SZ 110 is the English Channel.
I really want some numbers on how to hit SZ 111 and SZ 110 (both British Battleships) even if it means not attacking SZ 91 (off Gibraltar) or SZ 103 (off Canada). There has to be a way to kill both those battleboats.
Know you the odds for those naval engagements?
Calculator you have to force: http://www.campusactivism.org/aacalc/
Calculator that may be reliable: http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html
I am okay with forgetting the Italian Air Defense League and letting England hit what they will. Personally, I would rather have the fighters for Germany and I know a few players here that will attack the Italian fleet ONLY if Germany puts fighters down there to scramble, with the hopes of sinking extra German aircraft. I am beginning to lean that way myself now.
So I guess I need maximal punch in SZ 111, SZ 110, SZ 112 and, if possible, hitting SZ 91.
Mantlefan’s right- the numbers are for you but you have to skip Normandy for a turn, which is not too bad.
Problem is that by skipping Normandy and you fail to sink ship in z91, 106, or 109 then Brits can send in more troops and make it a stiff defense for England from Sealion. Germany may abort even or go for the risky G4 Sealion. Alpha+2 was designed this way. You can do Sealion if things go your way or under the right conditions but you will give something up in return- some imbalance elsewhere
Yes, but that is always the case. SZ 106 is never a given as you really have pretty bad odds of surviving and only even odds of sinking the destroyer, leaving the transport to live for another day. If there was a place to put the submarine to use later and not be at risk of the british destroyer sinking it, I might even give up that battle and wait for better odds.
In regards to the cruiser in SZ 91, I would rather have the Battleship in SZ 110, to be truthful. It gives England another ship to send at the Italian fleet, but it gives Germany better odds in London.
Sealion is no longer doable as a G 3.
But here is your BEST mix:
Sz111
2 sb 1 fht 1 tac 1 bmb
Sz110
2 sb 3 fht 3 tac
Sz 112
1 CA 1 BB (there is still 1 fht 1 tac that can be used here)
If he scrambles, if the battle in sz110 goes to odds, Sealion goes up approx. 20 percent.
Problem is that by skipping Normandy and you fail to sink ship in z91, 106, or 109 then Brits can send in more troops and make it a stiff defense for England from Sealion. Germany may abort even or go for the risky G4 Sealion. Alpha+2 was designed this way. You can do Sealion if things go your way or under the right conditions but you will give something up in return- some imbalance elsewhere
You give the designer’s WAY too much credit.
I should also state why Sealion is not great anymore.
On OOB, the original Sealion 1.0 was approx. 70 percent. I see that many have put their own twist my original move, and I even got it up to approx. 90 percent with tweaking - even in alpha 1+.
But in alpha 2+, with a maximal UK defense, odds are now down to ~35%.
This means that UK doesn’t need to bring everything back anymore - just enough to keep it at 50%.
Hell, if my odds of success were 60%, I probably wouldn’t do it.
I think that was the whole point of the changes made in Alpha 2 and I’m glad they did it. Sea Lion should be a huge risk, not a standard opening.
My point is that it was most likely by accident.
My point is that it was most likely by accident.
Erm, so does that apply to all the improvements in A2, or just the fact that Sea Lion isn’t such a gimme any more?
Are you thinking they just rolled dice to determine the new setup, or what?
Yes.
I mean they obviously didn’t randomly determine the changes. Regardless of what you think of the designers that’s a silly statement.
it is a silly statement- it was by design. I know because I was a part of that design process.
it is a silly statement- it was by design. I know because I was a part of that design process.
I think you guys did a great job. Alpha +2 is a vast improvement from OOB and a great game. Thanks for your hard work!
it is a silly statement- it was by design. I know because I was a part of that design process.
You were part of a forum discussion with Larry (as was I for Pacific) after the game had been released to consumers.
I have a BIG problem with that. It should be finished when I pay my $200. I have lost confidence in them being able to deliver a finished product to me. After AAPacific, AA Bulge, and now these, my confidence is gone. Before I spend my money on them again (IF I do …), I will wait a year and see what everyone one else has found.
As for this playtesting we are doing, changes were being made too quickly for any real playtesting. Each time we started games here, halfway through changes had already been made. No time had been given to exploring the previous changes. I got fed up after that and did not participate in the Global part.
At least people are being given a chance to test out Alpha 2, as I haven’t seen any changes to that in a while, so I’ll give them that. But what about the games separetely? Have they bothered to look and see if these changes will affect Europe and Pacific on their own?
The fixes could have been simple, but these quite different from OOB. I think the saying is “throwing out the baby with the bath water.”
I agree with Jim that The new AA40 is a great deception.
I love Alpha +2, but i would have prefer to buy a game balanced and finished.
I preordered the 2 boardgame, it is the last time i do that with axis and allies product for sure.
And when will we have a rulebook up to date?
I agree with some your points guys, but don’t you think the blame should lay on the publisher that rushes the product to release? I don’t see why the designers should be blamed. They did after all come up with the Axis and Allies games that we all love and play. I just think the blame is misdirected is all.
I just think the blame is misdirected is all.
Maybe … I don’t know what went on with original playtesting and what happened when the product was handed to Avalon Hill. You could be right.
Doesn’t change the fact, that I’m not buying their next product.
I see it this way, though:
"Congratualtions on buying your new car! I hope you enjoy it. By the way, can you get back to us as to whether the brakes work well? We didn’t test them enough during development …
… also, if you do get into an accident because the brakes failed, let us know about the airbags, too.
Your input is greatly appreciated!"
Good point. I agree that for their next product, if I do buy it, it will be months after the release.
