Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
De Gaulle
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by De Gaulle » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:41 pm

Why dont we just take ANZAC out, and make an individual power called the British Commonwealth, that would be in control of SA, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand. This would solve these problems of British dieing and production ceasing as the commonwealth would just fight on. Though it would be tricky to pick their main capital.

dannyboy2016
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:27 am

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by dannyboy2016 » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:55 am

I'd like to see two changes to the setup.

1.) a German minor factory on Greater Southern Germany. It'd be useful for quickly getting mechanized/armored reinforcements to Rome. Plus there were heavy industries there like the Skoda Works.

2.) a soviet cruiser and destroyer in the black sea. The Black Sea Fleet was significant in size (a battleship, 5 cruisers, around 20 destroyers, and 40 subs) and was one of the few Soviet Units that wasn't caught with its pants down when Barbarossa started. It was strategically significant as well. Placing a few naval units down there gives the fleet the recognition that it deserves but it also serves to tempt Russia into devoting some of its precious resources to expanding the fleet.


Also, it'd be nice to see a few more NOs:

Spain- have an Axis NO to turn Spain pro Axis neutral if the axis control Gibraltar in addition to controlling either London or Moscow are under Axis control.

Turkey- have an NO where Turkey becomes a pro axis neutral if Caucus, Greece, Syria, and Iraq are under Axis control.

Turkey- have an NO where Turkey becomes pro allied neutral if Rome, Greece, and the Caucuses are under allied control.

Mongolia- have an NO where Mongolia becomes a pro allied neutral if the USSR goes to war with Japan.

Thats my two cents

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by Caractacus » Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:55 am

dannyboy2016 wrote:I'd like to see two changes to the setup.

1.) a German minor factory on Greater Southern Germany. It'd be useful for quickly getting mechanized/armored reinforcements to Rome. Plus there were heavy industries there like the Skoda Works.
Looking at the teeny-tiny version of the Europe map that I can get on my qwork computer, I would have said that the Czech factories were not in Greater Southern Germany, but it might just be the angle of the shot, etc.
dannyboy2016 wrote:2.) a soviet cruiser and destroyer in the black sea. The Black Sea Fleet was significant in size (a battleship, 5 cruisers, around 20 destroyers, and 40 subs) and was one of the few Soviet Units that wasn't caught with its pants down when Barbarossa started. It was strategically significant as well. Placing a few naval units down there gives the fleet the recognition that it deserves but it also serves to tempt Russia into devoting some of its precious resources to expanding the fleet.
That might be nice.
dannyboy2016 wrote:Also, it'd be nice to see a few more NOs:

Spain- have an Axis NO to turn Spain pro Axis neutral if the axis control Gibraltar in addition to controlling either London or Moscow are under Axis control.

Turkey- have an NO where Turkey becomes a pro axis neutral if Caucus, Greece, Syria, and Iraq are under Axis control.

Turkey- have an NO where Turkey becomes pro allied neutral if Rome, Greece, and the Caucuses are under allied control.

Mongolia- have an NO where Mongolia becomes a pro allied neutral if the USSR goes to war with Japan.

Thats my two cents
The 'NOs' are nice, but I wouldn't call them NOs, just Neutral rules for major neutrals.
Caractacus.

aaron91
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:43 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by aaron91 » Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:15 am

I feel that transports need some revision. Either make it as someone suggested either earlier or in another thread where transports can only launch an amphibious assault from a territory in an adjacent sea zone or make unloading a transport cost a movement point. Currently we rarely see the U.S. feel the need to do any sort of island hopping which I think puts undue pressure on Japan before there should be that much.

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

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by mantlefan » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:14 pm

aaron91 wrote:I feel that transports need some revision. Either make it as someone suggested either earlier or in another thread where transports can only launch an amphibious assault from a territory in an adjacent sea zone or make unloading a transport cost a movement point. Currently we rarely see the U.S. feel the need to do any sort of island hopping which I think puts undue pressure on Japan before there should be that much.
While on one hand that helps Japan against a invasion from Hawaii, it sort of dooms them in the South. Not to mention this slows down the game immensely on all fronts, and makes amphibious assaults (The bread and butter of Italy, Japan, Anzac, UK London, and the US) immensely more difficult.)

You make a great point about Japan itself being under threat from USA when US hasn't done anything except stack in Hawaii.

One solution might be to restrict Naval Base movement to Non-combat, That does slow the game down some, but not as much as a lot of the other options. Still that might be too much

The other is to expand the sea zones that Kamikazes can be used in (Specifically to SZ 16, the one between Japan's SZ and midway, and allow them to attack as soon as an enemy ship moves in. If Japan sends 3 or more Kamikazes, the ships they attacked must stop moving, and no ships may move out of that SZ for the rest of the turn (They may move in)

This gives Japan 2 chances to protect Japan from an Amphibious assault. If it should only be 1 chance for balance reason, it could be changed to 4 or more needed to work. This doesn't need a wholenew rule, but can be incorporated into the existing kamikaze framework, and can actually make them useful
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by turner » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:22 pm

It would be better to make the naval move bonus only between controlled naval bases.

This would encourage the taking of islands for the purpose of making naval movement faster and easier.

It would also show the real importance of taking the Phillipines and other such island groups.

Finally, it would make Hawaii to Japan a two move journey, which it should have been from the beginning.

dannyboy2016
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:27 am

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by dannyboy2016 » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:22 pm

Caractacus wrote:
Looking at the teeny-tiny version of the Europe map that I can get on my qwork computer, I would have said that the Czech factories were not in Greater Southern Germany, but it might just be the angle of the shot, etc.
Doh. You are right. It looks like the Czech Republic would be in the Slovakia-Hungary territory on the board.

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

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by mantlefan » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:24 pm

turner wrote:Finally, it would make Hawaii to Japan a two move journey, which it should have been from the beginning.
Truth.

I wonder if the map was designed without the knowledge that there would be a rule that would allow one-turn combat movement between Hawaii and Japan
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests