Alpha 3 due next week

@gamerman01:

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn’t see the changes that take away Sealion.  Please explain.

The 4 AAs on London can now be taken as casualties.  Odds of success are now below 50% for Sealion.

@Alsch91:

It’s the fact that London gets 4 free soak hits that kills Sealion.

Yeah, I see he didn’t take anything away, either.  That does severely hamper Sealion, which opens up a lot of options for UK, which, yes, I agree is going the wrong direction as far as balance….  I guess we’ll just be bidding high for Axis to compensate.

@jim010:

@gamerman01:

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn’t see the changes that take away Sealion.  Please explain.

The 4 AAs on London can now be taken as casualties.  Odds of success are now below 50% for Sealion.

Yeah, thanks Jim, the other guys beat you to the punch.  I understand now - see previous post  :-)

Gotta like the improvement to mech infantry for tech, though, right?  Just upping the attack to 2 from 1 when paired with a tank was a joke.  At least now they can blitz alone.

@gamerman01:

Gotta like the improvement to mech infantry for tech, though, right?  Just upping the attack to 2 from 1 when paired with a tank was a joke.  At least now they can blitz alone.

yup, that’s nice !

And about the 4 AAguns in UK, i guess, on top of the others Axis problems, we will now see much more scrambling on G1 in sz110 and 111.

Really, is there any good reason for letting the AA guns take hits?  Cause if he thinks 5 IPC’s is too much for an AA gun that’s lost on capture, he could lower it to 4.  This is, of course, the wrong venue to get change, but not the wrong venue to vent.

@Alsch91:

It’s the fact that London gets 4 free soak hits that kills Sealion.
4 AA guns can now shoot at 12 planes - more than Germany has - so the Luftwaffe is in just as much danger in a Sealion attack as before.

Didn’t see that this was answered already.

Hmmm AA guns as casualties……

Now we have ground based soak off hits to take into consideration.  They shoot their load against the planes and then can be taken as casualties without losing any defensive pips to the defender.

One change this will bring is that it makes strafing attacks into AA fire more likely.  Now, as the defender, you have to consider your OOL and if you really do want to lose a 0 defense AA gun or keep it in case your opponent retreats.  I know I strafe every opportunity I get and it would be sweet if my opponent chooses to lose his aa gun when I was going to retreat anyways.

Russia and the US enter the war if London falls.

Let the baiting of Sealion begin!  To hell with 9 inf and 1 art.  I’m buying naval on UK 1!

Crap, with the AA rules, 1940 is becoming more different from AA50.  I for one will have difficulty playing them both at the same time, when AA gun rules are now so different.  It’s a little like the transports going from hit soakers to “big bonus at the end for winning the fleet battle”….  :|  As far as being difficult to switch back and forth between 2 versions of A&A…

@gsh34:

Russia and the US enter the war if London falls.

Let the baiting of Sealion begin!  To hell with 9 inf and 1 art.  I’m buying naval on UK 1!

Naval or air, what with the airbases becoming super-fortresses.  :-P
Yeah, it might be a decent strategy to leave London nearly empty after UK1, if Russia and USA get to enter the war on round 2……

Trying… hard… not to … commit A&A blasphemy by criticizing Larry Harris… must control…

I can’t do it.

Once again, with the development of P40, E40, and all the changes after it, I question Larry’s ability to understand all the ramifications of the rules he establishes or changes he makes.  Exhibit A: Unlimited scrambling from airbases.  Exhibit B: The debacle of deciding what boats Italy has in the Med.

And now this.  Wow.  Does he have any idea what he has done to the game with his AA changes, etc etc.  I doubt it.  I pointed out to him that AA guns were over-priced after he made them destroyed upon capture.  Oh yeah, he says, I guess I should lower the cost to 5. <shudder>He says this version is pretty much final and will be published.  He said that about Alpha 2…
Wake me up when this game is truly finalized.  I think you guys are right - this Alpha 3 ain’t gonna cut it.  Nice try… no cigar.</shudder>

Well, I can’t wait to try it out, but I’m also very depressed at the results.  The shining light is an attempt to address the Russian/Japanese war.  I like that Russia gets Mongolia if Japan attacks them. (like in my house rules) but there also needs to be a reason for Russia not to attack Japan, right?

I also thought there was a reason no aa gun was ever placed in France.  Wild random air casualties G1 would greatly skew results, so taking it out means the developer can control to an extent German losses on these required attacks.(Paris)  Really dislike this addition.  I also don’t like his aa gun idea.  For some reason it is impossible to scrap the idea entirely and use the cardboard pieces as a new unit!  They are static aa gun emplacements!!!

Too early to get frustrated, but I think that hurricane scrambled more than New England…

@jim010:

Am I the only one who thinks Alpha 3 is a step backwards?

Nope.

I feel (just feel, never played yet) Allies gets even better in alpha3. Why :
1. Russia can rigth after London falls… which means Germany can’t have a turn (or 2) to turn around and still have initiative against Russia.
2. London gets 4 more hit points free. (AA’s can now take a hit, after they fired)
3. Paris can now down planes and gets an extra hit point (new AA)
4. Interceptors get downed before now (logical, but favors allies IMO)

Just 1 (kinna) help to Axis. Japan can now easily attack Russia without giving any candy to allies.

All other changes are somewhat minor, certainly not a game changer.

I say Alpha 3 is less balanced than alpha 2. OOB gives not a single chance for Axis to win. Alpha 3 is hard… only alpha2 gives a fair chance for Axis (say 40%, as major error for Axis is fatal, while still possible for Allies to win with major error)

guys if I read this, I have to consider that all of you have years of experience with Alpha+3.
Play first, judge later  :mrgreen:

I don’t see how any change benefits the Axis, who seemed to need the assistance.  I don’t see how this levels the KJF strategy.  I don’t see how this makes the game more balanced or better.  The AA gun rules are horrible.  I am not impressed one bit; moreover, I’m truly saddened to have gotten my hopes up for a nice balanced version.  So sad.

I agree with you guys! I’m kinda disappointed.

I will play it, but IMO it doesn’t look good for the Axis.

The only advantages for the Axis is that the Brits probably won’t get to Gibraltar and that India is less protected.

Sealion is dead, a Japanese attack on Russia is suicide, France is all the harder to get and Russia is as strong as ever.

I don’t see how this is more balanced.

Nevertheless I’m looking forward to play-test it.

Well, I have read over all of the new rules and I hate to say that I am not very impressed the changes that have been made… The AA guns in London will make Sea Lion much more difficult, the AA gun in Paris will add more damage to the German Air Force on turn 1, and the Russian/Mongolia rule makes an attack on the USSR by Japan much less likely.  All and all, it looks like the new setup takes options off the table for the Axis and gives more advantage to the Allies (who do not need any more advantages).

Perhaps Italy will be more viable with the new fleet configuration, but I will have to play test it to be sure.  Right now Alpha 2 looks like the more balanced game.

Wow, you guys are pretty down. All valid points though… Play testing will make the final case I suppose.

That said, how would you make Alpha 3? What key changes would you make (specifically) if you were larry? Maybe this forum can come up with a Beta1 (if enough agree) and play test it?

Just a thought…

Yeah, I think that overall Alpha 3 seems more detrimental to the Axis, Germany in particular. 
Japan wasn’t affected too much.  That change with the Japan/Soviet non-agression treaty doesn’t seem to be that big a deal to me, unless you are doing a strategy where Japan attacks Russia to help weaken it for Germany.  That new NO does seem pretty hard for Japan to obtain, although it makes good historical sense.
Italy seems to have benefitted a little.  I like their navy being a little more spread out and the of the tac bomber for the strat bomber.  It kind of makes the Taranto raid useless for the British since one major reason for it was you got to kill 2 of Italy’s 3 transports.
Germany has been put in a really rough spot.  I agree with most of you that Sealion is almost a non-existant strategy now.  Somewhat the same odds but 4 extra defensive soaks for Britain certainly lowers Germany’s chances.  The AA gun in Paris makes that attack harder, but to be honest, I often wondered why Paris didn’t have one in the first place.  Also, did anyone else notice that Germany is losing a Tac Bomber in Western Germany?  Used to be 3, now it’s 2.  As if it wasn’t already hard enough to sink the Royal Navy.  I don’t like that change.
One change I really don’t like is Russia’s ability to declare war on Germany if London falls.  Not only does it really screw up Germany’s chances for a decent Barbarossa (and may end up being a sort of reverse-Barbarossa), it is also very ahistorical.  From everything I have seen and read on WW2, I just don’t believe that Russia would have attacked Germany if Germany captured London.  For one thing, Stalin actually believed in the Russo/German pact.  He really thought that Hitler would honor it, even when the reports of massive German mobilization up to the Russian border came flooding in.  Also, the USSR was busy trying to upgrade their own armed forces which were in very poor shape after his purges.  Look how far Germany pushed into the Soviet Union before the terrible winter came, taking pockets of 200,000 - 300,000 prisoners because the Red Army was in such poor shape and had such inexperienced leadership.  Stalin didn’t want a war with Germany and I think there was no way he would actually attack Germany.  Plus, I don’t think Stalin really gave a crap about England anyway.