Alpha+.2

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
gamerman01
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alpha+.2

Post by gamerman01 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:07 pm

I haven't been keeping up with this thread lately, but hopefully Larry still reads and 1940 hasn't been finalized yet.

It's come up on A&A.org (idea of player with username "Geist") that maybe the game could be improved if Italy (a "minor power") would not be allowed to declare war on a major power (Russia or USA) until big brother Germany (or Japan, in the case of USA) does. (USA not such a big issue with her restricted movement while neutral)

Now I don't think it's a real major gameplay issue (though Italy could do some can-opening of Russia before Germany makes the initial strike, which is ludicrous) but it might be more significant than I realize.

Basically, I don't see any reason not to have this rule, that Italy cannot declare war on a European neutral USSR or USA. There are plenty of neutrality rules already, which appear to be an attempt to have some semblance of historical reality, so why not improve it by disallowing a DOW by Italy on a neutral USSR or USA?

I realize this thread is for reports of gameplay of Alpha 2, primarily, so here's a report. I've played a few games of Alpha 2 and I think it's great - I mean, I haven't had any complaints and that's saying something. Of course, I probably haven't played it enough - keeping it down to 2 at a time so I don't fall in love with a version that just gets changed.

I love the Ukraine complex and the coastal scrambling.

Eagle
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Alpha+.2

Post by Eagle » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:14 pm

I think this game got enough Special Neutrals Rules already.

What this game realy need is less rules.

gamerman01
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alpha+.2

Post by gamerman01 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:20 pm

Eagle wrote:I think this game got enough Special Neutrals Rules already.

What this game realy need is less rules.
Actually, I agree with you.

There are a lot of NO's and a lot of neutral rules. But then, if the aim is to please regular A&A gamers like us, we quickly get used to the rules and they're no problem. If the aim is to appeal to more casual gamers, I think the rules are already way too complicated for them, don't you? :wink:

gamerman01
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alpha+.2

Post by gamerman01 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:25 pm

aaron91 wrote:If Japan had realistic troop levels in any category they would not be able to win. A nation the size of California cannot conquer China, India, Australia and contain the United States no matter how tactically or strategically brilliant they are.
Was just browsing a bit - I like this quote.

There were reasons Japan didn't take over China or India or Australia or contain the United States (translation - big 0 for 4). I'll just leave it at that, before I say anything inaccurate.

xxstefanx
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:46 am
Location: Hamburg

Re: Alpha+.2

Post by xxstefanx » Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:33 am

gamerman01 wrote:
aaron91 wrote:If Japan had realistic troop levels in any category they would not be able to win. A nation the size of California cannot conquer China, India, Australia and contain the United States no matter how tactically or strategically brilliant they are.
Was just browsing a bit - I like this quote.

There were reasons Japan didn't take over China or India or Australia or contain the United States (translation - big 0 for 4). I'll just leave it at that, before I say anything inaccurate.
Correct but think about it: We don't necessarily need an isolated Japanese win because we play "A&A GLOBAL" here. Historically Japan could only have been on the winning side in conjunction with Germany and Italy! If various things went different of course!

I think the game should have reflected this instead of adding ridiculous numbers of aircraft to stand a chance against USA 1 on 1.

Geist
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:24 pm

Re: Alpha+.2

Post by Geist » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:06 am

We used the Italian declaration to allow Italy to advance and take a territory, then on the following turn a German stacked moved in and landed all their planes, essentially spoiling a Russian forward defense and forcing a retreat. It certainly wasn't a game breaking moment, but, it did seem a bit...gamey. Overall though, I love the +2 Alpha G40, I do feel like alot of the pressure is on the Axis, but, I wouldn't say the game is unwinnable for them.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Alpha+.2

Post by mantlefan » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:14 pm

gamerman01 wrote: There are plenty of neutrality rules already, which appear to be an attempt to have some semblance of historical reality, so why not improve it by disallowing a DOW by Italy on a neutral USSR or USA?
Because restricting Italy not only restricts player freedom, but it also diminishes historical accuracy.

In reality (we are talking how Barbarossa ACTUALLY happened), German, Italian, Finnish, Croat, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian and even Spanish troops attacked WITH the German forces, simultaneously.

Germany and Italy (and others) attacked the Soviet Union SIMULTANEOUSLY, and made gains before the Soviets had any meaningful response. If the Germans attack first in the game, the Soviets can respond before the Italians take their turn in the game. If the Italians attack first in the game, both Germany and Italy attack before Russia has any significant chance to respond, just like what actually happened. Disallowing the game to play out as history did is more historical?

I'm not saying Italy should be FORCED to attack on their turn in the game before Germany, I'm saying there is not any valid reason (at least that overrides more important considerations such as historicity and balance) to restrict Italy from attacking before Germany. Essentially it becomes a question of whether or not the axis wants to pursue a ‘surprise’ assault on the USSR or not.

In a game where each power's actions are separated into turns, having consecutive axis turns attacking USSR makes MUCH more sense than having them interrupted with Russian intervention that the USSR was incapable of when these forces attacked at the same time! For those who look at the process of turns as a chronological development, When Italy attacks USSR first in the game, only (effectively insignificant) French actions separate the actions of Italy and Germany. If Germany attacks first in the game, the actions of USSR, Japan, USA, China, UK, and ANZAC separate the actions of Italy and Germany. Which makes more sense when depicting an attack that the Axis was obviously quite capable (because they did) of executing simultaneously?

Don't forget that even though the German buildup had been obvious to anyone who cared to look, the Soviets were still caught by surprise. Considering planes can't land in territories taken on the same turn, the advantage Germany gains by being able to land planes in the gains Italy had made reflecting this seemingly nonsensical but nonetheless true element of the Soviet preparations (or lack thereof) for Barbarossa.

There is no problem historically (in fact it better reflects the advantage the axis had in light of the soviet flat-footedness)
There is no problem balance-wise (if the soviets are bad enough to have it be a BAD thing for the USSR that Gerry sends in tanks and mechs without infantry ahead of the Italian can opener, they would have been dominated anyways)

I think player freedom to play out the war as they want (within historical reasonability) should be a major goal, whether the Axis decides to use the Italian attack to better press their Barbarossa advantage is up to the player, but to FORBID them from doing something that has no balance or historical issues makes sense only on the grounds of a misunderstanding of the actual historical considerations.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

Geist
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:24 pm

Re: Alpha+.2

Post by Geist » Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:55 pm

mantlefan wrote:
gamerman01 wrote: There are plenty of neutrality rules already, which appear to be an attempt to have some semblance of historical reality, so why not improve it by disallowing a DOW by Italy on a neutral USSR or USA?
Because restricting Italy not only restricts player freedom, but it also diminishes historical accuracy.

In reality (we are talking how Barbarossa ACTUALLY happened), German, Italian, Finnish, Croat, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian and even Spanish troops attacked WITH the German forces, simultaneously.

Simultaneously...you mean like on the same turn?

Germany and Italy (and others) attacked the Soviet Union SIMULTANEOUSLY, and made gains before the Soviets had any meaningful response. If the Germans attack first in the game, the Soviets can respond before the Italians take their turn in the game. If the Italians attack first in the game, both Germany and Italy attack before Russia has any significant chance to respond, just like what actually happened. Disallowing the game to play out as history did is more historical?

I'm not saying Italy should be FORCED to attack on their turn in the game before Germany, I'm saying there is not any valid reason (at least that overrides more important considerations such as historicity and balance) to restrict Italy from attacking before Germany. Essentially it becomes a question of whether or not the axis wants to pursue a ‘surprise’ assault on the USSR or not.

In a game where each power's actions are separated into turns, having consecutive axis turns attacking USSR makes MUCH more sense than having them interrupted with Russian intervention that the USSR was incapable of when these forces attacked at the same time! For those who look at the process of turns as a chronological development, When Italy attacks USSR first in the game, only (effectively insignificant) French actions separate the actions of Italy and Germany. If Germany attacks first in the game, the actions of USSR, Japan, USA, China, UK, and ANZAC separate the actions of Italy and Germany. Which makes more sense when depicting an attack that the Axis was obviously quite capable (because they did) of executing simultaneously?

Don't forget that even though the German buildup had been obvious to anyone who cared to look, the Soviets were still caught by surprise. Considering planes can't land in territories taken on the same turn, the advantage Germany gains by being able to land planes in the gains Italy had made reflecting this seemingly nonsensical but nonetheless true element of the Soviet preparations (or lack thereof) for Barbarossa.

Obvious to who? This is complete speculation. We look at this in hindsight and say...well they should have seen it coming.

There is no problem historically (in fact it better reflects the advantage the axis had in light of the soviet flat-footedness)
There is no problem balance-wise (if the soviets are bad enough to have it be a BAD thing for the USSR that Gerry sends in tanks and mechs without infantry ahead of the Italian can opener, they would have been dominated anyways)

The easy question here is, did Italy declare war on any power before Germany did? I love all these examples of how "if X player is so bad as to allow it, he deserves it." When the reality is, anyone who is a fan of these games, so much so that they bother to post here, is likely a decent player.

I think player freedom to play out the war as they want (within historical reasonability) should be a major goal, whether the Axis decides to use the Italian attack to better press their Barbarossa advantage is up to the player, but to FORBID them from doing something that has no balance or historical issues makes sense only on the grounds of a misunderstanding of the actual historical considerations.

Any game like this is a balancing act. In this case a small amount of Italian freedom vs a glaring historical inaccuracy. I can agree to disagree, but, the argument that it is historical accurate seems absurd to me

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests