Alpha +3 Observations

Hell of a good report.

I think you’ve got this…  You’ll nickel and dime out those AA guns on the eastern front before you know it.  And maybe your opponent will build more!

@Young:

@Gargantua:

Hell of a good report.

I think you’ve got this…  You’ll nickel and dime out those AA guns on the eastern front before you know it.  And maybe your opponent will build more!

So I should stay the course and move into Russia without sealion?

Yeah.  You need some VCs in Russia to win as Germany.  You don’t need London - you can get all the ones in Russia and Cairo instead.  You can still cripple the UK economically with subs and stuff.

Nice report!

It seems that u are positioned to attack Russia and then its is prolly wise to follow throw. Japan and Italy will help weaken their economy from the east and south and if you avoid to much trading with the Germans the AA guns should not cause you to much problem. Might wanna to get some extra art into the mix and use them for trading.

Also SZ 120 is not a convoy zone so you might want to send those subs somewhere else.

Good luck!

@mantlefan:

I think he took his new to Alpha+.3 defender aa gun advantage a little to the extreme. There’s a balance between having enough to face the max number of planes and having enough units with a combat value. Who knows, would 3 of those AA guns he bought be better if they were 5 inf instead? It depends on what you do. It seems like his strat is good for a trading campaign but if you do a hard push without too many little side battles he loses that AA advantage, since he will be lacking rolls at 2 and his AA guns since he bought so many will go to waste in terms of firing.

But it does raise an interesting question about new strengths for the defender.

This is what I was thinking today as we played four rounds of Alpha +3. Would five infantry be better than three AA guns in most cases? Sea Lion was launched on turn three and the four AA guns were all used as fodder after not accomplishing much on the first combat round. Italy has been removed from Africa by the U.K. and a U.S. invasion. The U.S. is putting just enough pressure on Japan that the IJN has pulled back to sea zone six. Anzac and the Far East Command have started to take back some of the Indies. Japan is now weak in China but China is also weak. The Soviets have moved into China through Manchuria to help. The Soviets have also been holding back the Germans by buying an assortment of units so they can counter attack when possible. The jury is still out on this new AA gun rule. They seem a bit puny. Time will tell.

@mantlefan:

The thing is, the one power for whom the AA gun rule will consistently do more harm than good is UK India (and for London it is HUGE)

Buying a bunch of AA guns may be a bad idea, but most allied powers start with more than they need, so the adding an extra hit is only a bonus since they still fire as many shots as before (By the time Germany brings as much Air as it can spare to the big Russian stack, do you think that a good russia would be stupid enough to not have its 4 original AA there?)

In our game today, Germany brought 10 planes in a Sea Lion attack and the 10 shots hit a grand total of one plane. It will be rare case indeed when Germany can bring enough planes to overwhelm the 4 AA guns. (13 or more) But at a cost of five IPCs will U.K. be better off buying infantry instead of more AA guns?

@Gargantua:

Hell of a good report.

I think you’ve got this…  You’ll nickel and dime out those AA guns on the eastern front before you know it.  And maybe your opponent will build more!

Agreed.  It is why I think Russia’s position is far weaker in Alpha 3 than it was in Alpha 2.  Sure, they have two more aa guns near the German front that they did not before, but they won’t last long and will most likely be used to bolster a large stack of units’ defense as they retreat, slowely, to Moscow.

I think the biggest observation I have about Alpha 3 is the complete “blown out of proportion” attitude of players I have actually faced.  It is suddenly assumed that AA Guns are these omnipotent pieces on the gameboard that should drastically alter game play and I have not yet seen that perception supported by actual game evidence.  Do they have an effect?  Yes.  Is it disporportional?  Not really, it would have been far worse if Larry had used extra infantry instead of changing the guns.  Is it in favor of the Axis?  I believe so.

This are my thoughts about the new AAs

I like the way they are limited to 3 shots, this scales well with a big game like Global40.

However, I don’t like the AA guns being able to soak hits now.

I’d like to reduce their cost to 3 IPCs but without any soakable capacity. Otherwise I don’t understand why Larry Harris decided to make transport a 0 hit unit…

I like that they can be taken as damage.  An invading army would most likely destroy the AA Gun ability of the enemy if at all possible and the changes allowed England to be just a wee bit harder to take out before round 4.  This means that England has the opportunity to screw up their own lives or to stick around for a little bit.

The best part about the changes to AA Guns are the increased number of AA Guns.  Gives the Germans a helluva advantage over the Russians!

@Young:

@Dany:

Nice report!

It seems that u are positioned to attack Russia and then its is prolly wise to follow throw. Japan and Italy will help weaken their economy from the east and south and if you avoid to much trading with the Germans the AA guns should not cause you to much problem. Might wanna to get some extra art into the mix and use them for trading.

Also SZ 120 is not a convoy zone so you might want to send those subs somewhere else.

Good luck!

Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot that a sea zone actually needs the covoy symbol in order to be eligible for disruptions. :roll:

Germany is acually well positioned to attempt either sealion or barbarssa, but it is crucial that the decision be made immediately. I’m sure I will follow through with Russia and find a method of attack around those AA Guns. I guess I should be a little grateful for Russia spending on such a unit, especially if I use my entire air force against the British navy and start pounding out tanks against Russia. I still feel that the AA gun rule will eventually become a great Russian advantage.

Italy will have their way as they are making the same $ as London and there is nothing in there way. It’s their war to lose. Japan on the other hand will need to keep a close eye on Alaska as it is the only threatening operation the allies have going for them.

Thanks for the imput. Any other advice?

Well I think if Russia spends so much money on aa guns, it´ll be a good thing for Germany.
If you see that your opponent make this choice, than you could take you aircraft to clear the atlantic with your fleet. Take Russia only with your land units. The AA guns can only taken as casualties and cannot fire back in land battle. So the advantage is on axis side.
5 Infs are way better than 3 AA guns in my opinion for Russia.

@Young:

@Dany:

Nice report!

It seems that u are positioned to attack Russia and then its is prolly wise to follow throw. Japan and Italy will help weaken their economy from the east and south and if you avoid to much trading with the Germans the AA guns should not cause you to much problem. Might wanna to get some extra art into the mix and use them for trading.

Also SZ 120 is not a convoy zone so you might want to send those subs somewhere else.

Good luck!

Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot that a sea zone actually needs the covoy symbol in order to be eligible for disruptions. :roll:

Germany is acually well positioned to attempt either sealion or barbarssa, but it is crucial that the decision be made immediately. I’m sure I will follow through with Russia and find a method of attack around those AA Guns. I guess I should be a little grateful for Russia spending on such a unit, especially if I use my entire air force against the British navy and start pounding out tanks against Russia. I still feel that the AA gun rule will eventually become a great Russian advantage.

Italy will have their way as they are making the same $ as London and there is nothing in there way. It’s their war to lose. Japan on the other hand will need to keep a close eye on Alaska as it is the only threatening operation the allies have going for them.

Thanks for the imput. Any other advice?

Its hard to say much when one cant see the board. How many trs does Italy have? How many does Japan have and where are they? Has the UK stacked Persia?

I agree with Robson.  Russia is not going to be in the business of replacing lost AA Guns so eventually, you will remove those through attrition.

Germany, on the other hand, may replace guns as needed, allowing them to use stacks of units to encourage the Russians to risk their much needed planes to AA Gun fire.  I am not above small stacks of 8-15 units with an AA Gun on my front lines to sap the strength of the Russians.  WIth Italian units opening the door and Japanese units removing much needed IPCs through territorial conquest, the Russians are getting beat into submission much sooner.

Russia was strong in Alpha 2 because Germany was sending large stacks of IPC after England.  Without England siphoning off cash from the German treasury, the Germans can grow a lot faster than the Russians.

Look at it mathematically:

Germany starts with 30 IPC round 1, gets 70 IPC round 2 and 53 IPC round 3.  That is a total of 153 IPC to spend.

Italy starts with 10 IPC round 1, at least 12 IPC round 2, and most likely at least 20 IPC round 3.  That’s about 42 IPC.

Russia collects 37 IPC to spend on Round 1, 2 and 3.  Total: 111 IPC.

Axis: 153 + 42 = 195 IPC
Allies: 111 IPC
Net: 84 IPC Axis

Germany starts with 231 IPC worth of ground units in proximity to Russia.

Italy starts with 70 IPC worth of ground units in proximity to Russia. (I took off the value of the units in Africa since the odds are very slim they will go to Russia in the first part of the game.)

Russia starts with 175 IPC worth of units in proximity to Germany/Italy.

Axis: 231 + 70 = 301 IPC
Allies: 175 IPC
Net: 126 IPC Axis

Germany starts with 117 IPC worth of air power in proximity to Russia.

Italy starts with 32 IPC worth of air power in proximity to Russia.

Russia starts with 31 IPC worth of air power in proximity to Germany/Italy.

Axis: 117 + 32 = 149 IPC
Allies: 31 IPC
Net: 118 IPC

Over all:

Axis: 195 + 301 + 149 = 645 IPC
Allies: 111 + 175 + 31 = 317 IPC
Net: 328 IPC Axis benefit.

Yes, some of that will be lost in France.  Perhaps Germany will lose 7 Infantry, 4 Mechanized Infantry and 1 Artillery from their starting setup. That reduces them by 41 IPC which is a drop in the barrel of the over all game.

That, of course, does not take into effect anything that the Japanese do.  It only looks at the first few rounds of the game, but it is pretty clear that the Russians are hopelessly under funded with little opportunity to spend money on big ticket items like AA Guns and Armored units, let alone more planes to replace those lost hitting German stacks, which should reduce them to infantry and artillery quickly enough.

Without a Sealion build, Great Britain can threaten France as early as turn 3… not very strongly, but by turn 5, the British can be landing in strength on the French and Scandinavian coasts.

@cts17:

Without a Sealion build, Great Britain can threaten France as early as turn 3… not very strongly, but by turn 5, the British can be landing in strength on the French and Scandinavian coasts.

I don’t think so.

England should have 1 Cruiser SZ 91, 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport in SZ 109 on England 1.  Germany will have 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Submarines, 1 Cruiser and 5 Fighters, 5 Tactical Bombers and 1 Strategic Bomber that can hit the British fleet if it builds one.  That means they have to pull out until the Med fleet can get there, and even then, with a few extra submarines or perhaps some more aircraft, that British fleet is going to have to remain away for quite a while until it is safe to come close to Europe.  Best guess, British units are not threatening France until Round 6 earliest, and then only with American ships helping to defend.  Even then, we’re talking 1 or 2 transports, nothing serious.  The Italians should be plenty strong enough to push any landings off France again.

With the new extra units for germany in AA + setups it must be really easy to pull down russia, its a easy job to do in out of box scenarios if the allies dont interfere with germany util r4+ but with that huge start bonus I cant see why one would ever want to do sea lion…
I’d used to go the ultra push for mechs +30 with raising berlin and pumping mechs and a few tanks but with the new upping of the berlin factory one doesnt even have to do that one. So I guess putting up one or two small factories in R1 and 2 romania/poland and then pull in mechs to the front and art with the small factories until russia has to chose which factory he will defend. Also build a destroyer to place in zone 125 every round when oyu are at war, so what if britts sink it, you buy a new one block the bonus and smile. spending 8 ipc in order to kill russias 5 ipc bonus is way worth it.
I dont like the setup that much its very oh we got to make sea lion a stalemate and preventable so alpha 4+ will be oh lets make russia strong…

Spend 6 IPC to take out the Russian NO, Wrath.  A submarine in SZ 125 takes away the objective as well as a destroyer does.  It also requires the allies to send a destroyer to go kill it, instead of using only planes.

Russia was buffed in Alpha 2 because many Axis players blew their strength on England, dedicating all of their power to taking it out and thus, not having enough to hit Russia with.  Now that England is no longer a prized posession, but more of a “well, I need one more VC to win, and it is underdefended” move, Russia is getting really easy to take out.

Looking ONLY at the game board for the first 3 rounds (bringing you to Germany Round 4, Purchase New Units) one can see that the Axis are more than double Russia’s strength with more than double their income.  That means England and India need to be focused on sending reinforcements to Russia to prevent them from falling (and thus, negating the need to block SZ 125).  With the NonAggression arrangement being virtually nullified, there is no reason not to invade early and heavy with Japan and more reason TOO do it, to remove even more IPC from the Russians.

So yes, Wrath, I agree, Barbarossa is probably the better avenue and makes Victory more assured, not assured, but more than attempting Sea Lion.    I don’t see Russia ever getting their Objectives (any of them).

@Cmdr:

@cts17:

Without a Sealion build, Great Britain can threaten France as early as turn 3… not very strongly, but by turn 5, the British can be landing in strength on the French and Scandinavian coasts.

I don’t think so.

England should have 1 Cruiser SZ 91, 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport in SZ 109 on England 1.  Germany will have 1 Battleship, 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Submarines, 1 Cruiser and 5 Fighters, 5 Tactical Bombers and 1 Strategic Bomber that can hit the British fleet if it builds one.  That means they have to pull out until the Med fleet can get there, and even then, with a few extra submarines or perhaps some more aircraft, that British fleet is going to have to remain away for quite a while until it is safe to come close to Europe.  Best guess, British units are not threatening France until Round 6 earliest, and then only with American ships helping to defend.  Even then, we’re talking 1 or 2 transports, nothing serious.  The Italians should be plenty strong enough to push any landings off France again.

??  Jenn why do you confuse yourself so often?  In the previous post that you put in here you said Germany would have 30+19+45 or whatever to get 70ipcs G2.  And you were adding up all those totals to show how much more money Germany has than Russia…and here you are spending 16 of those IPCS on a CV against UK?  Which is it?  Why do your ideas change from one post to the other?

Face it, your ‘math’ is wrong because you use blanket statements and then when you try and define them find out your blanket statement was all wrong…or rather we find out…