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?
@Cmdr:
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.
That’s a bit of an exageration, but I’ll give you that the Allies can have several planes in commission by then. Then again if that’s the case, Japan will be having quite a bit of fun. Just because your Japan was played to push all the through East Russia doesn’t mean the NO is unbalanced. If Japan sees that the allies are intent on a KGF strat (as evidenced by heavy air builds by US on the East Coast), they should be focused on winning in the Pacific, not dicking around in Siberia.
But I disagree that those planes “will be sent to Russia anyway”. That’s only necessary if Germany is doing a bottle-Russia up strategy. If Germany is doing any other strategy, like some sort of balanced, methodical invasion of Russia, that won’t be necessary and will only be a waste of resources.
If Allies have that kind of air power, that quickly, then they certainly won’t be threatening Axis territory very much.
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.
Yes, Norway is tough to hold. It’s not impossible at all though, and an IC in Norway isn’t necessary. If the Allies are pressuring the Germany navy hard, then they can just hole up in the Baltic. 2-4 transports there can keep a strong hold on Scandanavia, while threatening any Russian attempts to crawl north into Finland. That small investment in German sea power will prevent Russia from ever “walking in” to empty Scandanavian territories.
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.
Dont forget the guys in S. Africa! A few extra guys below the British stack would really come in handy!
If the allies want to get Norway, there’s not a whole lot that Germany can say about it. A major complex is pretty much the only way the Germans are going to hold Norway if the allies really go for it. And with Scandinavia being worth 17 IPC to Russia now, why in the world WOULDNT you go for it?
Because the amount of resources that Russia would have to use to get through Germany’s defenses in Scandanavia would cause Moscow to fall.
Because the amount of resources that Russia would have to use to get through Germany’s defenses in Scandanavia would cause Moscow to fall.
Not really. You need 1 Infantry to take Norway, Finland and Sweeden. That’s hardly enough taken from Russia to cause Russia to fall. (Have the Americans and British clear the zones iwth aircraft and walk a dude in.)
@Cmdr:
Because the amount of resources that Russia would have to use to get through Germany’s defenses in Scandanavia would cause Moscow to fall.
Not really. You need 1 Infantry to take Norway, Finland and Sweeden. That’s hardly enough taken from Russia to cause Russia to fall. (Have the Americans and British clear the zones iwth aircraft and walk a dude in.)
Thats ofcourse if germany does not make any effort to stop them since it will take atleast 3 rounds for a guy from karelia to hit all 3, and since germany goes after the western allies and before russia, it makes it even more unlikely for this situation to occur.
Exactly.
Jen, your Germany was asleep at the wheel.
It’s insanely hard to stop Russia from getting the islands in the Med, assuming a traditional Allied offensive. It’s just the nature of the beast.
I am making the following recommendation to Larry:
1) Russia was an ally in-so-much as they were attacking Germany. Therefore, no Russian equipment may use American, French, Australian or British equipment for transport purposes (ie, you cannot load infantry on transports or land fighters on carriers, etc, etc, etc) and vice-versa.
2) If Russia attacks a true neutral, all other true neutrals remain true neutral. This is to reflect the fact that Russia attacked True Neutrals in the course of the real war and yet, the world didn’t become anti-America/England etc. It also helps with game play.
3) National Objective Reduced to 2 IPC for each counquered neutral or true neural in Europe or Scandinavia or Turkey with the following exceptions: Sardinia, Sicily, Crete and Ireland.
4) If the United States of America or the United Kingdom attack a true neutral then all true neutrals on the board immediately join the axis powers:
A) If the neutral is in Africa or the Middle East it becomes Italian.
B) If the neutral is in Europe or S. America it becomes German.
C) If the neutral is on the Pacific Map (Asia, etc) it becomes Japanese.
Clarification: Russian units may still defend with other allied units. They are allies! The only change is that they cannot share transportation means. Cossaks need to bring their own ponies! Patton is NOT sharing his Armored units! Montegomery is too much of a primadonna to lend his mechanized units, etc.
