Alpha +3

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
User avatar
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by questioneer » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:55 pm

Kaufschtick wrote: Hey Kaufschtick:
You might want to read this and try some of it out.

New Turn Order
Germany Soviet Union Japan UK ANZAC Italy France China US (Please note... I'm editing this turn order proposal to now read: Germany Soviet Union Japan US UK Italy ANZAC France China ).
Use 1d6+2 when conducting SBRS
Limiting built-in AA guns to 3 shots

Some NO changes.
Removing UK Pac. DEI NO
The UK & US NO for capturing France is removed and replaced with: The US (no longer also the UK) 5 IPCs if there is at least 3 US units in Normandy/Bordeaux or Holland/Belgium

New Victory Conditions
7 VCs on the Europe side which includes Moscow, or 8 without Moscow.

Setup changes being considered
Brit bomber replaces a French Fighter not British one .
Remove UK Normandy fighter
Remove airbase from Malta.
Remove airbase from Gibraltar
Adding 4th tank to Holland.
Adding 3rd tank to Southern Greater Germany.
Adding 3rd infantry to Norway
Add airbase to Quebec
Remove one French tank from Normandy and replace it with an artillery unit.
Removing Soviet BB and replacing it with a Cruiser (and NOOOOO.... this had nothing to do with IL's similar proposal)
Wow interesting changes!!!

I'm all for beefing up Germany- it seems they have to spoon feed Italy all the time so they need it. (Gee, that almost seems historical)

I don't like the take away of the Gibr or Malta Airbase, but hey- I'll leave this to you.

Turn Order- I like this one you got here- Italy before UK??? I don't know...I'll leave it to you...I got too much studying to do.

The rest of the changes seems really good. Much better.

Yeah, I don't know what you can do beyond 1d6+2 and limited AA fire- may be the best you can do. Convoys - same thing- not much I think you can do w/o wacking things out. Well, you'll come up with something. Can't wait for the Final as usual.

BTW- You're dead on about your analysis of Italy and the Med and the Europe side of things. Exactly my observations. Its a tough one, Italy can get out of control or be dwindeled to nothing. Italy is a real sensitive needle that has extreme variance when played- seems hard to tone it down either way to get more of a "balanced" Italy play.

ALSO- Lock IL and Mantlefan on their own thread for life. :D

User avatar
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Dave » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:23 pm

Current turn order:
Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, US, China, UK, ANZAC, Italy, France.

Larry's proposed turn order as of 6:23 pm Central Standard Time on October, 3 2011:
Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, US, UK , Italy, ANZAC, France, China.

My problem with your suggestion is that the UK will again be able to open up the Burma Road for China. Then China gets to buy their artillery which makes them more deadly to the Japanese. China can be enough of a meat-grinder for Japan that I don't like this.

To me, China should go before UK and the UK/Anzac should go after the US. So, without your asking Larry, here are my two suggestions:

1.) Germany, Soviets, Japan, China, US, UK, Italy, Anzac, France.
Here, China still goes before the UK and the Allies are limited to only three powers in a row. It also greatly preserves the advantage that Italy can serve as can opener for Germany. UK still goes before Italy.

2.) Germany, Soviets, Japan, US, China, UK, Italy, Anzac, France.
Pretty much the same as above for benefit. UK before Italy. China is before the UK so they have to do their own heavy lifting against Japan. Nobody is doing can-openers for the US in the Pacific. Allies are limited to three powers in a row. Italy still functions as a can-opener for Germany in almost all realistic cases.

Take a look at these two possible turn orders Larry.

edit: Anzac and France could be swapped if you so choose. I don't think it would matter.
Last edited by Dave on Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:05 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by edfactor » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:34 pm

Strategic Bombing

Larry if you change the bombers back to 1d6+2 could you please change the rules so that Interceptors kill bombers instead of escorting fighters?

Historically speaking thats what interceptors did, they shot at bombers at every opportunity they didn't engage in dogfights.

Let's put it this way... they tried to can bombers. The escorts tried to interrupt that conversation and usually did.

Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:13 pm

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Pinch1loaf » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:35 pm

Based off the play in my last game US invested in a decent stack of bombers in Europe. With decent rollls and a little luck they didn't lose very much. Since they didn't lose much the replacements just kept stacking and by turn 10 they had 9 bombers in london. The us was hble to max out Berlin complex and UK had 2 bombers that they used to hit southern france and paris. As the rules stood with 1d6 they did a lot of damage and was extremely cost effective. However effective there was no leftover cash to raise a decent landing party or push just a little more into the pacific. Had the US another 3-4 subs or planes they would have been able to beat the japanese fleet though a suicide run the wipe out the fleet was quite effective anyways. With the 1d6+2 to SBR US would not have to invest so much in bombers and have a little more money to create a landing party and put just enough pressure on the now slightly stronger Germany. Which they will need to do. I don't think that it will break the game because complexes max out anyways. US had the bombers and they were doing the damage but they didn't have the ground troops to press an attack and liberate France.

I can see someone trying to exploit the 1d6+2 with US but i think they will just see a waste of money because you'll be maxing complexes and wasting dice. You will not want to send 6 bombers on one complex unless you want to make dang sure that complex is shut down. you will also not want to send 2 or three without escorts because if one gets blown up you risk not hitting hard enough. Nonetheless, you will want to send something because its so cost effective.

I think with this change we will see that the first priority target for a bomber will be SBR and if you can't find anything worth while to SBR then go find some stack to smash. In older versions i believe the target priority was reversed.

Also let me just say Larry I think with the new changes and turn order proposed you are extremely close to balance. I bet one might even consider a Sea Lion because if you balance the Med Germany may want to pressure England and SBR now that its pumped up. IF UK retreats fighters and bombers and feeds the Egypt ignoring the Atlantic we might see a bold German ripping the UK apart in their neglect.

Every major player should have to feel real tension when deciding where to focus their attention...

Germany: do I go early for soviet russia or do I put the pressure on the England to ease up the itlaians in the med.

Russia: do I retreat to the stack and hold out or do I mount an offensive, building more armor?Do I pull back the SFE infantry do ensure russias's survival or do I mount an attack on the Japanese at a critical moment to screw their plans?

Japan: Do I flood asia with ground troops or do I command the seas and go toe to toe with the Americans?

UK: Do I commit a large attack force into egypt, securing Africa but leaving England and the atlantic vulnerable? Or do I secure the atlantic, sacrificing a hold in africa but securing a landing into europe?

US: Where the freak do I spend all this money for maximum benefit?

Every decision has a weakness and it will be up to your opponents to hit you in the weakness. By and by the game will determine if you chose wisely in your plan of attack, but no nation should be sitting too well off in the early stages of the game. We're getting close...

I love it... Still got to figure Italy out.

Cmdr Jennifer
Posts: 808
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:30 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Cmdr Jennifer » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:41 pm

Maybe swap the British cruiser in SZ 98 for an Australian one, thereby, removing one attacking unit from the Med, while not removing any defender units?

Oh.... interesting.
Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist.
Children already know that dragons exist!
Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed!

User avatar
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Dave » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:45 pm

I had something about this eons ago, but I think part of the reason for everyone's fascination with Sealion is that ever since the dawn of A&A (almost 30 years ago, the UK has always been one turn away from Germany. One long, impossible move away. Due to set up though, it was never realistic for the Germans to go after them.

Fast forward to G40 and there is no question in my mind that plays a large part in so many people's preoccupation with Sealion. It's like a lion seeing some red meat on the other side of his cage and now he's finally able to reach it. Of course he goes for it!!! People want to try the Sealion strategy nine ways to Sunday before giving up on it.

So, how does this relate to the current Alpha+3 scenario. To me, the removal of Sealion as a "realistically" viable strategy is causing all kinds of problems. Because of the addition of the 4 AA guns as soak off hits and the removal of 5 ipc NO for Germany, it doesn't strike me as viable any more. This is what is causing the UK/Italian balance issues in the Mediterranean. In Alpha +2, I didn't see much complaining about balance issues.

To help balance the Mediterranean, maybe give Sealion legs again. You've added four hits in defense with the AA guns, but maybe you take the Scotland infantry and the French infantry away in the UK? Also, maybe you give the 5 ipc NO back to Germany for control of the UK? I'll probably run into a lot of flak for proposing this, but then if the UK wants to neuter Italy alone, they would have to pull resources (fighters) away from the UK and risk losing it to Germany.

I think this would help you with the UK/Italy balance in the Mediterranean. Heck, maybe you could just leave the whole Alpha +2 set up in the Mediterranean. That didn't seem so bad when UK was threatened by Sealion. It seems like by removing Sealion, you opened a whole other can of worms.

I'm just throwing this idea out there Larry. Feel free to ignore it as you see fit.

I've often wondered if 4 AA guns were too much.
Certainly food for thought. How the heck to you find the sweet spot?

Cmdr Jennifer
Posts: 808
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:30 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Cmdr Jennifer » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:52 pm

Pinch1loaf wrote: US: Where the freak do I spend all this money for maximum benefit?

In Alpha 2? Anywhere you want. You will CRUSH either side before the other can win. It was ridiculous. Had America completely ignore Japan (to the point W. USA fell) and still took Berlin and got back to stop a Japan VC win. Ignored Germany and reduced Japan to cindering rubble before Germany could pop Russia and get a VC win.

Really happy about Alpha 3, over all. I just wish the Italians had more staying power they seem to have gotten the short end of the stick. I guess as you buff everyone else up, someone new ends up on the bottom.

I was thinking that there could be a new aid to Italy: England cannot have, for any reason, a complex in Egypt, Iraq or Central Persia - even if they liberate the territory and it had one there. England could still crush the Italian fleet, but at least Italy would have some breathing room to build up.

That's maybe too drastic, I don't really know, as I said, it was a thought. The thought is based on my personal experience with complexes going up in all three of those locations so I can drop warships directly into the med while 6 units head to Africa a round until Africa is totally secure then head into Russia to relieve the pressure valve.

However that did back fire for one of my opponents (EM) and I got London with Italy. No idea if they can press the advantage and get Africa now, but man, it was a demoralizing attack! (Even more so the result!)

It is also not the standard. The standard is Italy getting none of their NOs for the entire game now. Alpha 2 they used to get ALL of their NOs eventually, now they get none. (Difference is that London doesnt die now.) This allows England to get a little heavily filled with unvented testosterone in the Med.

... :lol: :lol: :lol: ...

I don't think a blocker is the option, because now you have an issue with England's defense ability. Moving England to SZ 81 and letting Italy go first really seems the best route, to me anyway, and I have not really seen anyone offer an argument against that being a good idea. Maybe there is one, but I have not seen it. Don't you have any problem at all with the English fleet in the Red Sea. Does that location seem bold and Royal Navy to you? Hiding in the crack between the horn and the sandbox? Come on... the Brit ships must be in the Med.

Edit: I have to agree with Dave. Sea Lion being a little more difficult is what is causing the situation. I am not sure restoring Sea Lion to the prominence it was is the answer, as I have repeatably said, I think there is a different solution that would give us our cake and our ice cream and the ability to eat it all without getting fat.
Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist.
Children already know that dragons exist!
Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed!

User avatar
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Dave » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:57 pm

Regarding bombers at 1d6+2....

In most of the games I've played, if the Axis don't achieve relative economic parity with the Allies by the time round 7ish rolls around, they end up losing. They are just outproduced.

One of the whole advantages in having strategic bombing occur at 1d6+2 is that it is the Axis that are in a position to do strategic bombing at the onset. They have a limited window to achieve parity and this helps them do it. Once parity is achieved, they have a shot. Plus, it is not like the Axis are unable to defend their major complexes. Germany and Japan both start with enough fighters to make it costly for the Allies to go after at least one of their major complexes.

This is something which benefits the Axis more than the Allies in my mind because it can be used at the onset to help bring economic parity which is critical to the Axis. With out that parity, they just don't win against good play. There really isn't an "easy" Axis win against good Allied play from my experience.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests