One of my favorite strategies is in danger of becoming extinct. Never in the history of all the world stage A&A games has Germany even considered, let alone attempted capturing London until Global 1940 came around. Please tell me that Sealion is still on the table and why you think it is still an option for Germany. If not, I will obey Larry and go back to attacking Russia first, just like the good ol “classic” days (sigh).
No!
I like some of the changes regarding Alpha 3, but I agree completely with you.
As long as UK isn’t a dunce - or intentionally baiting Germany to take London - Sealion won’t happen. I don’t really like that Germany’s strategic options have been limited either.
@Young:
No!
Very insightful, however, I am looking for answers with more letters than the author has posts. Please come back with a 20 letter comment.
I should write 21 words for your post to work…
My answer assumed that West Germany got downgraded by 1 tactical. That apparently is not happening and makes it much easier to decimate the Royal Navy without incurring significant plane losses.
Then, I don’t think Sealion is impossible, but it will be costly. The additional AA guns and the new rules create a disadvantage that seems steep. Plus this allows Russia to attack a turn earlier. Good bye Finland! It will also be very important how Germany positions its land forces along the Eastern Front (maybe the surprise / opportunity resides there).
Their are 2 major issues to consider from what I understand about alpha +3.
1. Will the 4 extra casualties be the catalyst needed to allow the UK a formidable Defence?
2. Is it suicide for the eastern front on G3 automatically forcing any possible sealion to G4?
@Young:
One of my favorite strategies is in danger of becoming extinct. Never in the history of all the world stage A&A games has Germany even considered, let alone attempted capturing London until Global 1940 came around. Please tell me that Sealion is still on the table and why you think it is still an option for Germany. If not, I will obey Larry and go back to attacking Russia first, just like the good ol “classic” days (sigh).
One of the major issues that was considered was that London was incapable of defending against Sea Lion and thus was left with trying to inflict maximum punishment or resigning and saving as much firepower as possible for later in the game.
The 3 additional AA Guns give them 3 more hits, which should delay Germany to round 4 or 5 before they can get Sea Lion, in which case Russia and America are in the war. I think that is a good thing. Since these guns cannot attack, they give England no extra threat which I also think is good. Brilliant idea!
Another major issue was America virtually ignoring the Atlantic until it was good and ready to come over and play. The move of the NO to Europe should at least help in that regard. (for much of the game America should be down the France NO and the Philippines NO, removing at least an extra 5 IPC from them a round, compared to Alpha 2.)
Giving Germany Interdiction as a permanent rule was, admittedly self agrandizing, also brilliant! Instead of needing 4 submarines for England, they can go to 2 submarines and do almost as much dmg for half the cost. Removing England needing to clear all submarines from the board is another brilliant move, it no longer requires Germany to throw awayu submarines to keep England from getting the NO and instead, gives Germany an easier time keeping the NO away by keeping France in their hands.
My only concern, and I have not play tested yet, is the AA Gun in France. That mght have been better off being an infantry.
Good to see some other’s feedback.
It seems that letting Moscow attack Germany when London falls should be enough of a deter. I worry these extra wounds will make London too easy to defend, which will allow UK to concentrate on Africa early.
Good point about the France NO. In game terms its actually a reduction in American money. US will never take and hold France for more than the last round. Much like the Berlin NO for Russia, these are things that we don’t have to worry about except on rare occasions because they happen when the game ends. So removing the NO from the pacific means less incentive for US involvement and less ipcs to toss around.
I also don’t understand the aa gun in Paris. It was brilliant to leave it out, and yet here it is again.:(
@Cmdr:
@Young:
One of my favorite strategies is in danger of becoming extinct. Never in the history of all the world stage A&A games has Germany even considered, let alone attempted capturing London until Global 1940 came around. Please tell me that Sealion is still on the table and why you think it is still an option for Germany. If not, I will obey Larry and go back to attacking Russia first, just like the good ol “classic” days (sigh).
My only concern, and I have not play tested yet, is the AA Gun in France. That mght have been better off being an infantry.
Really? What about balance for the Axis…… It was the major concern that everyone felt Alpha +3 needed to address, and the solution was less NO cash for the Allies, but more military restrictions for the Axis. That is my biggest concern, but definitely not my only one.
I have an idea.
If you don’t like it, keep using Alpha 2. Or Anniversary. Or revised. Or the 1984 MB version.
I thought about this a bit more, I find that the most natural way of dealing with the UK seems to be to starve it with subs and maintain a Sealion threat to force them to build out crap.
That involves building up Subs, air force and perhaps a carrier and a few transports to create a “Sealion in being”. For this threat to be credible, this means keeping the Soviets out of the war for as long as possible.
What I’m thinking right now is Germany building 3 subs on G1 to break loose in the Atlantic immediately, and perhaps buy a transport, save 5. The G1 moves focus on taking care of the UK navy with all planes / subs available.
On I1, Italy takes Gibraltar and attemps to clear out the med of ships. Take Alexandria
On G2, one need to consider what Japan will do on its turn. On J2, Japan will attack the UK, this means the US will enter the war soon after. Means that if the German sub in zone 106 is alive (50/50) and no new units were built in 101, the sub has a shot at sinking the US cruiser and transport. If the US built up in 101, then might as well go raid zone 89 to put US ships out of position. If that sub can go after the 109 destroyer, it probably should attack it to render the UK planes useless. If the zone 106 sub is dead, then none of that matters.
On G2, Germany tries to sink the 109 destroyer, if in reach, parks 3 subs in 109 if all destroyers have been cleared, otherwise, send 1 sub in 109 and 1 sub in 119. There should be 4 more subs left in total, so 2 others can go in 91. In mean time, 1 transports heads down to 91 for Egypt no. G2 purchases depend on situation on the board. Send planes in Alexandria. Additional transport reinforces Norway.
On J2, japan slams the hell out of Uk pacific and US in philippines.
On I2, try Egypt
On G3, Keep strangling UK and harrassing US (convoy 82), Keep reinforcing Norway / Keep building fleet and sending out subs. Can take one of French north american territories in transit to Egypt. Second German transport takes Morocco
G4, Germany Unit in Egypt, take Tunisia, Destroy Russian Navy, look for targets of opportunity, occupu 125.
On G5, either go for Leningrad or London or Baltic States or Finland, based on what US / Russia have been doing (probably Leningrad since UK will be irelevant).
Japan and Italy Should do well, and Germany will still be strong. Ruissia may turn overconfident and make a mistake (e.g, forgetting that transports bring considerable flexibility to Germany).
Im probably dreaming, but would be a fun game!
Omega - it’s nice to read a post that isn’t complaining, but thinking of the new possibilities!
We all have to reserve judgement, and think of the long-term effects of the new rules changes. And play, and learn, and then complain… :)
Omega - it’s nice to read a post that isn’t complaining, but thinking of the new possibilities!
We all have to reserve judgement, and think of the long-term effects of the new rules changes. And play, and learn, and then complain… :)
Sure,
Russia can become strong, but has a logistical disadvantage. If Germany can hold out and gain economic footing in Africa with the Egypt NO and French North Africa (and taking all of France and Greece, leaving Italy Focus on Africa / Middle East). Being aggressive against US / leaving Russia out of the war will mean a war on two fronts and give Japan a chance… We all know that subs are a pain in the neck to get rid of.
BTW, made a mistake above, Germany would only attack Russian Navy on G4.
Post edited above.
As for me, I like the new changes, 'cause Sea Lion was becoming mandatory.
Now I guess I would consider only a G4 Sea Lion, if ever.
There are two things that I don’t like though: 1aa in France and the Italian Navy. I think they’re even more vulnerable now (the Italians)
As for me, I like the new changes, 'cause Sea Lion was becoming mandatory.
Now I guess I would consider only a G4 Sea Lion, if ever.There are two things that I don’t like though: 1aa in France and the Italian Navy. I think they’re even more vulnerable now (the Italians)
Agree on the 1 AA in France, but why on the Italian Navy?
To me, both zone 95 and zone 97 are out of danger.
The UK can bring to bear on 95…
Cruiser from 91
Fighter from Normandy (assuming land on carrier in 96)
Fighter from Malta
Fighter from gibraltar
Tac from carrier
And 96 is attacked by
1 carrier, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer.
96 is an easy battle, but not 95, odds are 80% against the UK on this (against 1 sub, 1 DD, 1 Cruiser + 3 fighters)
What am I missing? I find the zone 96 block effective.
Yes, that was an idea I had, but might not have been the first to express it, it seemed ridiculous that Russia could only sit and watch Geramny reposition for a strong front after London fell. I am virtually 100% positive that if Germany stripped their defenses to take out London, Russia would have invaded Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, perhaps Greece, Albania and Yugoslavia as well.)
So I am very happy to see that Russia AND the United States can declare war the instant London falls. But then, London should still be falling on Round 4, which is great since that’s when the allies attack anyway.
4 AA Guns in England means it can take up to 12 shots at attacking aircraft. If they only had one, you could bring in 50 aircraft and England could only shoot at 3.
More horse-hookey on G1 might make Germany more honest and less attacking everything on the sea and on land the first round. I kind of like that. AA Guns also help Germany and Italy defend better, and are now cheaper than tanks.
I agree with Omega. You only need 3 submarines to deal with the British Isles and prevent them from income. 1 more off Canada and you’ve essentially ended British income entirely. (Assuming Italy took out Africa like they usually do.) It is far cheaper as well, 24 IPC for submarines or hundreds for an invasion?
As for the AA Gun in France, I think the idea was to give Normandy (W. France) a chance not to be killed off.
My perspective is this:
Larry was speaking of letting Germany win with 7 victory cities if one was Moscow, so I believe he wants more focus on Russia and less on England/America. (Then again, he’s always made America ridiculously over powered in his games and dislikes any Kill America First strategy, evidence: cannot put Japanese ships within 2 sea zones of America anymore.)
So the best solution might be to kill France quickly, and turn your attention on Russia. A few submarines in the water to keep England depressed and Italian invasions into Africa.
Japan’s forced into India/Australia and China because they cannot set up a Kill America First strategy anymore.
The rules allow the British to assume the Carrier can make it through and land two fighters from Britain.
However, I’d assume the British fighter on Normandy is dead.
It’s still a tough battle, assuming two German fighters land in S Italy, and Germany may want to consider killing the Cruiser off Gibraltar to make Britain sweat it out.
Also - it has to be considered that London would be weakened by this attack, and four AA Guns or not, it potentially puts Sealion back on the radar screen.
The rules allow the British to assume the Carrier can make it through and land two fighters from Britain.
However, I’d assume the British fighter on Normandy is dead.
It’s still a tough battle, assuming two German fighters land in S Italy, and Germany may want to consider killing the Cruiser off Gibraltar to make Britain sweat it out.
Also - it has to be considered that London would be weakened by this attack, and four AA Guns or not, it potentially puts Sealion back on the radar screen.
True, a non combat move going through 96, I see. Assuming the Normandy fighter survives, the battle is a costly win for the Allies 48 IPC lost (say 4 planes and the cruiser) against 52 IPCs taken away…
Then the UK fighters would be lost first and the UK fleet would consolidate in 96:
1 carrier, 1 tac, 1 fighter, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer. That seems to be too strong to attack with what Italy has left.
Three questions:
You can attack naval/airbases anytime you like, as long as you have a valid landingzone (any territory you owned at the start of your turn.)
I am going to assume the Normandy fighter survives for now, only because Germany needs that little extra oomph in France (which I still thing is GOOD).
The Italian fleet is decentrallized, so it is easier to attack, however, is it worth attacking? You can no longer get 67% of the Italian transport ships. IMHO? Destroyer, Fighter, Tactical to SZ 96 to sink the Italian destroyer (and transport since it is there) allowing the cruiser to take up blocking for Gibraltar and getting your extra planes to England faster - IF you still worry about sea lion.
