I often play Germany, I gotta say that is really cool.
-
@Cmdr:
I am also of the opinion that maybe Germany should get an NO for having the Neutrals, why should Russia get all the love? Why is it a war torn Hungary can produce more for Russia than a Hungary that joined the Germans voluntarily without a shot fired can? I know it’s racist, but arnt the Germans known for efficiency!?! Just a thought.
Not really, the Nazi German war effort (production wise) was anything but efficient, by late 1941 they owned more of every resource except crude oil, and yet were significantly outproduced by Russia. Germany didn’t even have a single ‘war production’ chief until 1943 (Speer).
I’m beginning to think that the game should be evolving into Axis & Allies & Comintern, each with its own victory conditions. Heck, if there are going to be so many versions all the way up to Alpha+infinity, why not?
-
@Cmdr:
I can see the Americans and British being able to field at least a dozen if not a couple dozen planes by round 6, so it’s not really that late in the game. These planes are already being made and sent to Russia anyway, otherwise Russia does fall so it’s not outof the question to have these planes available.
That’s a bit of an exageration, but I’ll give you that the Allies can have several planes in commission by then. Then again if that’s the case, Japan will be having quite a bit of fun. Just because your Japan was played to push all the through East Russia doesn’t mean the NO is unbalanced. If Japan sees that the allies are intent on a KGF strat (as evidenced by heavy air builds by US on the East Coast), they should be focused on winning in the Pacific, not dicking around in Siberia.
But I disagree that those planes “will be sent to Russia anyway”. That’s only necessary if Germany is doing a bottle-Russia up strategy. If Germany is doing any other strategy, like some sort of balanced, methodical invasion of Russia, that won’t be necessary and will only be a waste of resources.
If Allies have that kind of air power, that quickly, then they certainly won’t be threatening Axis territory very much.The only trouble point would be a German major complex in Norway, but then, that’s 10 less infantry Russia has to face and something the Germans are going to have to defend. Without it, the Germans have no way to support Norway/Finland so that’s give me NOs for the Russians.
Yes, Norway is tough to hold. It’s not impossible at all though, and an IC in Norway isn’t necessary. If the Allies are pressuring the Germany navy hard, then they can just hole up in the Baltic. 2-4 transports there can keep a strong hold on Scandanavia, while threatening any Russian attempts to crawl north into Finland. That small investment in German sea power will prevent Russia from ever “walking in” to empty Scandanavian territories.
-
Hey Jen, that’s a VERY interesting idea. Japan wouldn’t get much but a few worthless territories and six extra infantry, plus the chance to take a few undefended territories in central Soviet Union. However, Germany would really get a boost. Imagine 8 German infantry popping up in South America, not to mention an extra 20 infantry just for Spain, Sweeden and Turkey (assuming those haven’t been taken yet). Also, 4 German infantry right close to Calcutta. Imagine the large IPC jump in Germany’s economy. I think they would stand to gain 14-16 more IPCs, minus whatever country the US/UK took of course.
As I often play Germany, I gotta say that is really cool.
Dont forget the guys in S. Africa! A few extra guys below the British stack would really come in handy!
-
If the allies want to get Norway, there’s not a whole lot that Germany can say about it. A major complex is pretty much the only way the Germans are going to hold Norway if the allies really go for it. And with Scandinavia being worth 17 IPC to Russia now, why in the world WOULDNT you go for it?
-
Because the amount of resources that Russia would have to use to get through Germany’s defenses in Scandanavia would cause Moscow to fall.
-
Because the amount of resources that Russia would have to use to get through Germany’s defenses in Scandanavia would cause Moscow to fall.
Not really. You need 1 Infantry to take Norway, Finland and Sweeden. That’s hardly enough taken from Russia to cause Russia to fall. (Have the Americans and British clear the zones iwth aircraft and walk a dude in.)
-
@Cmdr:
Because the amount of resources that Russia would have to use to get through Germany’s defenses in Scandanavia would cause Moscow to fall.
Not really. You need 1 Infantry to take Norway, Finland and Sweeden. That’s hardly enough taken from Russia to cause Russia to fall. (Have the Americans and British clear the zones iwth aircraft and walk a dude in.)
Thats ofcourse if germany does not make any effort to stop them since it will take atleast 3 rounds for a guy from karelia to hit all 3, and since germany goes after the western allies and before russia, it makes it even more unlikely for this situation to occur.
-
Exactly.
Jen, your Germany was asleep at the wheel.
-
It’s insanely hard to stop Russia from getting the islands in the Med, assuming a traditional Allied offensive. It’s just the nature of the beast.
I am making the following recommendation to Larry:
1) Russia was an ally in-so-much as they were attacking Germany. Therefore, no Russian equipment may use American, French, Australian or British equipment for transport purposes (ie, you cannot load infantry on transports or land fighters on carriers, etc, etc, etc) and vice-versa.
2) If Russia attacks a true neutral, all other true neutrals remain true neutral. This is to reflect the fact that Russia attacked True Neutrals in the course of the real war and yet, the world didn’t become anti-America/England etc. It also helps with game play.
3) National Objective Reduced to 2 IPC for each counquered neutral or true neural in Europe or Scandinavia or Turkey with the following exceptions: Sardinia, Sicily, Crete and Ireland.
4) If the United States of America or the United Kingdom attack a true neutral then all true neutrals on the board immediately join the axis powers:
A) If the neutral is in Africa or the Middle East it becomes Italian.
B) If the neutral is in Europe or S. America it becomes German.
C) If the neutral is on the Pacific Map (Asia, etc) it becomes Japanese.Clarification: Russian units may still defend with other allied units. They are allies! The only change is that they cannot share transportation means. Cossaks need to bring their own ponies! Patton is NOT sharing his Armored units! Montegomery is too much of a primadonna to lend his mechanized units, etc.
-
This sounds like abject insanity to me, you are making a claim that has no basis in reality. Yes you probably COULD do something like this, you COULD use massive allied air power to clear out true neutral states so the Soviets could walk in to get the territory and NO income, but why would you want to? You COULD use an allied fleet to open up the dradanells and pick up a Soviet infantrymen from the black sea and transport him over several turns to the coast of Italy and have in land in Sardinia, but why would you want to? Why would you want to go to all the trouble just to give the Soviets a slight IPC bump?
Also, what kind of German players to you play against? How incompitent is/are you opponent(s) that they cant figure out how to keep things like this from happening? You have made a claim and havent brought enough specific evidence to support how this could happen in an actual game. Im not saying I dont see how something like you describe COULD happen, the letter of the rules say as much, what im saying is that the possiblity of it actually being a problem, or evening happening at all, are so small as to barely be worth a second thought. -
Let me rephrase it then. I HAVE USED AMERICAN AIR POWER TO CLEAR BOTH TURKEY AND SWEEDEN ALLOWING ONE RUSSIAN INFANTRY TO TAKE BOTH TERRITORIES UNOPPOSED, FURTHER I HAVE USED AN AMERICAN TRANSPORT TO MOVE A RUSSIAN INFANTRY FROM SYRIA TO SARDINIA AND SICILY WITH NO RISK TO RUSSIA AND I HAVE IN MORE THAN ONE GAME LANDED A RUSSIAN INFANTRY IN IRELAND.
That help?
-
No, typing things in Caps Lock dosnt help it make any more sense when it already has no bases in reality to begin with, it just makes it easier for people with vision problems to read it. :-D
You are making claims of things you did with out any context of the games in which these things occured. Without the aid of the contex of the games in which these alleged things happened all you are effectively doing is typing ARGLE BARGLE BARGLE so everyone can read it clearly. You have not explained what any moves were prior to these evets, what turn they took place, what the other players situation or condition was, you are just making a claim based on an exploit of a rule you noticed, not proving a point or showing that this is a REAL game problem.
-
Look, it’s pretty simple.
America and England had an airforce in Russia to prevent Moscow from falling. A large airforce.
America had a large fleet in the Med to cripply Italy. With the new convoy rules, this is a little harder but not impossible since you can do more damage than normal. (BB doesnt always do 1 damage, it could do 3.) With this fleet, the Americans were able to recover a Russian unit that walked to Syria. Then it was a matter of protecting the transport as they offloaded into Sardinia and Sicily. Not exactly hard to do when Italy has at most 3 or 4 aircraft on any given game day.
England had a decent fleet in the N. Atlantic. It wasn’t going to defend against the 20 or so fighters Germany had, but it was enough to keep Germany from threatening Sea Lion or reinforcing Norway, Finland.
Russia blitzed an armored unit up, snuck into undefended Finland, sailed into Norway and Sweeden the round after and raced back to Karelia. Since they had Novgorod, this wasn’t an issue.
Since the allies had an insane number of planes, strafing the small stack of Germans in Finland and the infantry in Sweeden cost next to nothing. (I think all in all there were 3 planes lost which is about what you would expect from 7 or 8 defending infantry.) Those losses cost Russia nothing, but made them independantly wealthy.
With Japan landing in W. USA routinely, Russia was earning more money than ANY other nation on the board! (Keep in mind,without Sweeden, Germany earns no objective money and with the Allies all over the Med, they were getting none of the Middle East money either.)This is pretty standard in our games, has been since Alpha 2.
-
Ok, well that gives a glazing over of what was going on…… kinda. I still dont see how any of the things you say happen ROUTINELY in you games are even possible, it dosnt seem to mention what turn any of this happened in either. I was hoping you could give a more detailed, turn by turn description of what happened this this alleged game.
@Cmdr:
America and England had an airforce in Russia to prevent Moscow from falling. A large airforce.
How large? What turn did it get there? and what route did it take to do so? (incase anY airbases were used)
@Cmdr:
America had a large fleet in the Med to cripply Italy.
Again, how large, what was it composed of, whe was it built, and when did it get to the Med?
@Cmdr:
England had a decent fleet in the N. Atlantic. It wasn’t going to defend against the 20 or so fighters Germany had
How big and what compisition is considered “decent”? Where did Germany mass its 20 fighters and why couldnt it provide cover for a fleet placed in say, the Baltic to allow them to reinforce themselves in Scandanavia?
The list of questions goes on like this, without hard evidence and atleast some other players making similar complaints and dont think this can be taken seriously as a game balance problem.
-
It’s only been 5 days, there is no routine yet. Routine that is referenced is routine for Alpha 2 games. Large American fleet (150-250 ipc value), moderate British fleet (100-190 ipc value) and large airforce (roughly 30 allied non-russian planes.)
As I’ve said, this is accomplished by about Round 11. I detailed this out in the other thread in great detail. Basically, for the cost of 2 Russian Infantry, by round 11, Russia has: Norway, Sweeden, Finland, Ireland, Sardinia and Sicily. If the Russian guy isn’t strafed and needs to be replaced, then by round 13 add Crete to the list. (Otherwise Round 14 and cost is now 3 Russian infantry.)
Just about anyone who’s ever played can tell you how to get that sized fleet in the Med and up by England by that time. The only purpose of the British fleet is to keep SZ 125 open for the Russian IPC, so even if you cower with the Americans, we’re talking 35-40 IPC for Russia instead of 40-45 IPC for Russia. Not a huge difference really, since they only have the one complex anyway…and all you need is 30 IPC to keep the Germans from ever cracking that shell.
-
Germany’s problem is landing zones for the fighters. The British only need to protect SZ 109 so they can drive a destroyer to SZ 125 and sink any submarines. On top of that, they have 6 fighters to scramble to protect the fleet. That’s 24 Punch for Fighters requiring 8 Attacking Fighters just to match it. Add to it any surface fleet and defending carrier bound fighters and you’ve out matched the Germans pound for deutsch mark.
If that wasnt bad, in order to hit SZ 109 they need either W. France or Holland to land on. Usually that’s not a problem, but towards the beginning and end of the game, it can be an issue to contend with. Not to mention once you land there, you have no pre-existing airbase to extend your range or scramble with, nor do you protect SZ 112/SZ 113 against British attack.
For instance, Germany has 2 Strategics, 5 Tacticals, 13 Fighters and no kriegsmarine (since they rarely do anymore). To counter this Britian has 6 Scrambled Fighters, 4 Carrier Fighters, 2 Carriers, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 3 Submarines and 5 Destroyers (a moderate fleet.) Assuming Germany has a place to land, they only have a 15% chance to win.
England had to invest to get the fighters and had to move the carrier into position to cut costs, but since they were sending fighters to Russia like mad to prevent it from falling, they have the fighters to move back. To clear SZ 125, they send 10 Fighters, 1 Destroyer and pretty much anything Germany might have gotten there, is gone. So they might be costing Russia 5 IPC, but are losing 6 IPC in submarines to do so. A losing battle for Germany. (And iwth only a 17% chance to kill the destroyer, they might lose something attacking SZ 125 to reclose the shipping lanes.)
America has a larger fleet, mainly because they have to protect SZ 91 and SZ 95 to perform their landings. Figure about double what England has, if not 2.5 times what England has. We’re talking 11 rounds remember, so America has earned about 800 IPC give or take a few dozen IPC.
-
I’ve never had a game go to round 11…
What is Japan doing while the US focused so intently on Europe?
My read of the situaion (without knowing in detail what Germany has) is the game was over turns ago unless Japan is ready to land on the Western USA. Even if they can I’m not sure that the Axis could even dream of coming back.C
-
Many mistakes players make are to over invest in the Pacific and “go for the win” in the Pacific.
To successfully prevent Japan from winning in the Pacific you need to match him carrier for carrier, destroyer for destroyer and fighter for fighter in the Pacific. Well, that’s only partially true, America needs this equipment to contain Japan, add to that destroyers and submarines from Australia and India for use in “trading” with Japan.
Often times I like to add a carrier for Australia, sometimes even two carriers. This adds a lot of defensive punch and that’s what you are really looking for in the Pacific. However, these are a secondary concern, your primary concern must be to have no less than 3 destroyers to use in blocking the Japanese warships!
It is often necessary for the United States to purchase a naval and / or airbase in the Pacific. Unfortunatly, this will end up replacing destroyers that America would otherwise be purchasing, so it is often wise to save 5 or 6 IPC a round for the United States to assist (that way you have 21-22 IPC set aside for the Pacific each round, if you have to drop a base, that leaves you with enough that you can still drop a destroyer without greatly upsetting your Atlantic planes, as it is only an extra 1 or 2 IPC you lost from your Atlantic mission!)
Atlantic side is another faltering point for the United States. Many people are inclined to keep building warships well after the mission objectives have been accomplished, because it’s what they have always done! Once you control the Med and have a few warships to protect transports from Strategic Bomber attacks in SZ 91, you can stop investing in warships for the Atlantic. Actually, you can stop investing in armies as well, since you can just use what you have stockpiled if you need too. (Best solution might be to downshift and send only partial shipments to replace losses.)
Essentially, by round 11, I expect the Pacific to look thusly:
Japan: 15 Aircraft, 5 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Battleships, 2 Cruisers, 6 or 7 Destroyers, 3-5 Submarines, 7 or 8 Transports
America: 8 Aircraft, 4 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 6 or 7 Destroyers, 5-7 Submarines, 2 or 3 Transports
Australia/India: 7 Aircraft (3 Airbase, 4 Carrier), 2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Battleship, 2 Cruisers, 4 or 5 Destroyers, 2-4 Submarines, 3 Transports (1 British, 2 Australian)Atlantic side we are looking at:
Germany: 1 or 2 Submarines, maybe + 11 Aircraft
Italy: Nothing
England: 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Cruiser, 2 or 3 Destroyers, 1 or 2 Submarines (maybe, for Convoys in SZ 125, SZ 105), 3 or 4 Transports, 6 Fighters - Fleet in SZ 109 or SZ 110
France: Fighter, Destroyer (in the Med)
USA: 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Cruiser, 4 or 5 Destroyers, 2 or 3 Submarines (for Convoys), 8 Transports, 4 Fighters - Fleet in SZ 91 or SZ 92
Suggested Topics
