AA.Org Official Alpha 3 Thread

If I may make a suggestion Jen:

Instead of having multiple downloads titled the same (Alpha +3.AAM) could you just go back to your first post containing the original download and change that one.  I think it could get confusing if several downloads are title the same and a person misses a subsequent attachment that has the most current download.  It would be easier to just have one download and keep that one up to date in my opinion.

Thank you.

If I read it correctly, it means that a factory MUST be repaired because otherwise it’s inoperable??? (even if only one IPC damage has been done?)

At this rate, G40 alphas will be still changing when WOTC start selling G39  :-P

And the funniest thing is that I still fail to see why OBB is saw as unbalanced and too favor to Allies. Each time I play OOB, I see it more and more good done (save for the ACME wall and the lack of non-agression pact rule, of course)  :|

Are you sure people that you’re not testing the next version of G39 for free?  :-D

Is anyone playing alpha2 or is it only alpha3 ?

Does anyone have an alpha3 start.aam file which they can attach ?

Thanks in advance.

Okay, I’m confused on the convoy raiding.
It says that German submarines on station cause the loss of 3 IPCs of convoy damage.  Also, the tech Super Subs increase other nation’s subs to 3 IPCs for convoy raiding.

Then, further down, it says you have to roll 2 dice for ANY subs and only count rolls of 3 or less.

So which is it?  Do subs cause a set level of convoy damage or a dice roll?

Hey Jenn you missed a few things on your map as of last night:

You forgot to add the extra German inf to Norway

The UK infantry in Paris needs to be removed. No UK units in France according to Larrys post (unless he changed it from yesterday)

The Italian Fighter in N Italy needs to be moved to S Italy.

I think those are the only errors I saw so far.

ACME wall?

@gsh34:

ACME wall?

The fact that the Chinese cannot enter/leave certain territories.  The reference to an ACME wall is to stress the unreal or cartoon nature of the rule, ie: Road Runner and Coyote used whimsical constructs produced by ACME (although I’m not bothered by the rule personally, mainly because my Chinese are usually retreating into their own lands… and I believe that during these periods the Chinese were more concerned with survival as a nation and not expansion/aiding others - imo).

Some of these changes look like changes just for the sake of making changes…
No airbase on Gibraltar I can understand, but the airbase on Malta was incredibly significant to the battle of the Mediterranean, almost all of the problems Germany faced in the Mediterranean can be laid at Malta’s feet.
The British units in France aren’t nearly enough to hinder Germany’s push, so what’s the rational behind moving them? Historically the UK lost almost all their heavy equipment and a lot of their general material when the BEF was pulled off the beach at Dunkirk. Frankly I think that England proper should have less to start with than it does, but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts. So I’m obviously crazy.
I get that Axis & Allies is a board game and isn’t supposed to be 100% historically accurate, but there’s something to be said for balance, and something to be said for realism and accuracy. I play Axis & Allies because World War II is fascinating, I enjoy the challenges both sides faced. If the game is based on World War II, then it should reflect what key aspects it can. Fundamental changes (IE: removing the airbase on Malta would have dramatically changed the campaign in the Med) to things that are incredibly important to this period in time take away from the games namesake. Too many more and you should change the name from “Axis & Allies” to “Global War in/around 1940”, people could make their own alliances and stab each other in the back, it’ll be a glorified game of Risk.
The point of my post isn’t to be rude or troll anyone, so I hope it isn’t taken that way, I just wanted to bring somethings to your attention that maybe you hadn’t thought of. I’m 100% sure that I’m not the only person that plays this game because I enjoy this part of our history, in fact I’m sure the vast majority of people playing the game do (otherwise why would you pick up the box in the first place). Don’t trade away the history, make changes that are NEEDED for balance or to work out a kink in game play, don’t try to please everyone by dumbing the game down. It should be complicated, it should be difficult and above all, it should be fun.

C

@Carnage:

Some of these changes look like changes just for the sake of making changes…
No airbase on Gibraltar I can understand, but the airbase on Malta was incredibly significant to the battle of the Mediterranean, almost all of the problems Germany faced in the Mediterranean can be laid at Malta’s feet.
The British units in France aren’t nearly enough to hinder Germany’s push, so what’s the rational behind moving them? Historically the UK lost almost all their heavy equipment and a lot of their general material when the BEF was pulled off the beach at Dunkirk. Frankly I think that England proper should have less to start with than it does, but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts. So I’m obviously crazy.
I get that Axis & Allies is a board game and isn’t supposed to be 100% historically accurate, but there’s something to be said for balance, and something to be said for realism and accuracy. I play Axis & Allies because World War II is fascinating, I enjoy the challenges both sides faced. If the game is based on World War II, then it should reflect what key aspects it can. Fundamental changes (IE: removing the airbase on Malta would have dramatically changed the campaign in the Med) to things that are incredibly important to this period in time take away from the games namesake. Too many more and you should change the name from “Axis & Allies” to “Global War in/around 1940”, people could make their own alliances and stab each other in the back, it’ll be a glorified game of Risk.
The point of my post isn’t to be rude or troll anyone, so I hope it isn’t taken that way, I just wanted to bring somethings to your attention that maybe you hadn’t thought of. I’m 100% sure that I’m not the only person that plays this game because I enjoy this part of our history, in fact I’m sure the vast majority of people playing the game do (otherwise why would you pick up the box in the first place). Don’t trade away the history, make changes that are NEEDED for balance or to work out a kink in game play, don’t try to please everyone by dumbing the game down. It should be complicated, it should be difficult and above all, it should be fun.

C

Some very good pponts on the airbase on Malta and Italy going before the UK.

@Carnage:

but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts.

I don’t.

Seems much simpler to me to change the set up then the order of playing. If the UK is too strong in the Med in the opening turn, move a few units further away so their first attack is weaker.

Edit: although with the already changed rule that USA plays much sooner i suppose it is acceptable

Still waiting for an answer about convoy raiding.
The rules say that German subs cause 3 IPCs of damage in convoy raiding.  Also, the tech Super Subs allow all other nations’ subs to cause 3 IPCs of damage in convoy raiding.
Then, further down in the same rules, it says that all subs have to roll 2 dice for convoy raiding.

So, which is it?  Do subs cause a set level of convoy damage (2 IPCs, 3 for Germany) OR is it the roll of the dice?

@special:

@Carnage:

but I also think that Italy should go before the UK so they aren’t effectively neutered before their turn even starts.

I don’t.

Seems much simpler to me to change the set up then the order of playing. If the UK is too strong in the Med in the opening turn, move a few units further away so their first attack is weaker.

Edit: although with the already changed rule that USA plays much sooner i suppose it is acceptable

I’m not sure which I would prefer. Italys navy was substancially larger in the Med than Britians, with the exception that Musolini (and thus the Admiralty) didn’t believe the era of the Battleship was over and didn’t think Carriers were worth investing in. Until late 1941 they held the initive, a combination of poor leadership, unwillingness to commit to battles and a lack of interest in the war itself saw them outclassed by their British counterparts.
Also Musolini thought land based fighters and bombers were enough to provide air cover to his naval forces. They also didn’t like to send their fleet out past the protection of that aircover, this should illustrate the importance of the airbases on Malta, Gibralter and Crete. Because the map isn’t actually to scale for the game you don’t need all of them but Malta or Crete should be represented.

Turn order could be Germany, Soviets, Italy, UK, Japan, US, ANZAC, China, France. I’m not sure what the rammifications of the UK going before Japan would be, would need to be tested. Changing the units Britian has in the Med would be simpler, placing them further away (around the west or east coast of Africa maybe) would be better maybe…

C

That’s an interesting turn order you came up with.  I would be curious to see how much that affects the game.  With the current set up, it sure would be much more beneficial to Italy.  I might try that out in my next game.
Just curious, why split ANZAC from the UK?