So how balanced is this version?
IMO :
More balanced than OOB… but worst than Alpha2
So how balanced is this version?
IMO :
More balanced than OOB… but worst than Alpha2
I concur.
Alpha 3, when originally released, was probably more balanced than Alpha 2 (slightly) but some of the more radical changes have skewed the game Pro-Allies I feel. Granted, it’s only been 7 days since some of the more radical of the radical changes.
Other than the buff to the Rocket’s Technology (boost to 4 spaces) I’d like to see CRD, the Russian insanity NO and the setup changes reverted.
What’s CRD?
So Jen, you don’t like rolling dice for convoy raiding? I take it you would prefer to go back to a set amount per type of ship? What about carrier based planes? While I’m not so sure about having to roll dice to get convoy damage, I kind of like that carrier based aircraft can now take part in it.
Also, as for the set up changes, are you referring to the airbases subtracted from Malta and Gibraltar? If so, I agree with you. I think they should be put back, at least the one on Gibraltar. I must admit, the airbase on Malta sure came in handy for the Allies. Plus, sometimes Italy would take it over and it came in very handy when staging attacks on Egypt.
One thing about the new setup I do like is some of the Italian fleet in SZ 96 and moving the 2nd Italian fighter down to S Italy on the airbase. Now Germany only has to send 1 plane to help protect the Italian fleet. I also like that Italy gets a strategic bomber.
I feel that if we are going to allow a Submarine to do 6 CRD, then we need to allow the AA Guns to also represent coast guard ships and kill enemy ships prior to Convoy damage on a roll of a 1.
If not, then I really feel we need to go back to 1 CRD for surface warships and 2 CRD for submarines. No convoy raids from planes at all. This being the better of the two alternatives.
@Cmdr:
Alpha 3, when originally released, was probably more balanced than Alpha 2
I agree that the current Alpha 3 is pretty messed up right now.
But I don’t think that the original Alpha 3 was better than Alpha 2.
Stronger UK, weaker Sealion, unchanged Russia = less options for Germany and a constantly neutered Italy.
Only part that was slightly in Axis’s favor was the movement of the 5 island NO for US to France. That’s about it.
I agree with you Alsch, I think Alpha2 is better and more balanced.
I agree with you Alsch, I think Alpha2 is better and more balanced.
Really, to me, the best part of Alpha 3 is that AA Guns cost 5 and can be taken as casualties. An alpha 2 with the technology changes and the AA Gun rules that I mentioned (not the limit on number of shots, the other ones) would probably be best possible scenario. That would give England 1 more hit and make Sea Lion just an itsy bitsy little bit harder, not impossible, but just a wee little bit harder.
Actually jen I see what you’re saying. I kinda liked the change in AA guns, it wasn’t really all that big of a change but definitely made things more interesting. Although if they can be taken as hits, I think they should also have the limited number of shots.
The other changes brought by Alpha 3 seem too drastic to me, or just plain unbalancing.
The other changes brought by Alpha 3 seem too drastic to me, or just plain unbalancing.
Again, you speak for me too…
who would you say has the advantage with the new alpha 3 rules? Jen you make no sense. I have read in previous posts you say that alpha 3 favors axis. Now you are saying allies are favored… The new changes help out axis a ton! No air base on gibralter makes italy a part of the game. Less units for germany to have to kill R1 and an extra tank and bomber. How is it that alleis have advantage now over the first set of alpha 3 rules?
Considering there’s been like 400 changes to Alpha 3 since it was released it makes sense that my opinion would also have the potential to change as the rules do. It does not happen with each incarnation, but sometimes.
In a nut shell, instead of going through and reposting each and every argument: The axis have an easier time getting territories they always got anyway. The allies have a MUCH EASIER time holding capitols that they risked losing. Therefore, the benefit to the allies far outweighs the benefits to the axis.
Why?
Axis have to win.
Allies have to not lose.
Not losing is far easier than winning.
With the new changes have you noticed that Italy is stronger? Germany having more units to attack with and allies less to defend against G1 attack isn’t germany much stronger? Less risk for Axis I think makes it easier for axis overall. Allies might still have advantage, but I am asking why did you think axis got a huge boost when alpha3 first came out, and now that axis have gotten an even bigger boost you say allies have huge advantage? your posts make no sense. You shoot yourself in the foot with saying axis have it easier in alpha3 than alpha2, and when the alpha3 rules make axis much stronger you change your stance and say alpha2 was more balanced and that axis had a better chance…
What are all the European neutrals that would count towards the Soviet Union NO “3 IPCs for each original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls.”? I’m working on an update to the abattlemap module.
What are all the European neutrals that would count towards the Soviet Union NO “3 IPCs for each original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls.”? I’m working on an update to the abattlemap module.
First, thanks.
Second:
All in all, I count 20 territories for the NO. For your map, it might be best to put 4 rows of 5 boxes and just leave them unlabeled so that players don’t have to hunt and peck for the right box. Currently I am using boxes for territories I will almost certainly NOT get for territories I do get that don’t have boxes yet. (ie, Ireland and Finland primarily. I use Germany for Ireland and W. Germany for Finland. Odds of Russians getting those two are very slim!)
I was thinking about something. I know this is a stretch, but say it is possible that USSR could capture Southern France and/or Normandy-Bordeaux while France (Paris) is still in Axis hands. As such, USSR would get to use the Minor ICs and Naval Bases in these two territories, plus get the IPC value of these territories until France is liberated, at which time they revert to French control.
So, would the Soviet NO also apply to these two territories as well?
I was thinking about something. I know this is a stretch, but say it is possible that USSR could capture Southern France and/or Normandy-Bordeaux while France (Paris) is still in Axis hands. As such, USSR would get to use the Minor ICs and Naval Bases in these two territories, plus get the IPC value of these territories until France is liberated, at which time they revert to French control.
So, would the Soviet NO also apply to these two territories as well?
No. Neutral or Original Axis territories.
say it is possible that USSR could capture Southern France and/or Normandy-Bordeaux while France (Paris) is still in Axis hands. As such, USSR would get to use the Minor ICs and Naval Bases in these two territories, plus get the IPC value of these territories until France is liberated, at which time they revert to French control.
umm…. can I get a rules clarification here, but I dont think that is possible. I thought that since (in game anyway) the Soviet Union is part of the Allies, capturing French territory (France being part of the allies as well) wouldnt do anything but liberate them from Axis control, with the IPC’s being idle(along with the IC’s) until Paris is brought back on-line with the liberation of Paris, or did I miss something? Krieghund please help here
say it is possible that USSR could capture Southern France and/or Normandy-Bordeaux while France (Paris) is still in Axis hands. As such, USSR would get to use the Minor ICs and Naval Bases in these two territories, plus get the IPC value of these territories until France is liberated, at which time they revert to French control.
umm…. can I get a rules clarification here, but I dont think that is possible. I thought that since (in game anyway) the Soviet Union is part of the Allies, capturing French territory (France being part of the allies as well) wouldnt do anything but liberate them from Axis control, with the IPC’s being idle(along with the IC’s) until Paris is brought back on-line with the liberation of Paris, or did I miss something? Krieghund please help here
You never “capture” a friendly territory. You can walkin (if still under friendly control) or you liberate (the friendly territory is under ennemy control). The “liberator” can collect IPC of any territory liberated if the capitol is under ennemy control. As soon as the capitol is freed all “original” territories are return to original owner.
Example 1 : USA don’t collect IPC for France’s or UK’s territory in Africa if Axis never control it before.
Example 2 : If Paris is liberated, than all French territories under USA/UK/Anzac/Russian control are return to France the moment Paris is free.
