Here’s what happened:
My opponent during G1 bought only ground forces. This made possible for me to sink the starting German fleet with UK’s airforce and the surviving fleet (1bb 1cr 1dd).
Thanks to this “mistake” (And I don’t think it’s really a mistake, it’s just a different option) I decided to buy something different during R1. I bought 3 tanks and then infantries.
3 arms went in Leningrad, and Leningrad forces moved in the territory above it (don’t remember the name right now)When Germany DOW’d Russia, I conquered Finland, then Norway. This gave me an 11 IPC bonus. (but a higher shift, due to Germany loosing the Scandinavia NO)
Thanks to my move, Germany had an easy way to Leningrad, taking it very easily (I deserted it), but he didn’t had enough forces to get back Scandinavia, that had a decent sized force of Russians with a backup of 7+ UK fighters.
Due to my positioning I also decided to attacked the true neutrals on the same round with 3 different nations:
Russia took Sweden (+6IPC)
US took Spain and treated France from there
UK took Turkey
Ok, i get it !
If Germany lose his fleet then he has no control over Norway and Novgorod. That alone is enough for Russia to have a good game against Germany. But if you are in position to take the true neutrals on top of that…
Yeah, it was a great game for Russia!
I was in position of attacking the Neutrals later on, and that’s cause Russia was making so much money that I was definitely ad advantage…
It’s monstrous what Russia can do with the new NO if Germany is careless in scandinavia! Having a decent fleet with at least 3 transport would prevent that probably though.
@mantlefan:
Germany having allegedly a possibly easier time of gaining London is meaningless if it costs them the game. Sealion is not a relevantly better Axis strat for winning the game from the first draft of Alpha 3. From Alpha 2, it is still much worse.
Sealion is still dead as a good strat (not as a possible one :roll:). The current draft of A3 doesn’t change that from the first draft.
I dont agree that Sea Lion is a bad strat now. Given the significantly increased German punch, when compared to the pitiful British defensive punch, Germany is in a better position to take London now than it ever was in Alpha 2. Mainly because they dont need to invest as much, they dont need to send as much (I went with almost max, but you can easily downgrade a lot from what I listed and still have 90% or better odds) and they need far less to accomplish all they want in round 1 (actually possible to hit and win in ALL engagements AND add in S. France now) that it might actually be a far better option than Barbarossa!
@Cmdr:
@mantlefan:
Germany having allegedly a possibly easier time of gaining London is meaningless if it costs them the game. Sealion is not a relevantly better Axis strat for winning the game from the first draft of Alpha 3. From Alpha 2, it is still much worse.
Sealion is still dead as a good strat (not as a possible one :roll:). The current draft of A3 doesn’t change that from the first draft.
I dont agree that Sea Lion is a bad strat now. Given the significantly increased German punch, when compared to the pitiful British defensive punch, Germany is in a better position to take London now than it ever was in Alpha 2. Mainly because they dont need to invest as much, they dont need to send as much (I went with almost max, but you can easily downgrade a lot from what I listed and still have 90% or better odds) and they need far less to accomplish all they want in round 1 (actually possible to hit and win in ALL engagements AND add in S. France now) that it might actually be a far better option than Barbarossa!
I absolutely disagree with your opinion, but if you think so my advice is to implement your awesome 90% win ratio Sea Lion in every game u’r playing Germany.
@Cmdr:
@mantlefan:
Germany having allegedly a possibly easier time of gaining London is meaningless if it costs them the game. Sealion is not a relevantly better Axis strat for winning the game from the first draft of Alpha 3. From Alpha 2, it is still much worse.
Sealion is still dead as a good strat (not as a possible one :roll:). The current draft of A3 doesn’t change that from the first draft.
I dont agree that Sea Lion is a bad strat now. Given the significantly increased German punch, when compared to the pitiful British defensive punch, Germany is in a better position to take London now than it ever was in Alpha 2. Mainly because they dont need to invest as much, they dont need to send as much (I went with almost max, but you can easily downgrade a lot from what I listed and still have 90% or better odds) and they need far less to accomplish all they want in round 1 (actually possible to hit and win in ALL engagements AND add in S. France now) that it might actually be a far better option than Barbarossa!
I absolutely disagree with your opinion, but if you think so my advice is to implement your awesome 90% win ratio Sea Lion in every game u’r playing Germany.
I already showed that Germany had 100% with full thrust. Getting down to 90% just requires pulling some units off (probably less armor so they can stay on the mainland.)
@mantlefan:
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
@mantlefan:
Germany having allegedly a possibly easier time of gaining London is meaningless if it costs them the game. Sealion is not a relevantly better Axis strat for winning the game from the first draft of Alpha 3. From Alpha 2, it is still much worse.
Sealion is still dead as a good strat (not as a possible one :roll:). The current draft of A3 doesn’t change that from the first draft.
I dont agree that Sea Lion is a bad strat now. Given the significantly increased German punch, when compared to the pitiful British defensive punch, Germany is in a better position to take London now than it ever was in Alpha 2. Mainly because they dont need to invest as much, they dont need to send as much (I went with almost max, but you can easily downgrade a lot from what I listed and still have 90% or better odds) and they need far less to accomplish all they want in round 1 (actually possible to hit and win in ALL engagements AND add in S. France now) that it might actually be a far better option than Barbarossa!
I absolutely disagree with your opinion, but if you think so my advice is to implement your awesome 90% win ratio Sea Lion in every game u’r playing Germany.
I already showed that Germany had 100% with full thrust. Getting down to 90% just requires pulling some units off (probably less armor so they can stay on the mainland.)
But how many times does it need to be said that such a statement is useless w/o looking at the big picture? With the boost to USSR’s NO, it’s even more important for Germany to get on Russia early and hard. The investment for Sealion may somehow be less than A2, but the rewards are FAR less…
I am looking at the big picture.
No NO, but 1 less ally attacking your Western Flank. Does it balance out? Well, if you don’t lose a few hundred IPCs worth of equipment, like you did in Alpha 2, then hellz yea it is worth it! The NO is, at best +50 IPC over the life of the game, after all. So in 10 Rounds of Battle, you got a measely one extra round’s worth of income. That’s great, don’t get me wrong, but it’s the the end all be all of what should dictate your strategy! Otherwise, Russia should immediately resign the game the instant they cannot liberate SZ 125 and reclaim their NO. After all, 10 rounds of SZ 125 NO = 10 Rounds of London NO!
Not really interested in reading 20 pages about this again. However, I would love to read reports about games played using the latest Alpha+3 rules, in which there was a successful sealion operation leading toward an Axis win.
While it may be easier for Germany to take London now, I think it will only work if Japan is very aggresive in the Pacific. With the new rules saying that both USA and USSR can attack Germany once London falls, Japan really needs to do whatever they can to keep USA’s attention focused mostly in the Pacific. If USA puts most of their stuff in the Atlantic, USA and USSR will squeeze Germany. At the very least, USA is sure to liberate London which puts Germany in the position of having to deal with UK and USSR at the same time.
On the other hand, if the USA and USSR are busy pounding on Germany, maybe it will give Japan the time to win the game in the Pacific. I still think the Axis has an easier time of it only having to win on one board or the other. A lot of you guys say that the Allies have better chance to win but I just don’t see it. Maybe it’s just our strategies, but the Axis win the majority of our games.
That being said, there is a huge difference between capturing the required number of victory cities and total victory. In a few of our games, we decided to keep playing even though the Axis won with victory cities. In just about every game, eventually the Allies end up overcoming the Axis.
@Young:
Not really interested in reading 20 pages about this again. However, I would love to read reports about games played using the latest Alpha+3 rules, in which there was a successful sealion operation leading toward an Axis win.
I can’t do that, I have not played the Axis yet. I can give you an INSANELY powerful Russia, however. (Ireland, Finland, Norway all in control of Russia + large contingent headed out to crush the Japanese and large army containing Germany/Italy.)
While it may be easier for Germany to take London now, I think it will only work if Japan is very aggresive in the Pacific. With the new rules saying that both USA and USSR can attack Germany once London falls, Japan really needs to do whatever they can to keep USA’s attention focused mostly in the Pacific. If USA puts most of their stuff in the Atlantic, USA and USSR will squeeze Germany. At the very least, USA is sure to liberate London which puts Germany in the position of having to deal with UK and USSR at the same time.
On the other hand, if the USA and USSR are busy pounding on Germany, maybe it will give Japan the time to win the game in the Pacific. I still think the Axis has an easier time of it only having to win on one board or the other. A lot of you guys say that the Allies have better chance to win but I just don’t see it. Maybe it’s just our strategies, but the Axis win the majority of our games.
That being said, there is a huge difference between capturing the required number of victory cities and total victory. In a few of our games, we decided to keep playing even though the Axis won with victory cities. In just about every game, eventually the Allies end up overcoming the Axis.
That was always true, however. America can either pummel Germany or pummel Japan because Larry gave them WAY too much money to spend, in my opinion. (I’d like to see USA reduced to 50 IPC and make the islands worth more to USA. Maybe something like: Iwo Jima worth 1 + 5 American NO, Okinawa worth 1 + 5 American NO, Algeria, Morrocco, Tunis, FIC, Carolines, Marshalls, Formosa, Hainan the same.)
Hey Jenni can’t we just like the game as it is? I think it works! Also, playing Allies is significantly easier than playing Axis (at least in my esperience). You should play Axis more in my opinion! <3
Hey Jenni can’t we just like the game as it is? I think it works! Also, playing Allies is significantly easier than playing Axis (at least in my esperience). You should play Axis more in my opinion! <3
I try. My opponents always want to be Axis.
That being said, there is a huge difference between capturing the required number of victory cities and total victory. In a few of our games, we decided to keep playing even though the Axis won with victory cities. In just about every game, eventually the Allies end up overcoming the Axis.
I don’t think the game designers made an attempt to balance the game with total victory in mind. They tried to set it up so the Axis have a chance at winning the game via Victory cities if they play aggressively early on. If they play too conservatively the Allied economic advantage will wear them down over time. The same thing tends to happen if you play on to total victory.
@Cmdr:
Larry gave them [the US] WAY too much money to spend, in my opinion.
Again, I think that was by design to put a clock on the Axis. If they don’t get their Victory Cities quickly enough the US’s power will close their window of opportunity permanently. If you weaken the US you give the Axis more of a shot at winning via Total Victory or a longer term Victory City win. But those games take longer to play out. I think Larry and Co. wanted a game that could be played in fewer turns - at some point either the Axis has won or it becomes obvious the Axis will never win (though it may take time grind them down). With a weaker US a stalemate is more likeley to develop, with neither side having the omph to drive to victory, at least until one side makes a key mistake or gets a great run of dice luck.
I can see that, James. Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.
For example:
Victory cities are now NOs for enemy players. Does not matter how gets them, for each CONQUERED VC each Axis or each Ally gets 3 IPC. (Example: Germany holds London, so Germany, Italy and Japan each get 3 IPC a round.)
Total victory is defined as:
USA: 5 IPC for each conquered original Japanese territory
USA: Continental, Mexican and Alaskan NOs removed - permanently
USA: 5 IPC a round for each round France is free (defined as Paris VC), regardless of state of war.
UK: 5 IPC a round if Scotland, Ireland and England are free
Germany: 5 IPC a round for the COMPLETE control of European France (France, W. France and S. France.) Germany must control all 3.
Germany: 5 IPC a round for the COMPLETE control of Great Brition (England, Scotland and Ireland.)
Italy: 5 IPC a round for control of Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania
Japan: 5 IPC a round for control of Wake, Midway and Hawaii (replaces previous island NO.)
Japan: +1 Transport SZ 33
Japan: +1 Destroyer SZ 36
Japan: +1 Strategic Bomber Pauline
Germany: +2 Armor Hungary
Germany: +2 Infantry, +1 Armor Libya (Theme: Afrika Korps.)
England: +5 AA Guns, +1 Fighter England
USA: +2 Destroyers SZ 101 (Theme: Convoy escorts for Lend-Lease with England.)
USA: +1 Destroyer SZ 10 (Theme: Anti-Submarine warfare California Coast.)
@Cmdr:
I can see that, James. Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.
Yes, have the nation that has to spend in two theaters make less than Germany or Japan. :-D
Total victory is defined as:
- Allies, Reducing both Germany AND Japan to their home countries or conquering their capitols (both).
- Axis, Taking any 2 capitols from: England, Russia and/or The United States (not defined as India!)
Say hello to 100% KGF every single game with no exceptions.
@Cmdr:
I can see that, James. Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.
I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.
@Cmdr:
I can see that, James. Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.
Yes, have the nation that has to spend in two theaters make less than Germany or Japan. :-D
Total victory is defined as:
- Allies, Reducing both Germany AND Japan to their home countries or conquering their capitols (both).
- Axis, Taking any 2 capitols from: England, Russia and/or The United States (not defined as India!)
Say hello to 100% KGF every single game with no exceptions.
- i.e. OOB
My copy/paste missed the Financial victory condition, circa Classic or “Vanilla” Axis and Allies.
If the combined income of all three axis powers meets or exceeds a certain threshhold (I chose 200 IPC, but we can play with it to find a good balance) then the Axis wins.
Keep in mind, each VC is now worth 3 IPC to each nation (total of +9 for the Axis!) so you can rack up income pretty fast. (Philippines +11, KSU +11, Hong Kong +12, Hawaii +10, France +13 etc that alone is 57 IPC toward the Achievement.)
@Cmdr:
I can see that, James. Honestly, I’d rather have “total” victory instead of VCs and accomplish that by weakening the United States greatly and/or buffing the Axis.
I doubt the game designers want to move in the direction of a game that takes several hours to get to the point where either the Axis have won or it is apparant they can’t win to a game that takes two or three times that long to play to total vicotry.
Well, as I said, my post was trunkated, the Financial Win path was not pasted in.
Basically, I want America to have to GROW TO GREATNESS. Give them incentives to “island hop” to get their finances up. Slow their arses down a bit. Make the player sweat like FDR and wonder if they have to go relieve England and piss off the people or chase the Japanese and risk England falling (but show the people they went to war because they were attacked, not because FDR was salivating at the thought of global conquest.) I am, of course, not trying to put thoughts in FDR’s head, just a thought exercise.
Historically, America hit almost all the islands listed. Marshals, Carolines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. If you really want to keep the NO income, them Wake = 5, Midway = 5 and Continental = 5; remove Mexico, Alaska and slash the Continental in half.
Yeah I really dont think the allies need to be any weaker. There is no reason to under-represent the US’s industrial capability from WW2. By 1943 the US was producing more war material then all 3 Axis powers combined. So there is really no reason from a historical standpoint to reduce the US’s income. While I can see that from a game balance perspective the 80IPC might seem unfair to the axis, thats only at face value. By the end of G1 with territorial conquest and NO money Germany could be collecting nearly 50IPCs. This is nearly the same as waht the US will be producing for the first 3 turns of the game. While this is going on the 2 countries are not at war and all of Germany’s resources are being thrown against a 30IPC UK economy or being prepared to be thrown at a 37IPC Soviet economy. Meanwhile, the rest of the axis powers(Japan and Italy) are at around 40-45IPC economy combined. this gives the Axis a total combined economy of around 90IPC. This is during the rounds before the US’s entry into the war at the begining of round 4, so the total allied economy is only around 65-75IPCs between UK (europe and pacific) ANZAC and China. It balances out a bit more for the alies if you factor in the Soviet money, but they only really come online at about the same time as the US. So for 3 full rounds the Axis powers can either hammer the UK, ANZAC forces, and prepare to hit the Soviets and the US. The Axis should be able to hit these countries and buy themselves several more turns before that US money really even comes into play.
If the Axis can not capitalize on this economic edge against their existing enemies before the US or the Soviets get involved, then why make the US weaker? What would it really do but prolong the game? If the jig is up, then why meaninglessly pad out the gameplay?
Yeah I really dont think the allies need to be any weaker. There is no reason to under-represent the US’s industrial capability from WW2. By 1943 the US was producing more war material then all 3 Axis powers combined. So there is really no reason from a historical standpoint to reduce the US’s income. While I can see that from a game balance perspective the 80IPC might seem unfair to the axis, thats only at face value. By the end of G1 with territorial conquest and NO money Germany could be collecting nearly 50IPCs. This is nearly the same as waht the US will be producing for the first 3 turns of the game. While this is going on the 2 countries are not at war and all of Germany’s resources are being thrown against a 30IPC UK economy or being prepared to be thrown at a 37IPC Soviet economy. Meanwhile, the rest of the axis powers(Japan and Italy) are at around 40-45IPC economy combined. this gives the Axis a total combined economy of around 90IPC. This is during the rounds before the US’s entry into the war at the begining of round 4, so the total allied economy is only around 65-75IPCs between UK (europe and pacific) ANZAC and China. It balances out a bit more for the alies if you factor in the Soviet money, but they only really come online at about the same time as the US. So for 3 full rounds the Axis powers can either hammer the UK, ANZAC forces, and prepare to hit the Soviets and the US. The Axis should be able to hit these countries and buy themselves several more turns before that US money really even comes into play.
If the Axis can not capitalize on this economic edge against their existing enemies before the US or the Soviets get involved, then why make the US weaker? What would it really do but prolong the game? If the jig is up, then why meaninglessly pad out the gameplay?
I agree, a perfect example of this window of opportunity closing for the axis is the ridicules victory condition the allies have. I mean, has anyone really seen the allies take all 3 capitals before they are declared the winner. Most of our games hardly need one capital conquered, before the axis realize that they are all but done for.
