Good thoughts!
All land units go on France, Normandy is left alone.
Russia is not attacked until G4. US entry into the war is a concern, thinking second turn right now and assuming a build in the Pacific on turn 1, so threat on Turn 2 is not immense. In event of move to zone 92, capture of Gibraltar by Germany on turn 2 enable air base control and prevent escape of Royal Navy out of the Med. If the 109 DD or the 91 cruiser are blocking Gibraltar from the North, then I’ll just wait for the fleet to come up and I’ll tear it apart with cheap subs and my airforce.
One option to get the planes the range they need to reach 109 (if the destroyer is still there at G2) is the traditional carrier build. That way, if Holland was taken, can go with the subs, the bomber and 2 extra planes.
@mantlefan:
@mantlefan:
What does the 3 sub convoy raid respond with when UK builds one DD and plops it in that sea zone with 3 ftrs on the airbase next to it? Does germany really want to commit strat bombers to helping their subs survive in 109, at the risk of losing them to scramble?? Or putting planes on normandy or belgium? What happened to the Med navy, anyways? How do you expect to do enough damage to the Royal navy Round 1 with the extra burdens on Germany to make those subs viable convoy raiders in 109? How do you expect to counter the new buying options on UK1 because sealion starts out relevantly harder with a HUGE 4 extra hits?
The following German turn, you kill the destroyer with the 3 subs, 1 bomber and a few fighters / tac from West Germany + 1 new sub from 112 (keep them coming). Assuming they don’t scramble, one chance out of 3 to lose a sub.
Might be good to go weak in 109 to give them incentive to scramble.
The bigger danger is a build off Canada coming at you in 109, with the fighters from UK. Then need to spread in 119 and 109. To prevent this from happening, need to keep subs in 91 to go after the punks (not mentioning the benefits of interdicting 106)
What are the new buying options for UK? Say I buy 3 subs, 1 transport, saved 5 and wiped out all the zones except for 109?
:-)
You need to look at the ripple effects sir. How do you wipe out all those sea zones effectively with france’s new defense? Do you skip Normandy to do it? Do you really have all these extra planes by the time you need to go after russia? Do you not realize that your tacs and ftrs can’t make it back to w Ger from 109? I don’t doubt that you can be annoying as Germany till G4, but USA enters eventually. Can you really keeps subs in 91 once USa enters? What do you do if UK moves the med navy to 92 then up to 109? You and Jen are both sorely mistaken on what you believe to be the ease of 109 for Germany; at least you understand that Canadian DD’s can be a threat. I guess before I can understnad what on earth you are talking about, you need to explain the rounds this is happneing in. By the time Germany has enough Bombers to hit London hard, the English wil have a big enough force to make any sub operations in 109 a money pit for Germany.
@Cmdr:
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. :roll: :roll: :roll:
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.
***Yes I agree, we wouldn’t want the Axis to attack things on the first turn. Not while they have the advantage and the Allies are still building the liberation army/navy.
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?
***without a sealion Italy will not be taking out Africa like they used to.
As for the AA Gun in France, I think the idea was to give Normandy (W. France) a chance not to be killed off.
***Perhaps. Not as smart a move then as the original no aa gun to remove outliers of course. Sure wish Larry was interested in easy solutions, but I can’t think of a time where that has happened. What gets me most about Alpha3 is not the mistakes made, but the mistakes still left out. China/Italy/and no streamlined DOW system.
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.)
***I hate this rule, Japan is the aggressor, not the US. They should have unlimited movement, including Panama canal while US is neutral.
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.
My crystal ball says you’re right. People won’t run a sealion because of the risks involved, not because its impossible. They will instead turn on Russia as early as possible. I bet its G2 if not G3 invasions that we see, people won’t want to wait until America is in the war, you’ll want to clear the Baltic/Artic seas so you can concentrate against England. Italy will have a brief flash of income, they may hold the Med for 2-3 rounds. Africa will be Allied by Turn 4-5 and once the Italian fleet is cleaned up an IC will go down in Egypt to help supply Russia’s southern front. Italy will be relegated to defending Europe as long as possible. Japan is harder for me to envision, because of their number of options and I think coming changes to the Mongolia DOW system. I still think proper play of Japan will entail a heavy push through Siberia and withdrawal from China.
It will be interesting to see the meta game implications of these changes. I could see alot of UK players getting overconfident and end up loosing London. Not building inf in the UK and sending figs (to have a change to kill one of the two lager italian fleet stacks) to the med in UK1 can spell disaster for the UK now.
Against a prepared UK i think that the G4 Sealion with a G3 invasion of Scotland is now a much better option. Does not bring any of the other allies into the war prematurely and still have a very good win rate. I never liked the G3 Sealion anyways, to risky for my taste. I like spend to turns realy sticking it to the UK before i try to finish them. Not sure ill go after thier money, atleast not is G3 as i might prefer to collect it for myself.
The Italian bmb also creates more options as it can act as a can opener for the German navy allowing the Germans to take gibraltar on turn 2 and looking the UK into the med if they tried to consolidate their navy instead of suiciding it on the Italians.
I think my G1 will hit france, normandy, 110, 111, 112 and a lone sub against the dd and trs on the Canadian coast. Landing 2 planes in southern italy. Builds im not sure about, 1 AC i think is given as it gives the fleet the potential of operating on the high seas but more then that im not sure. Maybe a bmb or some sort of combination of trs and subs.
Sealion has not gotten easier but the G4 attack is not much worse then it was in A2 and i think the G4 is more interesting and better for the game then the G3.
I think my G1 will hit france, normandy, 110, 111, 112 and a lone sub against the dd and trs on the Canadian coast.
That seems extremely risky. The naval battles take pretty much all the airpower you can get. How can you take both France and Normandy?
Don’t forget France has a AA that can serve as a casualty…
How about throwing a big stack of planes at London first round? I think you can bring three fighters, three tacs, and a bomber. There are three infanty, three fighters, and four AA. Send your other planes to 110, your subs to 109, maybe you can force the fighters to choose whether or not to scramble, and it doesn’t take many hits to start digging into the anti-air. Diminish the AA capacity early? Just a thought.
Mantelfan,
I see no changes to dmg done by strategic bombers in Alpha 3. They still do 1d6 +2 damage on strategic bombing runs.
And no, they are not a “new” advantage and I never claimed they were, I am claiming they are better than blowing 70+ IPC on transports due to the increase in convoy damage and the increased defensive ability of England (which is exceptionally minor increase, but enough to delay Germany by a round. - SINGULAR)
Okay, England drops 1 DD, Germany hits it with 2 submarines + 10 Aircraft.
Dead destroyer. Germany moves on. England still takes convoy damage, since the submarines are still on station until killed, and Germany got a bonus by killing the destroyer and any scrambled fighters.
If you had studied Russian history, you would have all the evidence you needed. Russia was waiting for the German defenses to be lowered before attacking. America’s intervention in the war caused the Germans to pull soldiers back to defend another front, coupled with England in Africa (and America to some extent) Russia felt it was time to attack - they always had intention to attack and wanted the rest of poland and the Ukrainian states as a buffer between them and Europe. They’ve always wanted them, and, in fact, the Crimean war was in part an effort to start collecting them and that happened long before WWII.
Larry has finally recognized that in the form of stating that Russia can see the lack of defenses after an early sea lion and attack. It is by far the best change he’s made since the box rules were issued.
Omega, it does suck when they get snake eyes on their AA Gun rolls. Escorts can be a good idea in such cases, of course, the AA Guns get to fire an extra shot for each escort too, so there is a drawback too it. (Any hits could be applied to the escorts, keeping the bombers for the dmg rolls.)
Mantle,
If you no longer need an airbase to intercept SBRs, then there is no need to attack it, thus, making the crippling of England MORE economical. You again weaken your earlier statements that SBR campaigns against England (coupled with convoy damage) is a failing strategy. Please pick a side and stay on it.
Omega, I agree. THe extra fighter for England is a null starter for me and the French units are toast anyway. Bring the extra ground forces to France and save your aircraft from AA Gun fire. (This is probably the exact method used when play testing the game.)
Thoughts in general.
Things that were discussed when we called for Alpha 3 were:
1) England is far too easy to take out. It is ahistorical and very weird to have London fall almost every time on Germany 3.
2) There is no historical basis for Russia seeing little German opposition and NOT attacking the Germans ahead of schedule. If London falls, Russia should be allowed to attack as well.
3) America has no incentive to participate in the Atlantic.
4) France is never liberated by the allies because it would strip two industrial complexes from them on the mainland.
5) There are not enough strategic bombing runs.
6) Axis need some minor boost to make them compatible with America.
He seemed to address all of the above concerns. Others he did not address:
A) Japan needs more troops in China.
B) Russia should be prohibited from attacking Japan first, EVER.
C) Japan could use a couple more destroyers in the Pacific.
D) Australia should have a second complex in Queensland.
All in all, I think he did a pretty good job so far.
Why is life better for the axis?
1) Germany needs to invest FAR LESS in the Atlantic Ocean.
2) Germany is rewarded for riskier attacks into Russia (use your imagination. I am not going to give you a script so you can try and find one tiny little flaw where if I do this on round 7 but you did that on round 1 it all falls apart. Obviously all strategies have to be flexible to take into consideration minor changes in the overall game board.)
3) The axis have a far easier time killing the NOs of the Allies. (Owning France is 2 Allied NOs for instance.)
4) The game is far more historical.
5) The Italian fleet will survive better by being split up more. (Either the Allies dedicate every IPC they have to get 2 transports perhaps losing it all due to a set of bad dice, or they only grab one.) It also forces them to attack the Italians in order to escape the med.
Why is the game better for the allies?
1) England wont fall on round 3 anymore. That by far is the best change for game balance. It can still be neutralized, but it wont automatically fall.
2) The Italian fleet is split more, making it weaker in any one place.
5 pro Axis changes, 2 pro Allies changes.
I’m with James here. I think Germany will either wait the extra round to destroy England and thus, the allies wont be able to attack earlier than they would anyway (and it would give Japan a chance to take India the same round) or they will absolutely murder the Russians leaving nothing but carnage and destruction in their wake and let their submarines and bombers take care of England leaving them naked and starving in the streets.
Jennifer, the +2 for strat bombers was removed.
Jennifer, the +2 for strat bombers was removed.
Unless he updated it recently, I don’t see it being removed. He did not specifically mention it, but then, he said anything not specifically mentioned was not changed.
Jen -
Krieg clarified this on Larry’s site.
Cpt_Hellcat wrote:
Do all SBRs now do 1d6 instead of +2 for strat & 1-3 for tacs?
Yes.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149&start=56
Strategic bombers no longer get the +2. Which is kinda lame if you ask me. I really liked that addition.
Jen -
Krieg clarified this on Larry’s site.Cpt_Hellcat wrote:
Do all SBRs now do 1d6 instead of +2 for strat & 1-3 for tacs?
Yes.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149&start=56
Strategic bombers no longer get the +2. Which is kinda lame if you ask me. I really liked that addition.
Lame. Still, it makes more sense to attack the British complex than to not attack it. At least the +2 made it economically feasible, however, for our dicey it is better without it.
Oh well. 3 Strategic Bombers should still be enough to damage it. We are looking at accumulated damage, not single round damage.
Stop quoting me out of context and read what I said. Mantlefan. This is a very bad habbit for you and you really need to stop it.
How do I go from Axis need help to game is balanced? Simple. Axis need help in alpha 2, game is seems balanced in alpha 3. Two different rule sets. I am not flip-flopping at all, you seem to have a serious reading problem.
The AA Guns have MINIMAL long term effect on the game EXCEPT for Germany and to a lesser extent Russia. They are nerfed in one regard and buffed in another. “Waah…my favorite strategy is harder now.” Who cares? Seriously? So you have to wait for round 4 (details have been posted.) And your point? “But your strategy would actually work, and I don’t like it, Waah.” I dont care. Either go the economic attack route with Germany or dont. Bid for them if you think they are too weak. (You’ll probably lose since I feel most people will realize the game is significantly more balanced now that it was in Alpha 2, and that was more balanced than OOB. Each revision has gotten better, and this one probably will too.)
I’m tired of your crying. Anymore more personal attacks and I’ll ask Djensen to ban you temporarily. If you cannot discuss like an adult, then maybe you should move on to another board.
In regards to my statements that you are quoting mostly out of context (and after removing your personal attacks from your most recent post)
1) Good, don’t converse. Keep losing to everyone and everyone who can think of new, imaginative strategies. You are much like Switch in that regard, unable to adapt. (Or so it appears from your posts.)
2) Yup. German aircraft have nothing better than to sink British ships. This is pretty much a universal rule and has been for a long time. Why should they be based anywhere but W. Germany? You put a boat down, I send the force I feel is necessary to sink it. I get your boat and any aircraft you scramble and you get weaker. This is a no brainer for the rest of the community, why are you having a problem with it? Perhaps you need an economics lesson: If you don’t earn enough to pay for the plane, you cannot print more money, you just cannot buy the plane. See, Germany WILL win out in this regard, Germany can afford new planes, especially if they don’t squander their resources on Sea Lion.
3) Yes, Axis victory is ahistorical. The entire game is ahistorical in a historical fashion. A “what if” situation. Duh. However, there was and is significant discussion about how to make it MORE historical while making it balanced. If you want it to be “historical” then Russia should get 12 free infantry a round and get to auto-kill 1 free German in Novgorod, Volgorod and Muskva each round (Partisan Snipers). That would really unbalance the game, but be MORE historical. However, historical things also make sense, Russia is an ally, why, because history said it was.
4) I don’t really see how England is “stacking” their fleet. They go no more boats than normal, so we are talking about 1 Carrier, 1 Cruiser and 1 Destroyer if they make no attacks on the Italian fleet. Great. Italy sinks the British ships. Game over for the Royal Navy. Oh? Okay, so you leave the destroyer to block and you have a carrier and a cruiser left. Hardly a match against Germany’s carrier, cruiser, 11 aircraft and submarines. Blocking? Sure they are blocking the Germans from sunbathing in the West Indies, that’s about it. More likely, they either get killed in the Med trying to cripple the Italian fleet (and since they ahve to split up to get what they could before, odds of getting cripped are greater) or escape to India as per Alpha 2.
5) The statement about the German naval investment is OBVIOUSLY taken WAY out of context. I mean, context isnt even on the same planet as the quote you grabbed! Naval investment is far less FOR ECONOMIC DAMAGE. Instead of needing 20-30 submarines to cap out damage in the Atlantic you only need 14 submarines to cap out damage. 84 IPC vs 180 IPC is a significant reduction. Percentage wise, this is more than a 50% discount in naval investment by Germany. Significant in virtually everyone’s dictionary, perhaps you are thinking of more than 60% as being significant? I don’t but maybe you do.
A) Ignore China mostly. Take Yunnan when you can and any walk ins, but basically ignore it.
B) Take India round 4.
C) Take Australia round 6
D) Take Hawaii round 8 (with minors for your NO around then too.)
Done it this way for a while now. When America is not all invested in the Pacific, it works quite well. With the 10 IPC shift in favor of Japan with America’s NO removed, it should work even better.
Anyway Mantlefan, as I said, lay off the personal attacks or I’ll just delete the entire post. Editing is getting annoying.
And before you go off half cocked, I highly suggest you READ what you are commenting on. You seem to be very good at selective quoting, perhaps you should get a job on the ABC/NBC or CBS news? They’re always looking for spinsters. We would like it if you stuck with a quote in context, however.
@Cmdr:
Thoughts in general.
Things that were discussed when we called for Alpha 3 were:
1) England is far too easy to take out. It is ahistorical and very weird to have London fall almost every time on Germany 3.
***My god. In about a month I will have unrestricted access to my board. We should set it up and play a game of Alpha2 and see how many times you are able to invade London by G3. Barring insane dice I believe it will be 20-30% of the time. G3 invasion was never easy and UK had the resources to make Germany pay for invading. I wish some people on this site would get together and run through the options of a G3 Sealion…oh wait we did!
2) There is no historical basis for Russia seeing little German opposition and NOT attacking the Germans ahead of schedule. If London falls, Russia should be allowed to attack as well.
**I agree, this was a good move and should be kept. Stalin would have jumped at the option of reduced Wehrmacht forces in Poland.3) America has no incentive to participate in the Atlantic.
***they still don’t really. Paris is not an NO that the allies want to take lightly, they want to take and hold it. US will be making less money because of this, but I still think a mostly Pacific strategy might work for US along the same lines as Alpha2.4) France is never liberated by the allies because it would strip two industrial complexes from them on the mainland.
***right, see point 3. Paris won’t be liberated until the game is near over, again I see this as a net loss for US and a boon for axis.5) There are not enough strategic bombing runs.
***Thank god! You of all people rail against the American Exceptionalism aspect, and yet somehow got wrapped up in this propaganda tale that strategic bombing netting anything really positive in WW2. Please read up on the subject if you think it was so awesome, and avoid US authors. SBR should be a once and a while thing, with lots of risk involved for little reward.6) Axis need some minor boost to make them compatible with America.
***not sure about this point, and its pretty open ended. I think Larry wants America to be the heavy hand, the Axis are on the clock.He seemed to address all of the above concerns. Others he did not address:
*** :roll:A) Japan needs more troops in China.
***? Not sure where this discussion was. Is this your personal feeling or what was being discussed on his board because I never saw it. I did see lots of issues with China. Those are easily addressed with letting China invade Korea. Now if Japan ignores China they can defend the whole money coast.B) Russia should be prohibited from attacking Japan first, EVER.
***? Again this must be your personal view. The actual problem is the DOW system needs to be revamped. DOW’s between Japan and Russia need to be set in stone, not completely ambiguous. I see this part of the rulebook as the area the developers fell asleep on. The reason we want to keep the option of war open between the 2 powers is to promote varied play. Give Japan and Russia the option, but you can assign baggage one way or the other to promote a decision.C) Japan could use a couple more destroyers in the Pacific.
***perhaps, not sure it would be needed with some of the obvious changes that could make the game simpler while providing varied play styles.D) Australia should have a second complex in Queensland.
***I don’t see this as necessary, why? Australia can barely afford 3 units for the first few rounds and then has the money to buy another complex if needed. By having their production to the south it both saves their ships from the Queenslandsz, and means they have to stage to that awesome naval base located in queensland. I suppose if you wanted to change the IC for the NB that might work.All in all, I think he did a pretty good job so far.
Why is life better for the axis?
1) Germany needs to invest FAR LESS in the Atlantic Ocean.
2) Germany is rewarded for riskier attacks into Russia (use your imagination. I am not going to give you a script so you can try and find one tiny little flaw where if I do this on round 7 but you did that on round 1 it all falls apart. Obviously all strategies have to be flexible to take into consideration minor changes in the overall game board.)
3) The axis have a far easier time killing the NOs of the Allies. (Owning France is 2 Allied NOs for instance.)
4) The game is far more historical.
5) The Italian fleet will survive better by being split up more. (Either the Allies dedicate every IPC they have to get 2 transports perhaps losing it all due to a set of bad dice, or they only grab one.) It also forces them to attack the Italians in order to escape the med.Why is the game better for the allies?
1) England wont fall on round 3 anymore. That by far is the best change for game balance. It can still be neutralized, but it wont automatically fall.
2) The Italian fleet is split more, making it weaker in any one place.5 pro Axis changes, 2 pro Allies changes.
Thanks for taking the time to put your views down for us Jenn. Wish you had addressed a few of the issues I brought up earlier, perhaps you can go back and check them? My responses are marked with ***.
I think my G1 will hit france, normandy, 110, 111, 112 and a lone sub against the dd and trs on the Canadian coast.
That seems extremely risky. The naval battles take pretty much all the airpower you can get. How can you take both France and Normandy?
Don’t forget France has a AA that can serve as a casualty…
I think it would look something like this:
Normandy: 2 mec, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig (holland), 1 tac (wg), over 90 % attack
Paris: 7 inf, 2 art, 2 mec, 4 tnk, 1 tac (poland), over 80 % attack
112: bb, ca, 1 fig (hungary), almost 100 % to win
111: 2 subs, 1 fig (norway), 1 bmb (germany), 90 % to win
110: 2 subs, 2 fig (w ger), 3 tac (2 from w ger and 1 from germany), 100 % to win
France will not be a walkover but normandy and 112 should be np. 110 and 111 are 90-100 % if there is no scramble, if there is a scramble both attacks become rsiky but still wi bigge changes for the germans to win and bigger average loss for the UK, im happy to exchange german planes for RAF planes in the early game. If France does not fall the Italians can most likely clear it up and then its an entire different game but it does not mean the game is lost.
The zone 111 has a 15 IPC spread in favor of the Germans, and UK loses 27 IPCs.
By scrambling a fighter, the spread changes to 2, the UK still loses 27 IPCs on average. So in this case, I would scramble. As the UK, I might not lose the fighter and I would bring an extra German fighter out of it.
The zone 110 is more risky for the UK to scramble, it commits a lot more. As you mentioned, this scramble results in trading planes one for one.
I think my G1 will hit france, normandy, 110, 111, 112 and a lone sub against the dd and trs on the Canadian coast.
That seems extremely risky. The naval battles take pretty much all the airpower you can get. How can you take both France and Normandy?
Don’t forget France has a AA that can serve as a casualty…
I think it would look something like this:
Normandy: 2 mec, 1 art, 1 tank, 1 fig (holland), 1 tac (wg), over 90 % attack
Paris: 7 inf, 2 art, 2 mec, 4 tnk, 1 tac (poland), over 80 % attack
112: bb, ca, 1 fig (hungary), almost 100 % to win
111: 2 subs, 1 fig (norway), 1 bmb (germany), 90 % to win
110: 2 subs, 2 fig (w ger), 3 tac (2 from w ger and 1 from germany), 100 % to winFrance will not be a walkover but normandy and 112 should be np. 110 and 111 are 90-100 % if there is no scramble, if there is a scramble both attacks become rsiky but still wi bigge changes for the germans to win and bigger average loss for the UK, im happy to exchange german planes for RAF planes in the early game. If France does not fall the Italians can most likely clear it up and then its an entire different game but it does not mean the game is lost.
as you point out 111 is a weaker attack, the bb does not have a naval base tho so i think thats the way to go. UK will have at most 3 hits in the first round of combat so i even if it all goes to hell my bomber can retreat.
but one more sub or plane in 111 would be very nice, taking a plane from one of the other attacks does not feel that great tho and i cant really skip any of the attacks, letting the fleet in 110 live might be an option as it frees upp alot of planes and subs to make other attacks such as the ca out of gib or the canadian fleet and prop up other attacks to minimize losses. the problem is that the uk can then combine this fleet with the med fleet and there the german fleet is then at risk. normandy can also be skipped but its nice to kill the extra fighter. depends on how risky one wants to be.
but one more sub or plane in 111 would be very nice, taking a plane from one of the other attacks does not feel that great tho and i cant really skip any of the attacks, letting the fleet in 110 live might be an option as it frees upp alot of planes and subs to make other attacks such as the ca out of gib or the canadian fleet and prop up other attacks to minimize losses. the problem is that the uk can then combine this fleet with the med fleet and there the german fleet is then at risk. normandy can also be skipped but its nice to kill the extra fighter. depends on how risky one wants to be.
The way I’m reducing this uncertainty, and ground losses, is to put ALL ground units against France. Why is Normandy so important to you?
Jimmy,
Many of the comments I brought up or agreed too when other brought them up were on Larry’s own webpage. I will attempt to recap them, but to be honest, it’s been at least a month since we discussed it on his pages.
Granted Germany only starts with 56 ground units in range (I did not count Bulgaria or Romania) and will lose some taking France. You can determine how many they have left after France (include Finland!) and adjust the transport purchase down from there.
…
Agreed, but if the United States does not help in the Atlantic, then the Paris NOs (3 of them) wont be attained and the allies will have significantly less income.
A few things I noted:
1) America does not have to scatter about worrying about islands. Not sure if I like that. But whatever. No reason to cry over spillt milk now, right?
2) The English NO for no German submarines is gone, which means Germany does not have to worry about having a submarine anymore. I probably would have submarines, as I advocate an attack on British shipping, but it’s nice to have the freedom not to if I dont want too.
3) Getting France will stab the Americans and British in the foot, they lose W. France/S. France Industrial Complexes and any liberated French territories. So essentially, Larry stripped 10 IPC from the Allies semi-permanently.
…
I am not so much wrapped up in historical context of SBRs, but rather, their feasibility and addition to the game. Granted, in classic, I think they were overpowered.
I agree, Larry wants America to be ridiculously powerful. Evidence: You cannot set up KAF anymore. Evidence: America earns two to three times what other nations earn and in some cases, ten times what nations earn.
A) The issue discussed was on Larry’s boards. The general consensus was that we’d like to see somewhere between 2 and 4 Japanese infantry added to China to make it worth the effort.
I went further and said that I’d like to see America be able to send a replacement fighter to China. At the end of China’s turn it can start converting it to Chinese and at the build units phase “place” the fighter (it never left the board and could be killed at any time, this was to give the axis time to kill it) and use it next round, IF AND ONLY IF their starting fighter was lost.
My concept was that I didn’t want to see Japan throw a dozen planes at a battle to snipe the fighter. It just feels wrong, since you would not do that in any other fight, but you do with China because they cannot replace the aircraft ever.
I guess it is non-relevant, as those suggestions were not taken by Larry - and co.
B) Yes, it is my personal view, but a valid one I think (or it would not be a personal view, eh?). THe idea behind it is to allow Japan to strip Manchuria/Korea and thus get the extra infantry to fight China. Generally, I leave 2 or 3 infantry in each Korea and Manchuria to dissuade the RUssians.
C) …
D) My Australia usually has Java, Sumatra and Celebes so that is 11 IPC + 10 IPC Territories + 10 IPC NOs for 31 IPC a round. (End of the game, of course)
