AA.Org Official Alpha 3 Thread

Jen, I’m pretty sure this NO re-write removes Japanese territories from applying - they are not in Europe. 
Unless I’m reading it wrong, that it.

@Cmdr:

IPCs for each original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.

Altered National Objectives list to represent the change posted 23 October, 2011 (My brother’s 31st Birthday.)

What does this mean?  I think it means Russia’s going to be INSANELY wealthy now…Finland, Bulgaria, etc?  Yea, Siam, Korea?  Maybe get an infantry on an American transport and take some no name islands like Pauline for 3 IPC each!?!

Not sure what Larry was smoking when he came up with this, but I see lots of potential to abuse it!

the way in understand this, you can forget about Paulin, Siam, Korea….

she might not be not wrong, but it appears pac territories don’t count.  It’s currently ambiguously worded, and will probably be rewritten to clarify.

it could either be interpreted as:

[each original Axis] or [neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey)]

or

[each original Axis or neutral territory] in Europe (including Turkey)

But considering that the word “territory” fall after neutral and not “each original neutral axis territory or neutral territory in europe……” it sounds as though all pac territories are exempt

@Cmdr:

@Alsch91:

Jen, I’m pretty sure this NO re-write removes Japanese territories from applying - they are not in Europe. 
Unless I’m reading it wrong, that it.

Discussion was to include them, re-reading it does look like they were not included.   I have less an issue with Korea being a Russian NO than I do with, for instance, GREECE!  Thing’s already pro-allies, so now Russia gets to walk in, get the infantry, get the territory AND get an NO!?!?

yeah, personally I’ve never been a fan of this NO anyway.  It compounds itself too much.  If it’s going to be for any territory, it should be for a maximum of 3.

@Cmdr:

Discussion was to include them, re-reading it does look like they were not included.   I have less an issue with Korea being a Russian NO than I do with, for instance, GREECE!  Thing’s already pro-allies, so now Russia gets to walk in, get the infantry, get the territory AND get an NO!?!?

If Axis drops the ball so tremendously that this happens, then hell yes.

I’m loving most of the latest rule and setup modifications, and the ones I’m not crazy about, I’m not mentioning. Instead, I’m abandoning my remaining pet peeves in exchange for a emphatic “2 thumbs up” on Alpha +3.5, as both a vote of approval and a protest of mass change. Larry…… Its good enough, stop the madness and start the presses.

@Cmdr:

@knp7765:

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?

When last I looked, the rule was changed from German Submarine Advantage (3 IPC Damage per round) to the new 2 Dice rule.  Keep in mind, damage is cumulative so if you have 1 submarine in SZ 10 and you roll a 1 and a 3 you do 4 damage total, not 2 damage.  So, in theory, to do 10 damage, you might only need 4 submarines. (Since any 4s, 5s or 6s are misses, then 10/3 = 4 “hits” minimum to do maximum damage.)

It is my personal feeling this is going to make Aircraft Carriers so ridiculously powerful that Larry is going to have to change the rule.  Imagine 2 Aircraft Carriers with fighters in SZ 10.  That’s 4 dice right there, not including any other warships in the area.  More realistically, BB, AC, 2 Fig, 3 SS, 1 DD, 1 CA in SZ 109 is 13 dice for convoy damage, don’t even try to tell me that Germany cannot muster such a fleet in the first couple rounds of play.

Sorry, but what’s the relation between the aircraft carriers and submarines causing a certain amount of damage? Or can planes do that too?

If an aircraft carrier is stationed in a sea zone with a convoy symbol of an enemy country, the carrier itself can not disrupt the convoy but any planes onboard can.  I think the new rules state that carrier based planes get to roll 2 dice each to cause convoy damage to your opponent.  Submarines also roll 2 dice each and all other warships roll 1 dice each.

@knp7765:

If an aircraft carrier is stationed in a sea zone with a convoy symbol of an enemy country, the carrier itself can not disrupt the convoy but any planes onboard can.  I think the new rules state that carrier based planes get to roll 2 dice each to cause convoy damage to your opponent.  Submarines also roll 2 dice each and all other warships roll 1 dice each.

OK. In other words, don’t just let your opponent station warships along your coast.

Of course the maximum amount of possible damage is still restricted by the IPC value of the territory. Then again, I do envision the Germans stationing a lot of ships/ planes/ subs off the coast of England and later on in the game the Allies could do the same off the coast of Germany. That would be quite a considerable loss of IPCs to the other side. I also don’t think that in real life the Germans would have been able to beat the Royal navy in the waters around Britain, so it would be a bit gamey.

So in short, I do see ways to abuse this new rule. I’ve personally always preferred the rule that each German sub ( in the Atlantic)does one IPC of damage. Obviously US subs also did a lit of damage to the Japanese and that would not be reflected in the above rule.

Would have to play the rule as written a few times to see if it’s balanced or not. It will usually require a hefty investment in warships as well. That means no (or fewer) land units/ factories etc.

Well Jen that’s not the fault of the NO, it’s a problem with bad Germany play.  You can’t really blame the rules for that.  :lol:

@Cmdr:

Well, it is much harder for the Allies to convoy raid Germany given that there are no Convoy zones adjacent to West or East Germany.  But yes, instead of doing 1 dmg each for BB, CA, DD, AC and 2 dmg each for SS now you do up to 3 IPC Damage each for BB, CA, DD and up to 6 IPC Damage each for SS, Fighter (and I think Tactical Bomber).  The end effect is it is going to be a lot easier for Germany to Convoy England into the stone age and later for America to convoy Italy into the stone age.

Well actually it’s about the same as it was before - except carrier planes now raid as well as subs.
Statistically, a sub will do 2 damage, and a surface ship will still do 1.  Sure, there’s a possibility that a sub could raid 6, but there’s also the possibility it will do 0.
It’s not easier to raid UK at all now.  It’s just a bit more varied.
The only part of raiding that’s “easier” is that a loaded carrier raids as well as 2 subs.  Which is really only a significant advantage for allies.

Don’t forget all the Neutral countries in South America Jen, that’s another what… 9 territories? What 3 islands in the Med would Russia take?
This rule needs to be changed.

C

Well Jen, if UK/US has the type of air and naval power to support such an operation, this is surely a late-game type of situation.  Am I correct in that assumption?

So if Germany hasn’t even broken through the second layer of Russian territories, hasn’t the game pretty much been decided by this point?