Russian Alpha 3 NO a Mistake?

[ghr2]

@Cow:

The way I see it, if one side is favored to win the other side needs to be in position to make big things happen.

The allies can make big things happen in the pacific, but europe not so much. So most games end up pacific heavy with usa to try and cut japan’s income down enough that china/anzac can take it from there at the round russia falls, because after that it is pretty much full atlantic usa to stop the europe win and that is it… huge allies income advantage and done. Usually the axis beat that strategy if Japan is wise and germany is quick… you can expect to take russia over at round 6 or 7 with germany.

The key is being able to get enough in position to save londn/egypt in time.  Russia usually falls turn 6, this gives the US very little time i think.

[cenator01]

I can’t understand why they removed the german sub national objective. I think it was quite historical and the brits are not too strong at all, even with 5 IPC more every other round. They added quite some NO for Italy and Germany (Oil bonus, North Africa) while they skipped the submarine Bonus for the UK. UK isn’t the most exciting country to play. They are every where, but can’t accomplish much after round one without the help of the US.

I would prefere the submarine NO for the UK (no german submarine in atlantic or indic oceans, except hidden behind Danmark) and the London NO for Germany (or Italy as well). Sealion seems not to be the best and game winnig strategy in Alpha 3.9 any more (USSR NO) and it became a lot harder to accomplish compared to earlier versions

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Cow:

You can easily kick russia out of Europe within a turn or two.

Cow do you have any games saved on TripleA or on the forums where the above actually happens?

@Cow:

The axis win most games anyway.

As we’ve already established. The issue is though, that it is done with Barbarossa. Not sealion. I have played in two games recently (both allies) where Germany went sealion, and have watched several more, all of which saw Russias outearning Germany for 3+ rounds.
My question (which you seem to keep ignoring or just lack the ability to comprehend), is whether or not sealion should be a feasible strategy to make games less one-dimensional. That is NOT the same thing as wondering whether things should be made easier for the axis overall.

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

My question  is whether or not sealion should be a feasible strategy to make games less one-dimensional. That is NOT the same thing as wondering whether things should be made easier for the axis overall.

That’s a pretty subjective question.

From what I understand, the versions of Global prior to 3.9 favored Sea Lion.  In the OOB game, Sea Lion was pretty much mandatory for Axis against an expert Allies.  Initially, playing Sea Lion over and over was a lot of fun, but eventually people tire of this and want Barbarossa to be an option.

With the 3.9 changes, I wouldn’t say Sea Lion isn’t viable, provided that Germany/Italy is a strong player.  Absent bid, Axis probably has a better than 50% chance to win via Sea Lion.  After all, even after 3.9 came out there were complaints that Sea Lion was the only way to go, and presently there are threads wondering how to counter the seemingly unstoppable Sea Lion.

However Sea Lion (in 3.9) seems risky compared to Barbarossa.  And….that is probably the (historical) dynamic the game designers are going for.

If they tinker with the set-up, I wouldn’t object to strengthening Russia.  But I doubt they would go back to a set-up where Sea Lion is the the most optimal strategy.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Who said anything about making it the most optimal strategy? I jump into a game on TripleA whenever I can and watch for a bit, and sealion happens maybe 1 out of 10 times if that.

No one said sealion should be the best option. But from my experience on TripleA, if the Axis actually wants to win they won’t go for sealion. A2 had a lot more balance in terms of Germany deciding sealion or barbarossa, A3 is overwhelmingly Barbarossa.

Anyways, IMO A3 kills sealion and makes for one dimensional games, the same-old same-old more often than not. I was wondering if that is a bad thing since one-strategy games seem boring to me, but it seems that most are happy with it. I guess I have my answer.

[Cow]

Cow do you have any games saved on TripleA or on the forums where the above actually happens?

Yes, there are a number of games in garg’s tournament where sea lion is a success. The key is also being able to blow up with Japan.

I do sea lion with germany if the following conditions are met: 1) better than 55/45 odds to take london 2) Japan can still DOW on J2 (usually I already DOW on J1 so I pretty much just look at the odds for london) 3) I am in the mood

Taking london works. In fact if you want to hold it in a cheapo fashion, you can just buy 3 infantry for it a turn.

Usually the axis win in the pacific in sea lion games. USA is needed in the pacific or you can substitute USA in the pacific with lots of russian mech flooding it or you can have a KJF combo… then gamble on Germany winning on the Europe half.

Sealion is still powerful. In fact if the Russia NO did not include Africa, I would just concede after sea lion and play a new game.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Cow:

Sealion is still powerful. In fact if the Russia NO did not include Africa, I would just concede after sea lion and play a new game.

This seems to be severely exaggeratory. Sealion was easier in Alpha 2 and the Russian NO was weaker, did you automatically surrender in every Alpha 2 sealion too?

[Guest]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Cow:

You can easily kick russia out of Europe within a turn or two.

Cow do you have any games saved on TripleA or on the forums where the above actually happens?

So Russia falls within a turn or 2 of the fall of London?

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

I’ve been looking at the situation and it seems that the most Germany can bring G3 is 13 inf, 9 tanks, 4 art, 4 ftr, 4 tac, 2 bmb (2 planes in 110 to help cruiser/CV with scramble.

If Germany does not get it’s lucky shot at 2 off of canada, then that frees up a transport. I don’t see anyone going 109 anymore, so that transport is freed up to go to canada and land back UK 1.

G1 is France/Normandy/Yugo/110/111/106, buy CV, 2 trn. I really haven’t seen anyone do anything different. Perhaps that’s where I am doing sealion wrong.

UK1 hit 96, 110 tobruk, somaliland, move ftr from gib to UK, move trn from 106 to 109, then one from 109 to 106, land 2 units in england (before you say “But what if the sub won in 106?” To that I say if your sealion needs that to be successful, then we don’t need to look at it any further.), buy 1 ftr 6 inf. Land tac, ftr on Egypt, pick up inf art from malta and drop in egypt from red sea. Take E. Persia

G2 buy 10 trn, move all planes in position.

UK2 9 inf 1 tank, move transport from 106, drop 2 units. Evac bomber if desired.

G3: Hit 23 inf, 1 mech, 1 art, 2 tank, 5 AA, 6 ftr with 13 inf, 4 art, 9 tank , 4 ftr, 4 tac, 2 bmb, 1 bombard cru.

Germany wins that only 34%, and will take massive plane losses most of the time. After all that, you still have to face russia.

Are you doing G4? Is UK scrambling G1? Are you ignoring 110 and/or 111 and focusing on 106 and 109? Is UK buying battleships? Is this combined with a G2 strat bombing?

[Cow]

So Russia falls within a turn or 2 of the fall of London?

The gray area on the map is real europe to me. You can say russia is on the Europe continent if you want.

Alpha 2 was bad. You have no excuse for losing as the axis in that version. NO EXCUSES. I’ll take axis @ -30 ipc please, I don’t need AA guns.
~
yeah well sometimes you don’t roll hits with your defending royal navy and there are subs lurking and the bship is untilted, those are the games where sea lion tends to happen especially if you scrambled to end up missing.

These games come up frequently enough so does the other extreme where the royal navy stands.

It is situational. Even in low luck sometimes you miss. 106 is the same in dice and low luck… you just have to accept that every game can be a difference of +15 or -15 (sometimes -23 if the subs roll a hit on defense). It sucks when there is 2 subs there and you send a dd and bomber… and end up being very sad a sub lingers. When I am germany sending 2 subs to 106 to lose that battle… it is not too bad.

For competitive dice games I never ever do Normandy, I hate losing the battle for France.

I prefer to strafe Yugoslavia if I can (hit it and retreat into romania so the southern germany units are forward). I take romania with germany.

I buy 2 transport carrier round 1… I always stack baltic states round 2 so I can hold novgorod round 3… unless of course the game says I should buy a bunch of transports/naval to take london… like basically the extreme luck scenarios. I may as well take advantage of it.

By default I do barb, but people get cocky or get diced and I got to do sea lion in those scenarios. I can’t let people drop minor ics turn1 on egypt or place units in south africa… that is just asking me to do sea lion and I have to keep people honest. Which is why I always get carrier 2 fighter… sure a sub and 3 russian air units can sink a cruiser 2 fighter and carrier… a little bit of gamble but it is fine. If the transports are still around mid/late game they can get back norway/finland for the NO or stay hidden… or keep shuffling 3 artillery and 3 inf.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Ah now we see it, it’s a good strategy if UK has bad dice and made the poor decision to scramble.  A strategy that relies on mistakes by the opponent and for them to have poor dice is hardly a good strategy. Next we will see Cow’s invasion plan for the USA. All it requires is the minor detail that USA’s land units hit at less than 15%. It’s a good strategy though. Not doomed at all.  :roll: It’s “situational.”  :roll:

[Cow]

???

Does not have to rely on scramble, just bad dice scenarios or uk does not place strait inf on london… it is situational. G1 I buy carrier 2 transports to get men closer to the fight when I dow on russia… it does not delay barb at all, it insures nov is held on g3. Plus it keeps uk honest.

Sea lion still ends up happening 1 in every 5 games give or take for me. In garg’s tournament I did sea lion and I had sea lion done to me… so 2/2 so far. No bid for the allies though.

I say it is situational, because I prefer to take london on g3, because I DOW J1. As a result sometimes uk gets cocky and I may as well go for it.

Post sea lion, germany going for america is a legitimate strategy, especially if you are focusing on a pacific win. Not too many players will send 15 russian mech to asia as a substitute for America.

I prefer to win in the pacific. Taking out london compliments this very well. If you can get the odds for a G3 showdown, why not?
~
Plus the axis has lots of flexibility in global, so it is hard to have a set strategy when every game has different opportunities.

The allies pretty much just respond a certain way, so there is a normal game that results usually.
~
The only thing I set in stone is my opener. Unless russia stacks amur with a bunch of inf… I will DOW everyone on J1 and kick off the war. It is the most ideal turn to declare war for Japan, the europe half might beg for a J2 DOW instead.

I play the axis for Japan and I play the allies for the pacific. So from my perspective Sea Lion is great.

You want to nerf Russia out of his 14 ipc, which means less mech for asia or europe… The allies can’t stop the pacific win after a sea lion success without the 14 ipc. Plus it would be easy for germany to go barb and take russia around G10-11. Not like he needs to hold london for long. All that cheddar in the atlantic should be great for Japan.

[Cow]

I don’t understand why it is such a big deal that russia gets income for africa stuff. Does not bother me much, still prefer being the axis, in fact it makes urgency matter more.

I rather not play 24 hour games here.

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

I’ve been looking at the situation and it seems that the most Germany can bring G3 is 13 inf, 9 tanks, 4 art, 4 ftr, 4 tac, 2 bmb (2 planes in 110 to help cruiser/CV with scramble.

If Germany does not get it’s lucky shot at 2 off of canada, then that frees up a transport. I don’t see anyone going 109 anymore, so that transport is freed up to go to canada and land back UK 1.

G1 is France/Normandy/Yugo/110/111/106, buy CV, 2 trn. I really haven’t seen anyone do anything different. Perhaps that’s where I am doing sealion wrong.

UK1 hit 96, 110 tobruk, somaliland, move ftr from gib to UK, move trn from 106 to 109, then one from 109 to 106, land 2 units in england (before you say “But what if the sub won in 106?” To that I say if your sealion needs that to be successful, then we don’t need to look at it any further.), buy 1 ftr 6 inf. Land tac, ftr on Egypt, pick up inf art from malta and drop in egypt from red sea. Take E. Persia

G2 buy 10 trn, move all planes in position.

UK2 9 inf 1 tank, move transport from 106, drop 2 units. Evac bomber if desired.

G3: Hit 23 inf, 1 mech, 1 art, 2 tank, 5 AA, 6 ftr with 13 inf, 4 art, 9 tank , 4 ftr, 4 tac, 2 bmb, 1 bombard cru.

Germany wins that only 34%, and will take massive plane losses most of the time. After all that, you still have to face russia.

Are you doing G4? Is UK scrambling G1? Are you ignoring 110 and/or 111 and focusing on 106 and 109? Is UK buying battleships? Is this combined with a G2 strat bombing?

Ok I’ll bite.  First of all most Sea Lion deployments use 2 subs in 106.  So there is a high likelihood of success there.  The potential for failure is one of those things that make Sea Lion high risk…

Given that Germany will be down a sub, there is also a higher likelihood of British scramble.  But given your ac 2 tpt buy, scrambling is a high-risk move for UK.

I have to admit that most Allied players I have faced are not as careful as you are about having 5-6 planes on UK after UK1 to prevent a G2 Scotland landing.  Many Allied opponents attack 97 and leave themselves wide open.

Another factor to consider is if Germany takes 106 with 2 subs, then UK may want to divert a plane to 106 on UK1 to be sure it clears that space.  And if UK diverts 2 planes to 106, then that reopens the possibility of a Scotland landing G2.

Germany should have close to or better then 50% odds G3, but I’m not one to risk a game on a G3 assault that’s less then 85%.  So if UK is doing EVERYTHING right, you can still wait until G4 to attack.  You land 24 land units in Scotland…UK could probably attack this force, but the bulk of the UK forces will be infantry (since they need to assume Germany intends to attack G3) and it would be a high-risk attack.  Then on G4 you smash London and build some more navy.  At that point, Russia and United States can liberate London and defeat Germany…but Japan has a great chance of snagging the win because United States won’t be able to spend enough in the Pacific to hold India and Hawaii while also liberating London.

To reiterate, the desire for Sea Lion to be just as effective a tactic as Barbarossa is not what the game designers had in mind…that’s why 3.9 is how it is.  No prior A&A game is so friendly to Sea Lion as Europe/Global.  But Global was also meant to be historical…and Sea Lion is what is is…a high-risk gamble.  It should be difficult to pull off against a ‘perfect’ Allied response.

[Yavid]

@Zhukov44:

To reiterate, the desire for Sea Lion to be just as effective a tactic as Barbarossa is not what the game designers had in mind…that’s why 3.9 is how it is.  No prior A&A game is so friendly to Sea Lion as Global.  But Global was also meant to be historical…and Sea Lion is what is is…a high-risk gamble.  It should be difficult to pull off against a ‘perfect’ Allied response.

That’s why Russian units running around in Africa bothers so many players. But it does bother me that some players will complain that Russia gets bonuses for Africa but turn around and complain they killed Sea Lion. If the game is suppose to be historical then Russia should stay out of Africa-Mideast. But Germany needs to stay out of the British Isles. Sea Lion should be something along the lines of a 50/50 shot when everyone does everything right. and let the German players decide if they want to roll the dice on Sea Lion or not. Hitler decided not to for a reason. And that reason was it was to risky.

[Cow]

I kind of liked it being 30-40% in old versions of axis and allies… that made it a fun and quick game or I would just merge the naval in the med sea.

You would think that because the axis have positioning they would make the game more challenging for the axis to win than the allies.

I prefer the rules to promote action and not take away from it.

I do hate how 1 sub stops russia’s 5 ipc bonus.

[Yavid]

I hate that Norway is so important in A&A. Taking it denies Germany $8 a turn and if Russia has it Russia gets $6 for it (plus finland $5 just to get there) That’s a swing of $14. $21 if you are counting Finland too.

[Cow]

it is easy for you to hold. plus it is a silly spot for usa as well. =]

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Yavid:

@Zhukov44:

To reiterate, the desire for Sea Lion to be just as effective a tactic as Barbarossa is not what the game designers had in mind…that’s why 3.9 is how it is. � No prior A&A game is so friendly to Sea Lion as Global. � But Global was also meant to be historical…and Sea Lion is what is is…a high-risk gamble. � It should be difficult to pull off against a ‘perfect’ Allied response.

That’s why Russian units running around in Africa bothers so many players. But it does bother me that some players will complain that Russia gets bonuses for Africa but turn around and complain they killed Sea Lion. If the game is suppose to be historical then Russia should stay out of Africa-Mideast. But Germany needs to stay out of the British Isles. Sea Lion should be something along the lines of a 50/50 shot when everyone does everything right. and let the German players decide if they want to roll the dice on Sea Lion or not. Hitler decided not to for a reason. And that reason was it was to risky.

There’s at least one major difference: Sealion was a serious consideration by the Germans to which considerable resources were given to plan.

The other major consideration is that a viable sealion allows for more variation in games. I don’t know about you, but I don’t play A&A to carry out the war just like it happened.

Someone had the point that sealion is harder because the designers wanted it that way. I don’t see why the designers wanting something to be a certain way means that it is not potentially a mistake.

From what I remember reading A3 came out because A2 was too hard for the Axis because USA went all pacific, neutralized Japan, and then got back in time to save cairo and then started getting italy and west europe. It sounds like A3 is a lot easier for the axis because barbarossa is so much easier.  In my opinion it was a mistake to try to balance the game by making one strategy the only truly competitive option when the more entrenched you make the sides in specific strategies, the more imbalance will show up. In other words, the less variables that are in the game, the more obvious the imbalance is.

[gamerman01]

Excellent post by Zhukov IMO

I’d like to address the thread subject “Russian Alpha3 NO a mistake?”

I agree that it seems that little thought was really put into this NO (unfortunately, I get that feeling about a lot of things, especially throughout all the Global 1940 waffling!!!  Exhibit A: OOB Unlimited scrambling, but only on islands, and UK is not an island!)

This NO was even more ridiculous when it included all neutrals.  But anyway, I think it’s still queer, as do many of you.
Only my second game of Alpha3, but I am currently on R3 and all 4 Italian territories in Africa are sitting there beckoning some of my 2 Russian mech infantry and 8 armor.  It definitely seems gamey to send a mech and a tank down there, but you know what?  It would take 4 turns just to hit the first two territories.  A mech and a tank are worth 10 IPC’s.  I’m really not convinced it’s even the wisest thing to do, to send units down there.  It’s hard to quantify their usefulness on the Western front during all those rounds.  And then there’s even a delay after you get the money, until you can actually spend it.  Also the UK must lay off those territories during this time, and Italy is collecting on them.  Also, giving potential landing spots for Axis planes.  I just don’t think it’s as simple as drooling over 14 IPC’s per turn.

That said, I agree I would also house rule that it’s European territories only.  But since I play lots of different people online, house rules are not really a good option, so I just have to play it the way it is.  :-(

I want to agree with Cow about the other Russian NO.  It’s stupid.  To get 5, you have to control Archangel and keep all allied units out of all Russia territories (like AA50) but then you also have to have Z125 free of any Axis ships, and Germany goes right before you.  Too many requirements.  Why didn’t he just add to that, that you roll 2 dice and if it comes up with the number of the month you are currently in, that you can’t collect as well?  <sarcasm>You guys were also talking a lot about the middle east.  I have something for you to consider….  why do only Italy and Germany get bonus income for those three territories?  So if Japan takes them, then G/I are out of luck?  And Japan gets no extra?  Even if they don’t control any of the East Indies and are dying for more oil?  Why don’t Allies get any extra for controlling?  I like that Euro Axis can get these bonuses, but it introduces more weird inconsistencies IMO…

I would love to list other pet peeves and rifs, but will resist the temptation to deviate from the thread topic…</sarcasm>