@Cmdr:
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
I agree that the Axis have been buffed significantly. In fact I think the current set-up favors them, particularly in Europe.
However a smart UK will probably prevent you from taking London on G3. And on G4, is it even worth it even more? Compared to Alpha 2, London is quite a bit safer - everything is the same, but UK has 4 more hits, and Germany has 1 more Strat and a transported Artillery can be replaced by an Armor. UK’s change is more significant.
And I still question taking Calcutta by J4. I don’t doubt it’s possible but still have some questions. Japan shouldn’t have a landing spot for its planes (Yunnan or Shan State) as long as India blocked correctly and took those territories back from Burma.
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Grasshopper:
I think he’s only talking about the AA Gun increase on Victory Cities. (Which makes it too complicated for Larry to add to the game I think) but that would mean E. Poland won’t be changed, but France would.
@Cmdr:
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
Also, keep in mind you fire ALL AA Gun shots simultanoiusly, the attack can designate what target is hit, if anything was hit. So just forget about killing strategic bombers with them in either of the battles. ^_^
Jen, my group and I consider ourselves to be above average players and there is some concern between us that the Axis have it tough. We respect your opinions, but the ease in which you describe a sealion operation in Alpha+3 baffles us as much as how you plan to protect the eastern front when Russia enters after London falls. Is there a link you can send me that describes your plans in detail? I don’t have battlemap on my computer so I prefer not to try and decipher online games. I love sealion, and I was hoping you could start a thread on how I can pull it off with a balance of risk vs reward. Thanks.
@Cmdr:
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense.
shouldn’t be too hard Hop just go to play board games and look at the first couple of german turns seems like alot of people are doing sealion
@Cmdr:
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense.
A second fighter was lost when it was turned into a strategic bomber.
@Cmdr:
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense.
A second fighter was lost when it was turned into a strategic bomber.
Hey Jen, you need to recheck the Alpha+3 setup again. UK gets 2 fighters in London + 1 Strategic Bomber. The bomber was added to London, not replacing a fighter. Only the UK fighter in Normandy was lost.
Ya sure? Cause the way Larry worded it, it sounded like he was transforming a fighter into a strategic bomber…
anyway, you still lose a few high value defending units just due to not having enough time to get back. (No units from Canada, so don’t bother adding those when you do your check.)
@Young:
@Cmdr:
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
Also, keep in mind you fire ALL AA Gun shots simultanoiusly, the attack can designate what target is hit, if anything was hit. So just forget about killing strategic bombers with them in either of the battles. ^_^
Jen, my group and I consider ourselves to be above average players and there is some concern between us that the Axis have it tough. We respect your opinions, but the ease in which you describe a sealion operation in Alpha+3 baffles us as much as how you plan to protect the eastern front when Russia enters after London falls. Is there a link you can send me that describes your plans in detail? I don’t have battlemap on my computer so I prefer not to try and decipher online games. I love sealion, and I was hoping you could start a thread on how I can pull it off with a balance of risk vs reward. Thanks.
I love how the topic always seems to go to sealion. :P
Seriously though, if you want to talk about the validity of sealion, there are many threads already dedicated to that. (and tons of off topic convos like this one)
Anyways…. I think that the AA guns should not keep firing throughout combat. If anything, just make them fire four or five shots instead. (still a step down from the old rules, where they fired on all planes)
I love how the topic always seems to go to sealion. :P
Seriously though, if you want to talk about the validity of sealion, there are many threads already dedicated to that. (and tons of off topic convos like this one)Anyways…. I think that the AA guns should not keep firing throughout combat. If anything, just make them fire four or five shots instead. (still a step down from the old rules, where they fired on all planes)
How can a conversation on AA Guns be permitted in a topic named “Alpha 4”, and not Sealion?
@Cmdr:
Ya sure? Cause the way Larry worded it, it sounded like he was transforming a fighter into a strategic bomber…
anyway, you still lose a few high value defending units just due to not having enough time to get back. (No units from Canada, so don’t bother adding those when you do your check.)
He considered removing the French fighter or a British fighter, but ended up simply adding the bomber.
If you’re hitting 110 and 111 on G1, then the Canadians will probably make it to London. You’ll have to make choices.
And every single other British plane - Malta, Gibraltar, Med Tac - will make it back to London. I’ll bring them to Gibraltar on UK1, and you will not stop them from defending at London. The lack of Airbases is a pain in the ass, but they’ll still make it.
No, I did not list that SZ 110 was a fight I wanted to engage in. You may keep your cruiser and battleship. You may also keep the cruiser in SZ 91. You may attack SZ 112 with 2 Cruisers, 1 Battleship, 3 Fighters, 1 Strategic Bomber but I will have 4 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, 1 destroyer, 1 damaged Battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 aircraft carrier there at a minimum - I will probably also have a submarine present, not sure if it is really necessary after all, England has just thrown away it’s RAF.
I know of brick walls less defensive.
@Cmdr:
No, I did not list that SZ 110 was a fight I wanted to engage in. You may keep your cruiser and battleship. You may also keep the cruiser in SZ 91. You may attack SZ 112 with 2 Cruisers, 1 Battleship, 3 Fighters, 1 Strategic Bomber but I will have 4 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, 1 destroyer, 1 damaged Battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 aircraft carrier there at a minimum - I will probably also have a submarine present, not sure if it is really necessary after all, England has just thrown away it’s RAF.
I understand. I was just saying, in the event that you attacked both Battleships, I would most likely have Canadian re-inforcements.
But you’re skipping 110. More than fair.
I won’t be hitting 112, but you will find that every plane (1 Scotland, 3 London, 1 Gibraltar, 1 Malta, 1 Med fleet) will be defending against Sealion. You will not be able to stop this.
This in in addition to the extra 5 hits (4 AA and 1 Strat) added to London.
well I still dont think its the best strat to go sea lion, russia is much softer. The only way I’d go sealion is if I can hold east poland and forece sea lion. Just becuase you can hit london r 4 doesnt say that you win the game.
I’ve not found a scenario where germany can do that.
I dont like the new setup in europe since russia gets smashed to easily.
I agree completely wrath.
With the amount that UK’s had taken away and the amount Germany’s had added, Russia is quite a bit easier to neuter and take down. I understand why Larry did it - encourage US to invest in the Europe theater - but frankly it’s too much.
Yeah, I have to agree with you there. In our games, we have found for an Allied vicotry, the US has to invest heavily in the Pacific first and really pound down Japan as quickly as possible. Not necessarily take them out totally, but sink all/most of the Jap navy and get them cornered on their island. If done right, with any luck the Chinese and Brits should be able to handle the Jap land forces while ANZAC retakes any islands from the Japs.
Then the US has to start sending lots of stuff over to Europe and Africa. This only works if the UK and USSR can hold off Germany/Italy long enough. The new setup makes this even harder.
Also, if the US invests too much in the Atlantic early, they may stop Italy and Germany but you take the chance that Japan runs wild in the Pacific. In one of our games that the Allies could have won, the US went heavy in the Atlantic early in the game. In a few rounds, Italy was smashed and Germany was really hemmed in and about to go under. Unfortunately, Japan got 7 of 8 VCs on the Pacific side and there wasn’t enough Allied presence anywhere in the Pacific to do anything about it.
Alpha 3 looked quite good in the beginning, then all those changes came, just because people don’t want to change/rethink their strategies. Thats what a game is all about.
I think, the best would have been, to change the turn order to:
Germany
USSR
Japan
China
USA
Italy
UK
ANZAC
France
with some minor changes in Africa and the med. (like removing 1 italian transport, 2 are enough whe they go first, removing some heavy weapons from Africa, leaving mostly Infantry there, adding another Frech ship (whatever) and some anzac ships to the British med fleet). So Italy could take up the fight, and the Med would be much more interesting for even more then one round.
Maybe France could be allowed to collect money, and if they ever get an industrial complex, they could build as normal. The only chance i see is an French industrial complex in Brasil, and i feel this would add a lot of interesting options to this game. Its way to scripted and lacking options.
Just my 2 cents.
You won’t be able to get the Maltese Fighter nor the Egyptian Tactical Bomber to England. No Airbase in Gibraltar means I don’t have to worry about scrambles anymore. However, even if we pretend they do make it, that’s not enough.
Round 1 you can get 9 units for England
Round 2 you should have 27 IPC to spend (due to Convoy raids from submarines) and 12 damage to your major complex limiting you to 6 units
Round 3 you should be facing 26 ground units + 12 aircraft
For the sake of argument:
13 Infantry, 5 Artillery, 8 Armor, 5 Fighters, 5 Tactical Bombers, 2 Strategic Bombers, Cruiser Bombardment, Battleship Bombardment (unless you want to scramble and lose aircraft for defense, or if you want to drop 16 IPC to stop it.)
vs
4 AA Guns, 20 Infantry, 6 Fighters, 1 Tactical Bomber, 1 Strategic Bomber (that includes your Med planes.)
Figure 2 Fighters lost to AA Gun Fire: Leaves Germany with a 96% chance of success. Since frood is dying on me, had to use that other Calc and I don’t really like it, so let’s say 90%.
BTW, it’s off topic, but I don’t like that calculator because it’s off by 50% in just about every naval engagement I have ever tried to use it for. (Exageration, of course.)
You will find that every plane (1 Scotland, 3 London, 1 Gibraltar, 1 Malta, 1 Med fleet) will be defending against Sealion. You will not be able to stop this.
This in in addition to the extra 5 hits (4 AA and 1 Strat) added to London.
