Alpha 3 due next week

@AllyAxis:

Global 1940 is totally geared for the serious gamer and I believe that the Axis should be hard as hell to win with most of the time.   Italy has more power than ever in this version tho which I like and dislike.  Historically the Italian fleet sucked but in Alpha 3 they seem to be in good postion to support Italy getting 10 IPC’s   NO in clearing the med.  and the NO in taking Greece southern france and gibraltar in a few turns and heck even egypt dependng on how UK london does.

Here I disagree, I think G40 should be a beer and pretzel game for 5+ players.  It is a boardgame set in WW2, but is not a recreation.  Giving it a theme merely grants us(the players) the luxury of saying, ‘Rommel must have flanked you through the desert!’ after a lucky roll in an African battle.

However, our interpretation is meaningless.  Larry’s is all that matters because he is the developer, and in order to develop a balanced boardgame, you have to have direction and stick to it.  Hence our confusion over Alpha3.

I think working towards a Beta1 based off the near balance achieved in Alpha2 would be something I am interested in.  After a few playtests using this setup(gotta try it first!) if someone is interested in collaborating on this send me a PM.

There is no way that there will ever be a consensus Beta +1 rule set in which everyone agrees and which everyone contributes. Have you seen the house rules forum? its full of crazy complicated and unnecessary jiber jabber rules that never take balance or simplicity into consideration. The only thing about the Alpha rule sets that unite us all, is the god like powers Larry and his testers have over us. If Alpha +3 was posted in house rules by some 17 year old living in his mom’s basement some where in Texas, we would all say “nice try” and go on about our business. I bet we couldn’t even get to agree who can and can’t contribute to such a document, and if we ever did, whos to say we would ever play with what they feed us. do you have any idea the confusion that would arise in these threads. What your taking about is a mutiny so great that it will threaten and shake the very foundation A&A was built on.

@Young:

The only thing different about the American NOs is that they added 1 more. How is that making less money?

Grasshopper, the US 5/7 Island NO was removed and replaced with the much more difficult Paris NO.
That’s less money.

@Alsch91:

@Young:

The only thing different about the American NOs is that they added 1 more. How is that making less money?

Grasshopper, the US 5/7 Island NO was removed and replaced with the much more difficult Paris NO.
That’s less money.

you’re right…… sorry.

@Alsch91:

@Young:

The only thing different about the American NOs is that they added 1 more. How is that making less money?

Grasshopper, the US 5/7 Island NO was removed and replaced with the much more difficult Paris NO.
That’s less money.

And the Japan NO was made more difficult too. I don’t see that they balance given that US started out much stronger.

I think G40 should be a beer and pretzel game for 5+ players.  It is a boardgame set in WW2, but is not a recreation.

Agreed.

The problem for most of us is that the serious games, are not playalbe over the internet, or are incredibly long.  I own a few, and I have only ever managed to get to play Third Reich once, and we only made it to 1942.

Unfortunately, this beer and pretzel game is all I have available to allow me to be an armchair general.

The Mongolia thing is good because it adds some complexity to the strategy where Japan builds a Korean major IC and then simply walks a big army across the north to take Moscow after Germany has softened them up (around J8 or so).  But suppose Japan takes Amur by amphibious assault on J1 (with heavy air support and shore bomardment this is possible), and then they move the Manchurian and/or Korean ground forces into Amur in the noncombat phase of J2? Does USSR get Mongolia?  Is the spirit of the rule intended to be “…any Japanese military movement into Amur…”, or only “If the Japanese attack Amur from Manchuria and/or Korea…”?  I am not a lawyer but this looks like a loophole to me.

I like the new AA rules because the defender has to decide how much to invest in AA protection.  How about if UK were to have 1 or 2 AAs instead of 4?  Would Sea Lion be possible then?

I think Russia declaring war when London falls is stupid, both historically and for the game.

Or how about going for tech, then para dropping troops in?  That’s a third direction, so it shouldn’t matter where they ‘originate’ from.  This is such a bad idea.

KISS people…

@Alsch91:

Okay Krieghund, but what if I declare my planes in Korea to be moving
Korea - SZ 6 - SZ 5 - Amur?
They non-com back to Man/Kor, but didn’t actually cross the Man-Amu border in Combat move.

He answered in more detail on the other thread.  Planes that take off from Korea/Manchuria cannot attack Amur without the Mongolian consequence, no matter what path they take.  So it’s not about crossing the border with the planes (I specifically asked him that, because I thought of it too), but ALL units starting in Man or Kor cannot attack Amu without the consequence.

@JimmyHat:

Or how about going for tech, then para dropping troops in?  That’s a third direction, so it shouldn’t matter where they ‘originate’ from.  This is such a bad idea.

KISS people…

Another loophole found.  I love it.

How about the whole “Japan has to stay 2 zones away from Alaska, etc” rule.  Taking away options for the Axis hinders them more.  I like the idea, but it’s not KISS.  This game has definitely gone way beyond beer and pretzels - it’s definitely for us A&A disciples.  Spring 1942 is, I suppose, the beer and pretzel game.

I am enjoying the discussion on this thread more than any in recent memory.  Keep up the good points everyone - it’s more fun to read this thread than to play 1940, for me.  :-o

@Vance:

I think Russia declaring war when London falls is stupid, both historically and for the game.

While it is very limiting as far as gameplay, it does make historical sense.

@Alsch91:

@Vance:

I think Russia declaring war when London falls is stupid, both historically and for the game.

While it is very limiting as far as gameplay, it does make historical sense.

I agree.  While Stalin wanted Germany and England to duke it out, if England fell he knew what would come next.  The pact would not be good any more.

No, this is wrong!  There is just no way that Russia would have attacked Germany if England fell.  For one thing, the Red Army was in no condition to take on the Wehrmacht.  Most Russian equipment was still obsolete and morale was extremely low due to the purges.  Remember Russia’s war against Finland?  They only won after taking huge casualties.  They weren’t even ready in June 1941 when Germany attacked Russia.  Look at how far the Germans advanced.  It was the harsh Russian winter more than anything else that stopped the German advance.
Another thing was that Stalin really believed that Hitler would honor their non-aggression pact.  He almost totally ignored the reports of the German mobilization to the Soviet border.
Also, Stalin distrusted the British and was only too happy to see Germany pound them.  He wouldn’t commit to a war with Germany because London fell.

By the way, it has been suggested that the missing Stuka in Western Germany is a simple typo.  In other words, Germany is still supposed to get 3 tacs there, NOT 2.  Any clarification on this?

Never mind, found the correction.  Thanks anyway.

@knp7765:

Also, Stalin distrusted the British and was only too happy to see Germany pound them.  He wouldn’t commit to a war with Germany because London fell.

It’s not that Stalin would be sticking up for the British.  It’s that he would know that Hitler would be coming for him next.  He WOULD commit to war if London falls, and apparently Mr. Harris agrees with me or he wouldn’t have adjusted his rules for this.  And where are you guys (I’ve heard others say this) getting that Stalin thought Hitler would honor the Non-aggression pact?  I find that very, very hard to believe.  Dictators trust no-one, especially other dictators.

@knp7765:

Another thing was that Stalin really believed that Hitler would honor their non-aggression pact.  He almost totally ignored the reports of the German mobilization to the Soviet border.

He only believed in it as far as it would help his cause.  He had no intention of being at peace with Germany permanently, it’s just that Hitler surprised him historically.

For one thing, the Red Army was in no condition to take on the Wehrmacht.

Correct, in 1941, after about a year of German preparation.
But after an invasion of England, with a mis-positioned and dramatically weakened Wehrmacht, the Red Army absolutely would have acted.

It was the idealogical goal of the Red Army to be an offensive force.  That’s partially why they failed so dramatically while on defense.

Also, Stalin distrusted the British and was only too happy to see Germany pound them.  He wouldn’t commit to a war with Germany because London fell.

Sure, he distrusted the British.  But he sure distrusted the Germans as well.  It’s just that it was to Russia’s advantage - temporarily - to align itself with Germany.

So played a game today with Alpha 3 and I got to say its not as bad as it seems.  Tried a Sealion on G3 and it almost succeeded.  The main reason it didn’t was some worse than average rolls.  I would say an average roll or maybe slightly better than average would have been needed.  I could see a problem with Russia getting to declare war if London had fallen, as all my troops would have been out of position.  The AA gun in France was pretty irrelevant (no planes lost and just one extra casualty).  The DOW with Japan and Russia and the freaking Mongolian’s is just weird to me.  Trying to avoid that is more difficult than it seems.  I will say though that Japan was on par with the US after Calcutta fell.  Italy isn’t in as bad shape as they appear.  They did clear out the Med on I3.  They purchased mostly Naval Units to do it before turning their attention to the Mid East.  I dunno guys,  Alpha 3, is pretty darn interesting.  Not saying I am going to give it 5 stars, but I think it might be ok.  It doesn’t seem to have hurt the axis as much as it appears.  I probably could have won if Sealion had gone just slightly better. (Or if there were 2 AA guns instead of 4)

Just my thoughts.

After a closer review I too think that the changes in Alpha+.3 may not be too bad.

I’d be content with everything if there would be a balancing benefit  for the Axis against the Mongol rule.

Since I understand Larry is content with making the Med a very important scene, I suggest that some kind of neutral rule for Spain should be developed. Say Spain joins the Axis when all Italian No’s are fulfilled…? IMO this would provoke some serious action of all involved powers. Britain is in a good position to put up a fight there and Germany would have an alternative goal for the first rounds instead of SL, which would benefit them greatly in the later game. (Access to Gibraltar)

For example: G1 sink the Brit fleet, G2 and G3 help Italy to gain their NO’s and prepare for Barbarossa, G4 go east.

Any opinions?

My goodness? How is it possible to have any idea whatsover if Alpha 3 is good or not without 3 or 4 playtests?

Play some games, and if it’s not good, then hammer away. But it came out yesterday!

It looks fine to me until proven otherwise, and I do have some faith that some pretty good players playtested it and some pretty good minds spent time thinking about it. More time than any of us.

We’re all entitled to our opinion, but wow.

Viribus, that wasn’t directed to you, but to a huge group of people on both sites.

@Stalingradski:

My goodness? How is it possible to have any idea whatsover if Alpha 3 is good or not without 3 or 4 playtests?

Play some games, and if it’s not good, then hammer away. But it came out yesterday!

It looks fine to me until proven otherwise, and I do have some faith that some pretty good players playtested it and some pretty good minds spent time thinking about it. More time than any of us.

We’re all entitled to our opinion, but wow.

Viribus, that wasn’t directed to you, but to a huge group of people on both sites.

I think people just need to play it. I was a little sceptical at first but after playing it I kinda like it.  I think it is an adjustment.  I kinda see a way for the axis to win.  Just gotta change your strategy a bit.  I think Air Power will be more important with Germany now.  Anyways I like it after playing it.  I need a few more games to be sure.