Worst Alpha Modifications

[Robbernosky]

@Cmdr:

Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”

You said they should just add the IPC’s to USA’s continental zones.  I think Larry wants to simulate wartime economy though.

[Jennifer]

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”

You said they should just add the IPC’s to USA’s continental zones.  I think Larry wants to simulate wartime economy though.

I get that, but cant that part be represented by the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway, Mexico, W. Indies and the Aleutians represent that?  At least if you bump the American income then Japan can actually take the money, then America can take it back…makes an American conquest at least entertaining - if futile.  And that’s the real problem I have with America!  Why should America be essentially immune from destruction just because it was not invaded in WWII? (No, taking the Aluetians and Wake does NOT count as invaded the USA, those were territories, not states.)  We could take it in Classic and Revised, I even took it twice in Anniversary, but as of now, I see no possible way to take it in Global.  The one option we did have (in Alpha 2) has been banned by Larry.

[Robbernosky]

I think it would have been essentially impossible for the Axis to have invaded the USA in real life.  It’s so far away that whatever they sent at it could be intercepted, or prepared for.  Also, this would take pressure off of nearby enemies, allowing them to gain the upper hand.  The only way it would’ve been possible is after the Axis had conquered Russia and England.

[theROCmonster]

You could never have taken america out in revised unless the game was already over and Germany and japan were fighting america alone. I am a pro at revised version. If you want to test your merritt vs mine let’s go.

[Jennifer]

@theROCmonster:

You could never have taken america out in revised unless the game was already over and Germany and japan were fighting america alone. I am a pro at revised version. If you want to test your merritt vs mine let’s go.

Geeze, that was so long ago I wouldnt be able to give you specifics.  I just remember using German and Japan strikes similar to Canadian Shield in Classic. (if you dont know what that is, look up CSUB articles or if you cannot find them, I have them all on PDF.  Interesting, works sometimes if your opponent didnt read the strategy as well!)

AAR rocked, the Russians were UNSTOPABLE!  (I used a method that bagged 2 German fighters and took 3 territories with a 4th as easy pickings.  It only had an overall 75% chance to work and if it failed it was game over for Russia, but it ROCKED!)

[theROCmonster]

There is no way to take out 2 German fighters… Unless you are refering to attacking norway and Ukraine and west russia. This is known as a tripple strike. If you failed in the tripple strike (over 50% of the time you do) Germany easily takes out russia. I had some of the best players in the world try the kill america strategy. Didn’t work at all. There are counters to everything. The main problem with kill america strategy is that the allis can always outproduce the axis in fleet size. Also america can plop down 12-13 infantry a turn if it feels sufficently threatened. Then when america is protected russia is a juggernaught because you put all your eggs into one basket to take out america. I would give you a 5% chance to beat me only if you got extremly lucky with dice on R1.

[The Fire Knight]

Quote from Mantlefan… reposted due to deletion:

"It is unreasonable to claim that the “official” definition [of military objective] (if we are to believe that one definiton is the the only possible acceptable one anyways, but let’s not even go there) of Military Objective has to the the exact defintion for National Objective for at least two reasons.

1. “National” implies a broader context than “Military,” unless the totality of a Nation is 100% purely it’s military, which is practically impossible to achieve, and definitely does not describe any Nation involved in WWII. Please don’t waste time by trying to argue that every single aspect of life and organization in any country in WWII was 100% Military in nature. Please just concede that “National” is broader than “Military” so we can move on.

It does not when limited to the confines of Axis and Allies which is a purely military game, and I made such delineation at the time.

2. Larry has obviously not tied the definition National Objective entirely to Military Objective, so if your interpretation is that they are identical, you have not looked at the facts. We don’t have MOs. We have NOs. To look at Military Objective and say that is what NO’s are ignores the fact that Larry obviously disagrees. Please don’t impose your definitions upon other people, especially when two different things are being defined! You saying that MO must apply totally to what an NO is is like me saying that the defintion of a cheetah is what must be used to define a leopard."

Really?  Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Cairo, Calcutta, London, Sydney, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Washington DC are not military objectives?  They’re ALL military objectives, it’s just a matter of degree!

Larry does not obviously disagree.  It’s pretty obvious that the original intention of National Objectives was to spread game play around the board.  I believe he said as much when Anniversary came out, but I cannot point you to a direct post, so let’s count it as hearsay.  Anyway, the only NO that does not do this is the Continental US NO, all the rest do.  So, as they say in Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other!  One of these things just does not belong!”

Now, if he was to reconstrue the objectives and allow for things like Japan to shuffle 10 IPC to the United States on the condition they did not attack Japan or put X number of ships in the Pacific, you’d actually have a leg to stand on when making this argument.  Further, if the United States of America was allowed to declare war on England and join the Axis, then we’d have a game in which diplomacy was part of the game and thus, it would no longer be a PURELY military campaign game.  Then one could make the argument that a national objective was a political objective, not a military one.

These are the glaring, huge, Grand Canyon sized holes in this argument.

[Imperious Leader]

That is NOT the reason or the post. The reason is something Mantlefan can never repost because it is too obvious to anybody that it was insulting to certain members here.

[Jennifer]

@theROCmonster:

There is no way to take out 2 German fighters… Unless you are refering to attacking norway and Ukraine and west russia. This is known as a tripple strike. If you failed in the tripple strike (over 50% of the time you do) Germany easily takes out russia. I had some of the best players in the world try the kill america strategy. Didn’t work at all. There are counters to everything. The main problem with kill america strategy is that the allis can always outproduce the axis in fleet size. Also america can plop down 12-13 infantry a turn if it feels sufficently threatened. Then when america is protected russia is a juggernaught because you put all your eggs into one basket to take out america. I would give you a 5% chance to beat me only if you got extremly lucky with dice on R1.

I dont have my notecard anymore to remind me what units attack what.  It may have been Norway, Ukraine and E. Europe leaving W. Russia for cleanup duty and I think that’s correct.  There was 75% or better odds of all three succeeding.  I bet Darth could tell you better, I think it was his plan, originally, and it worked AWESOMELY!  But yes, it was an all or nothing move for Russia.  Either they won at least 2 of the 3 (the ones iwth fighters!) or they lost the game for the allies.

[The Fire Knight]

@Imperious:

That is NOT the reason or the post. The reason is something Mantlefan can never repost because it is too obvious to anybody that it was insulting to certain members here.

Ah. Well then I really can’t judge b/c I can’t see the post. However, it seems this post was also deleted. So I have reposted it as a protest against heavy-handed censorship.

EDIT: lol at red comments. Feeling Larry-like, are we?

Yup!  It’s a good idea!  Besides, it makes me feel like I run Psicorps, you know, Psicorps is Mother, Psicorps is Father…(ie evil big brother.)

[Jennifer]

@The:

@Imperious:

That is NOT the reason or the post. The reason is something Mantlefan can never repost because it is too obvious to anybody that it was insulting to certain members here.

Ah. Well then I really can’t judge b/c I can’t see the post. However, it seems this post was also deleted. So I have reposted it as a protest against heavy-handed censorship.

Just to be perfectly clear, ban’s happen when the following rules are not adhered too.

Site rules from the general discussion forum.

I.4:  Stay on topic.   Mantlefan never stays on topic and seems to go out of his way on a consistent basis to get off topic.

II.4:  Respect the moderators.   I think it’s pretty clear Mantlefan never follows this rule either.  There is a way to respectively disagree with someone.  IL and I don’t always agree, even when he was a Moderator and I was a User.  Even though we argued and disagreed it never resulted in banning because it was always respectful.

IV.1: A flame is considered a blatant and ill-intentioned attack on a fellow forum member for a particular post or viewpoint posted by that forum member.  Mantlefan has repeatedly engaged in such behavior.

V.1:  Photos should be limited to game related photos and WWII related photos.  Anything else is not appropriate for this forum.  Mantlefan has routinely doctored photos of screenshots of this site and posted them as flaming attacks.  One might even call it baiting.

And for the record, Article II also states that all actions and decisions by the moderators are final, no “ifs, ands or buts.”

Further, we’ve an agreement between some of the moderators that it’s better to just delete any post with questionable material than try to edit it.  We’ve been taking a lot of heat for editing out things like swear words or out right attacks and trying to keep any constructive material that might be in a post, so we feel it’s better to delete the whole post.

Now, Fire Knight, your reposting is not an actual quote.  There was a whole other paragraph that contained just out right flames and attacks that was not included in your repost, hence why it was not deleted.

Is it heavy handed?  I guess some might think so.  Is it better than the alternative?  For our mailboxes it is!

[Imperious Leader]

Also, we just remove posts where people insult others. Their is a huge difference in making a point and telling other people they are dumb, thoughtless, and inferior. That must stop and it will.

[The Fire Knight]

:roll: Well, Mantlefan obviously did not give me the full quote then, which would indicate that you weren’t being heavy-handed… however I wil be watching  :wink:

[Imperious Leader]

He gave you the wrong quote. Deliberately. The many posts that got removed wont be saved by him or reprinted. If they did, he might have to confront his worst fears.

Here is an example of a past insulting post:

Great. We are back to what is technically possible. I just hope Larry doesn’t listen to what you’re spouting. I give up. It’s like trying to pull a plow with a cow that doesn’t just pull the other way (away from progressive discussion) but sabotages the plow while she’s at it.

Russia is weaker. Deluding yourself into thinking it’s stronger makes it real only for you. Your focus determines your reality. But that doesn’t mean your reality is sane, objective, or progressive.
How wonderful would the world be if everyone used jen’s Manipulate, Exasperate, Ignore Relevance, and Win! debate strategy.

Who needs progress for the game? All that matters is that Jen looks right.  rolleyes

You see? He is not making any point at all and just attacking people. He does this with other members and then posts his dirty laundry on other sites. It’s ridiculous how he totally ignores how he behaves and it won’t be tolerated.

[JimmyHat]

Back on track, Jenn seems certain the change to the aa gun is a good thing.  Others have even voiced a similar sentiment!  :mrgreen: Both sides of the argument seem to point to individual aa guns and their pro’s and cons vs a sealion or what have you.  Have we scanned the entire board to find the other glaring weaknesses or bonuses of this unit?  What about in out of the way areas?

I have got to think the change has made ANZAC and India weaker to a concerted Jap attack, China cannot stand up to the Japanese Juggernaut if they go full bore because 1 aa gun is not going to dissuade the 15 aircraft they are bringing to the battle.  I also see vast implications if a Russian player is caught sleeping and cannot retreat all his aa guns to the capital, but most players will make it back.

I personally don’t like the change to the aa gun and the addition of one in Paris.  If Sealion needed a boost 1 French Inf would have sufficed. Jenn herself has told me she does a UK crush as the Axis and hits India, I would assume this change to the aa gun has facilitated that.  Is that the kind of balance we want?

[Young Grasshopper]

I’m so glad that I was gaming all day rather than listening to this. Anyways, 6 player game, Alpha+3.5, no tech, great fun, and after 10 hours, we had to stop and record the board due to extreme balance. Very tiered now…… zzzzzzz

[knp7765]

I think the new AA Guns rule is a good thing.  Limiting their fire to just 3 shots maximum I think is more realistic than having a single AA Gun marker getting a shot at every single plane in an attack.  Now at least the attacker finally has a chance at not risking AA fire for at least some of his planes, if he/she attacks with enough of them that is.  If the defender wants more AA coverage, he/she can always buy more AA Guns as there is now no limit to how many you have protecting your territory and they are only 5 IPCs each.
Also, once the AA guns have taken their shot, being able to use them to soak up hits is a great bonus for the defender.  I have already seen a couple of close battles that were actually decided by those extra hits.  In other words, the defender  KEPT the territory because their AA guns took hits that would have been applied to the last couple of units that survived under the old rules.
One other thing, I just like using more of the little AA Gun pieces.  I don’t use the cardboard counters.  I like seeing 4 of them stacked up on London and 3 of them stacked up on Berlin.  Kind of surprised that E US and W US only got 2 each.

[JimmyHat]

@knp7765:

I think the new AA Guns rule is a good thing.  Limiting their fire to just 3 shots maximum I think is more realistic than having a single AA Gun marker getting a shot at every single plane in an attack.  Now at least the attacker finally has a chance at not risking AA fire for at least some of his planes, if he/she attacks with enough of them that is.  If the defender wants more AA coverage, he/she can always buy more AA Guns as there is now no limit to how many you have protecting your territory and they are only 5 IPCs each.
Also, once the AA guns have taken their shot, being able to use them to soak up hits is a great bonus for the defender.  I have already seen a couple of close battles that were actually decided by those extra hits.  In other words, the defender  KEPT the territory because their AA guns took hits that would have been applied to the last couple of units that survived under the old rules.
One other thing, I just like using more of the little AA Gun pieces.  I don’t use the cardboard counters.  I like seeing 4 of them stacked up on London and 3 of them stacked up on Berlin.  Kind of surprised that E US and W US only got 2 each.

The true value of the aa gun unit is that it is the only unit that fires at expensive air and not at lowly infantry.  Generally the person taking the casualties doesn’t even get to choose, if the aa gun hits a bmb then you have to lose a bmb and not a ftr.  If you want to hit the enemies air without having to cut through that infantry mega-stack, then aa guns are the only way that can be done.  So why are we making them less valuable in their ability to shoot aircraft down by giving them only 3 shots?  If the reason is because 1 aa gun couldn’t possibly shoot at that many aircraft then please remember that these units are an abstract value and do not represent actual aa guns but rather an air superiority network including radar/interceptors/flak towers/etc.

I’m more interested in playability than history.

[theROCmonster]

I believe the new AA guns might be a little weaker, but don’t underestimate the ability to take a free hit. They are almost like roaming battleships. Able to absorb a hit with the aa guns and keep firing with your other units. This has made russia stronger not weaker. In total they have 6 aa guns. That is 6 extra free hits.

[Jennifer]

@JimmyHat:

Back on track, Jenn seems certain the change to the aa gun is a good thing.  Others have even voiced a similar sentiment!  :mrgreen: Both sides of the argument seem to point to individual aa guns and their pro’s and cons vs a sealion or what have you.  Have we scanned the entire board to find the other glaring weaknesses or bonuses of this unit?  What about in out of the way areas?

Well, first off, I am no longer certain they prevent or delay Sea Lion at all.

Secondly, I do look at the over all ability of the guns.

A)  They act as units you can take to prolong a war, allowing, for instance, a Fighter to live an extra round and do more damage - just for example.
B)  They still cost a pretty penny if you think about it.  5 IPC and it might not do anything before it dies.
C)  They cannot attack, so it’s up to your enemy to decide if the gun is used at all.
E)  With more guns on the battlefield, Germany is WAY more inclined to use them on the front with Russia putting the Russian player in a quandry:  Do I risk 33% of my airforce that I cannot afford to replace, or send a tank which will certainly be lost on counter attack?  Given how ridiculous the new Russian NO is, that’s certainly a good thing!
F)  Nearly all the Allied guns are unaffected by this rule.  How many times do you see the American or Australian guns attacked?  What about the Japanese ones?  Outside of Carolines, I’d daresay never.  Perhaps if one was brought to N. Africa it would be attacked, but even then, odds are it won’t be brought since it’s better to bring a tank.

I have got to think the change has made ANZAC and India weaker to a concerted Jap attack, China cannot stand up to the Japanese Juggernaut if they go full bore because 1 aa gun is not going to dissuade the 15 aircraft they are bringing to the battle.  I also see vast implications if a Russian player is caught sleeping and cannot retreat all his aa guns to the capital, but most players will make it back.

Hellz yes it did!  15 Japanese aircraft vs 1 AA Gun resulted in 2 losses in OOB, 15 Japanese aircraft vs 2 AA Guns results in 1 loss in Alpha 3.  Not to mention the risk of 4 or 5 losses to AA Guns in OOB was significantly higher due to unlimited AA Gun shots (1 per plane up to infinite planes.)

I personally don’t like the change to the aa gun and the addition of one in Paris.  If Sealion needed a boost 1 French Inf would have sufficed. Jenn herself has told me she does a UK crush as the Axis and hits India, I would assume this change to the aa gun has facilitated that.  Is that the kind of balance we want?

Given all the British units plain deleted from France, I’d like to see 2 or 3 AA Guns in France now!  Or better still, I’ll consider removing the French Gun (which has - to my knowledge - never done serious harm to Germany since last changes) if you add 1 armor to France instead.  Hell, the French even lost an armor in the setup!  Seriously, Germany has the firepower to hit SZ 106, 109, 111, 112, W. France, S. France, France and Yugoslavia in Round 1 with units left over.  We don’t need to weaken France, we need to buff France!