@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
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!?!?
@Cmdr:
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:
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.
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, 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.
As for the NO for Russia taking territory, I’d like to see it static: 3 IPC for control of Finland and Norway; 5 IPC for control of Poland, Hungary and Romania. Instead of getting 30+ IPC in NOs for territory that Germany gets 5 IPC for NOs, now Russia is capped at 8 IPC for NOs on territories Germany gets 5 IPCs for NOs.
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.
Oh, I dont think it has anything to do with bad German play.
England/America protect a Russian transport that takes 3 islands in the Med and Ireland. That’s +12 IPC Russia.
England/America use their airforce to clear Sweeden, Norway, Finland and Turkey (making sure to have enough to prevent the Germans from getting a navy again) and Russia just walks one guy in to take them. That’s 12 IPC NOs + territory values.
There’s little Japan and Germany can do to stop this and it gets Russia up to 60 IPC while assuming most of Asia is taken by Japan and Germany has Baltic, Bess and E. Poland (a reasonable assumption.) Even if Germany has N. Ukraine and Belarus on trade, Russia is still up near 60 IPC while Germany is down to 50 IPC.
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
I dont think Africa and S. America count for the NO. Only Europe + Turkey.
The three islands in the Med I am thinking of are: Sicily, Sardinia and Crete. Since they are axis or neutral, Russia would get the NO for them.
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?
I can see the Americans and British being able to field at least a dozen if not a couple dozen planes by round 6, so it’s not really that late in the game. These planes are already being made and sent to Russia anyway, otherwise Russia does fall so it’s not outof the question to have these planes available.
The only trouble point would be a German major complex in Norway, but then, that’s 10 less infantry Russia has to face and something the Germans are going to have to defend. Without it, the Germans have no way to support Norway/Finland so that’s give me NOs for the Russians.
Dunno, try it for yourself. As I said, I think this is way too powerful and the Neutrals, at least, should be removed. Others on Larry’s pages have said maybe Russia shouldnt have any NOs if there is even one non-Russian friendly unit in Russian territories which would also pull this down into some semblence of balance.
I am also of the opinion that maybe Germany should get an NO for having the Neutrals, why should Russia get all the love? Why is it a war torn Hungary can produce more for Russia than a Hungary that joined the Germans voluntarily without a shot fired can? I know it’s racist, but arnt the Germans known for efficiency!?! Just a thought.
First of all, it seems like Alpha+3 is changing as much as Alpha+2 did. I just printed this up last week and I already see enough changes that I had to print it up again. I wish they would settle on something and quit all the changes!
That being said, something does need to happen with this new Russian NO. 3 IPCs for each Axis and neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey)? That is just way too much power for Russia. Plus, it’s not very realistic. I could see them getting points for Finland and Bulgaria, perhaps even Greece and Yugoslavia. But TURKEY?!? I imagine this also includes countries like Sweeden, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal. Russia shouldn’t get NOs for any of those territories.
There’s another problem with this rule: we are going on the assumption that Russia is taking these neutral territories from Axis powers. However, the rule simply says “under Soviet control”. So, theoretically, once the USSR is at war, it could attack neutral Turkey, which would turn all other strict neutrals Pro-Axis, and get a reward of 3 IPCs per turn for doing so. Frankly, I think it is wrong to reward Russia for such an aggressive act which also makes it much harder for all the Allies (Axis getting Spain, Sweeden, Portugal, etc. basically for free).
After that, they could simply march into Greece, get 4 extra infantry plus another 3 IPC bonus. Granted, this does follow the Pro-Allied Neutral rule and Russia is technically an Ally, but Greece was more pro-Britain, not pro-USSR. It just seems wrong to me for Russia to accquire Greece like this.
If Larry Harris intends to keep this Russian NO in it’s current form, perhaps it will simply be to all of us to “house rule” this NO for our own games. I’m certainly not going to give Russia 3 IPCs each round for occupying Turkey or Sweeden.
Oh, KNP, no I was not assuming Russia had to take the territories from Germany or Italy! They do not have too! They only need to control the territory!!!
Also, under the rules, IRELAND counts! Just how hard is it for Russia to get Ireland? Not very. Same with Crete. And yes, Spain and Portugal count too. The only European territories that do not count are: Scotland, England, France, W. France, S. France, Iceland, Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus. All other territories (neutral or not) count as a 3 IPC NO for Russia now.
One thing I suggested is that, perhaps, if we are keeping this rule, then any American or British attack on any True Neutral not only makes all true neutrals pro-Axis but any on the Europe map are immediately controlled by Germany and any on the Pacific map are immediately controlled by Japan. After all, the allies were the “good guys” in the war, many of these nations just wanted to be left alone and felt that the allies would rescue them if they were attacked. Being betrayed so bitterly would almost certianly end in alliances with Axis powers, for their own protection. In terms of game effect, imagine all those German units popping up in S. America. They could be beaten back, but it’s going to be a heavy distraction for America for at least two turns.
Hey Jen, that’s a VERY interesting idea. Japan wouldn’t get much but a few worthless territories and six extra infantry, plus the chance to take a few undefended territories in central Soviet Union. However, Germany would really get a boost. Imagine 8 German infantry popping up in South America, not to mention an extra 20 infantry just for Spain, Sweeden and Turkey (assuming those haven’t been taken yet). Also, 4 German infantry right close to Calcutta. Imagine the large IPC jump in Germany’s economy. I think they would stand to gain 14-16 more IPCs, minus whatever country the US/UK took of course.
As I often play Germany, I gotta say that is really cool.
@Cmdr:
I am also of the opinion that maybe Germany should get an NO for having the Neutrals, why should Russia get all the love? Why is it a war torn Hungary can produce more for Russia than a Hungary that joined the Germans voluntarily without a shot fired can? I know it’s racist, but arnt the Germans known for efficiency!?! Just a thought.
Not really, the Nazi German war effort (production wise) was anything but efficient, by late 1941 they owned more of every resource except crude oil, and yet were significantly outproduced by Russia. Germany didn’t even have a single ‘war production’ chief until 1943 (Speer).
I’m beginning to think that the game should be evolving into Axis & Allies & Comintern, each with its own victory conditions. Heck, if there are going to be so many versions all the way up to Alpha+infinity, why not?
