Alpha +3

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
User avatar
Kaufschtick
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Kaufschtick » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:09 am

jollypillager wrote:Germany actually taking the UK should only happen if the British player is monumentally stupid, and maybe not even then...Sealion was really beyond Germany's capabilities.
That's pretty much the way I see it too.
Young, Rodger W., Private, 148th Infantry, 37th Infantry Division; born Tiffin, Ohio, 28 April 1918; died 31 July 1943, on the island of New Georgia, Solomons, South Pacific, while singlehandedly attacking and destroying an enemy machine-gun pillbox.

User avatar
Kaufschtick
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Kaufschtick » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:17 am

Imperious leader wrote:
Ok but UK only lost this:

2 killed
2 captured
2 aircraft shot down


Historically, Italy got 1 BB sunk and 2 others damaged.

I think Italy got Pearl Harbored.
Taranto was nothing like Pearl, in terms of magnitude.

I don't think the Italians lost any aircraft other than possibly observation a/c on the BBs. I'm not sure what the casualty figures were, but I can't imagine they were anything on the order of Pearl.

Italy may have been sucker punched at Taranto, but Pearl Harbor, it was not.
Young, Rodger W., Private, 148th Infantry, 37th Infantry Division; born Tiffin, Ohio, 28 April 1918; died 31 July 1943, on the island of New Georgia, Solomons, South Pacific, while singlehandedly attacking and destroying an enemy machine-gun pillbox.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Imperious leader » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:25 am

Taranto was nothing like Pearl.

I don't think the Italians lost any aircraft other than possibly observation a/c on the BBs. I'm not sure what the casualty figures were, but I can't imagine they were anything on the order of Pearl.

Italy may have been sucker punched at Taranto, but Pearl Harbor, it was not.
What? I just posted the loses and you reposted it. The answer is already established.

Italy got 3 BB out of commission for a loss of 2 aircraft. That is one sided battle.

Pearl is a worse defeat, more ships involved and more planes so they did more damage.

In the economy of scale they are both similar results and they are linked to the fact that Japan took the incident to develop shallow harbor torpedoes as they saw how it could be employed against Hawaii.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

oztea
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Alpha +3

Post by oztea » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:38 am

Italy should have a decent fleet in 95 that is untouchable by the UK
A lot of merchant ships had to resupply italian forces in Libya, hence a transport & DD in 96
And a sitting duck in 97 that the UK can trade planes to remove from the board

This was the millitary situation in the mediteranian in 1940
I dont need to say anything else

eric2001
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Alpha +3

Post by eric2001 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:46 am

Kaufschtick wrote:
Cmdr Jennifer wrote:May we please stop with the "historical"ness of the game and look at balance? Balance means from the time the pieces are placed on the board until Germany purchases units, both sides have an equal chance to win. Just like Chess, Risk, or any other game of strategy and skill. That is, I think, the fun, right?
You can't really go with this line of reasoning with global, not with the whole France set up and collapse as we have it. There has to be a little connect to historical, at least out of the gates. You can't just say "forget history and just balance the game".

Now, does it have to be precisely historical? That is open to debate, but I would point out that A&A is, and always has been an abstract representation of WWII, so you're not going to get down to the finer details, rather, it's going to be more of an overall view. But you can't just disconnect from the history.
I agree. I don't want World in Flames, but I also don't want Risk.

The Axis do need more of a chance than they had in real life, but I like having the pressure on the Axis to make plays or lose. The Allies should have more margin for error due to greater economies, defending ther homelands and generally being more of 'the good guys' than the Axis.

Noll
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:41 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Noll » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:56 am

to make Taranto historical you'd need an attack like this:
1 uk tac bomber alone vs 1bb 2ca 3dd without scrambling fighters
the uk tac scores 1 hit, the navies all misses first round, then the uk tac retreats.

master_tactician
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:53 pm
Location: The Eastern Front

Re: Alpha +3

Post by master_tactician » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:29 am

Firstly, let me say this:

What is going on here! We have debates going on about historical accuracy, taranto discussions, people calling others random and kids. But wait, there's more! We have Jen posting in a crazy pink/purple color and mantlefan yet again hopping on Jen's back.

I am not going to be like so many others and say that a one sentence solution will solve this WHOLE thread of discussion because I'm not god and I don't know everything. I do however have suggestions about many things.
1. Please tell mantlefan to quiet down over in the peanut gallery. We need constructive criticism at best. The complaint department's on the third floor. He is selectively targeting members based on past quarrels and he should not be quelling other people's opinions because of some debate he had many moons ago. Don't hold grudges!

2. I don't think historical accuracy is needed to the level that some of you are going to. If this game was historical, there would be no point to playing the game because the Allies would win every time. This game has always been the greatest way to explore all the 'what-if's of history. "What if Russia made the first move on the Russian Front?" "What if Japan attacked the western Allies sooner?" Basically, the game is designed to be ahistorical, no? At least we don't have Germany and the US on the same side against UK, Italy, and Russia, right? He have a relatively historical set-up, but there needs to be more than one path to victory for each side from this same starting point. I think we are mostly in agreement with this but we have different ideas on how to get to the same conclusion.

3. Concerning the Taranto discussion. I think maybe a possible solution to this is the following:
On the UK's first turn, no ship may be moved during the Combat Movement Phase. This represents the UK's unpreparedness to go to war. The UK's ships may, however move during the NCM of the first turn. This way, the UK can only send planes against the Italian navy in the Med. and can't immediately counter any German movement in the N. Atlantic. Thoughts?

That's all my 2 cents (I know it was more like a couple dollars :lol: ).

My philosophy is this. Everyone has a right to post their own opinions and ideas as long as they address other people's ideas that way that they would like their own ideas treated.

Well that's all for now. I hope this will provoke further discussion because as long as it isn't argument over things that will have no effect on the game (such as if people are random kids), there is ALWAYS something to learn in a discussion with others.
P.S. Jen, never mind about your type color. Type in all colors of the rainbow so long as that color gets your point across. :)
Cheers!
-master_tactician

User avatar
Infrastructure
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:29 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Infrastructure » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:46 am

Larry,

I think you should pull the trigger on the UK bomber. How serious is this new Italian turn order? I do like the thought of breaking up the allied megaturn. A LOT of changes to the map to test though. SHould we be brainstorming this, or is it too much.

Working on several setup changes one of which is the UK bomber. It will probably happen.
Decided to beef up Germany a bit more.

The Italian turn order change will most likely not happen. I do see a turn order change occurring, however. It might look something like this... Germany Soviet Union Japan UK ANZAC Italy France China US.

I'm adjusting some NOs
Looking into the Victory Conditions 7w/Mos or 8wo/Mos

The BIG issues still remain to be the Mediterranean situation
SBRs and Convoy Disruption systems

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests