Alpha +3

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
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 8:00 pm

Cmdr Jennifer wrote: 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.
At a minimum, I would like the 5 ipc NO restored so there is a bigger perk for the Germans if they do Sealion. For all intents and purposes, they are limited to doing a G4 Sealion as it currently stands against a UK player determined to defend London. You may not like it Larry, but at least this would allow for some variation every once and while instead of Barbarossa ad infinitum.

Good point

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

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Cmdr Jennifer » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:01 pm

One could probably go with Alpha 2 but with the current AA Gun rules and do just fine. No new units. No Mongolia short cut. No nerfed bombing raids. Maybe keep the tech changes too, maybe not.
Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist.
Children already know that dragons exist!
Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed!

Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:54 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by corriganbp » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:53 pm

Want to help Italy survive in a way that's historically accurate without having them run all over Africa and the middle east, obliterating the allied navy in the mediterranean in a way that is historically inaccurate?

Keep things basically as they are, maybe even weaken Italy a bit; however, give the Germans the special ability to mobilize in original Italian factories. Perhaps limit them to a minor factory build limit of 3.

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

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Noll » Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:14 pm


about the proposed "new" 1d6+2 SBR, I'm totally up for it. It will be used mostly by Allies, but now it's worth it. I really like it.

For the new turn order, if you don't want to screw with the Chinese issue that some people are stating (UK will open the burma road giving them access to the artillery) you could add to the Chinese NO that they need 1 chinese infantry in Yunnan in order to buy Artillery. (A chinese broker? :mrgreen: )

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

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Pinch1loaf » Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:20 pm

You don't have to take UK to succeed as germany. You just have to scare them. Just force them to defend England because if they don't then they lose in the Med.
If SBR goes this new direction then maybe its even easier to cripple UK

Exactly how many IPCs does Germany have to spend and divert from the Eastern Front to 'scare" the Brits?

Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Alpha +3

Post by JimmyHat » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:30 pm

Cmdr Jennifer wrote: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.
hmm, this idea has some real merit. Cutting up the allied units decreases their attack potential while not hurting them on def. You wouldn't necessarily have to go with the CA either, you could make the dd ANZAC, or even the tac on the CV.

It doesn't have to be one ship either. You could add a frenchie in there or any combination.

I am still for the blocker in sz99, perhaps a reworking of Italy's starting fleet power, although I like how they have 1 bb 2 CA which is more than the Germans in the tiny baltic.

Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Alpha +3

Post by JimmyHat » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:41 pm

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

New Turn Order
DAVE... I'm changing this to Germany Soviet Union Japan US China UK Italy ANZAC France.

Hmmmm.....I have some concerns regarding this turn order. In the OOB, the UK was opening the Burma Road many times by taking Yunnan on their turn and then when China's turn comes, they get to buy artillery and don't even have to fight for Yunnan. From my experience, that makes Japan's life harder. Also, as other people are pointing out, you bring back the can-opener issue against Japan where by the UK or Anzac clears Japanese blockers and the US roars through.
Use 1d6+2 when conducting SBRS
Great!!! Seemed to work well in Alpha +.2 from my experience. It led to some limited bombing and I don't remember hearing too many complaints during the 6+ month Alpha +.2 run
I think strategic bmb is too powerful and is fine as is. We can't all agree on everything though:) I did like Mantlefan's idea of reducing the power of bmbs so one is more likely to SBR with them. Perhaps now that we have tacs lvl bmb's can be weakened?

Limiting built-in AA guns to 3 shots
I'm not good enough to have any great insight into this change other than it will bring all antiaircraft fire into alignment. Which, on the surface, I would rate as a good change. It helps bring continuity to the rules.

Some NO changes.
Removing UK Pac. DEI NO

I've only played one Alpha +3 game and it still ongoing. This was a moot point because I tried a J1 attack for the first time, so I don't have anything to add other than I read lots of talk of a UK/Anzac round 2 DOW so they could grab the bonuses. So, on the surface, it seems like a good change.
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 Question, would you want this to be calculated from the start of the US turn or end? I say this because if you make it at the end of the US turn, this is a really NO to achieve. If the US must begin its turn with three units already there, it means the beachhead must hold. This would most likely mean more of a commitment from the US.

I agree that it seems odd that if Japan doesn't attack then India and ANZAC usually end up declaring war to get those NO's. I think that fix can be addressed in the DOW political rules section.

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

I haven't formed a firm opinion on this one (lack of experience), so I'll leave this up to you to decide....which I'm sure is reassuring to you, right? 8)

Setup changes being considered
Brit bomber replaces a French Fighter not British one .

Personally, I like the French fighter. It helps to keep the Axis honest in some of their movements. Some games it makes to N. Africa to harass the Italians or Germany will land underdefended planes in Holland along with not attacking Normandy. My vote is to keep it.

agreed. Much like the Med, spreading the units over many nations keeps their def capabilities the same but reduces their attack power. Keeping the French ftr means that UK cannot bottle up the Germans in 112 UK1 provided they don't buy a CV and hit both bb's. If a UK bmb is needed (and not in Canada) then replace a UK ftr.

Remove UK Normandy fighter
This I could live with. It gives the Germans a better shot at attacking France and Normandy without leaving the France battle too thin. Also, helps the Italians out if the Germans decide to not to attack Normandy.
Remove airbase from Malta.
Ok. I haven't found this too critical of an item. In the one game it did do anything, I parked some German planes on it and it detered the UK from taking Egypt back amphibiously from sea zone 81 because I could've sunk their boats.

interesting. It is the airbase that makes Malta worth capturing or holding. Of course it being there is incentive enough to deprive a landing zone for incoming bombers...

Remove airbase from Gibraltar
This probably helps the Axis so that when the US comes and takes Gibraltar, the UK can't land three planes there to scramble with for defense. Of course, the UK could always land the three planes and still purchase an airbase, but then they aren't doing something else. I think I like this idea.
Adding 4th tank to Holland.
Adding 3rd tank to Southern Greater Germany.
Adding 3rd infantry to Norway
Collectively, I don't know if I would do all of this along with the deletion of the UK fighter in Normandy. It would seem to me that you would be giving the Germans too much a leg up on round one if did them all. Out of the three, the infantry would be the least effective because there is no obvious round one battle Germany would put them in use for.

hmmm, I agree with dave that the inf in Norway is probably not going to be a big deal. I do like that Germany is getting more tanks as opposed to aircraft, and with these units added I think keeping the Paris aa gun might work. Hopefully it doesn't tip the scales too far in Germs favor.

Add airbase to Quebec
Yes, do it. Then UK could actually fly fighters and tacticals back and forth to the UK/N. America and the German subs would pay for parking so far away from home.


Remove one French tank from Normandy and replace it with an artillery unit. \
Keep the tank. If Germany leaves Holland empty, it allows the tank to hit Western Germany if it is not defended with at least token ground units. It makes Germany pay attention or else pay for poor choices on G1.

I agree. Plus 2 inf 1 arm in Normandy means Germany can't just walk in with a few units.

Removing Soviet BB and replacing it with a Cruiser (and NOOOOO.... this had nothing to do with IL's similar proposal)
I'm ok with this. The Soviet fleet is sacrificial after all.
on the new proposed turn order:
Germany Soviet Union Japan US UK Italy ANZAC France China

I also like cutting up the Allied mega-turn, but as has been mentioned there have been a number of valid reasons to change the order to our present set, usually involving the Pacific theatre. It is important not to unbalance that theatre by making changes to the turn order just to rectify the Med. That being said, I do think that we can slide Italy in just about anywhere and not affect the Pacific theatre too greatly. This is easier than moving UK, who is really 2 powers and has units all over the board.

So, as our old order was G/R/J/US/China/UK/ANZAC/Italy/France, why not just move Italy up one. That puts them before ANZAC, splitting the allied def of the Indian ocean a bit. Also breaks up the Mega turn a little and lets the Allies really mess with the Axis if they can get ANZAC aircraft to Europe. Of course it still leaves us with the major problems in the Med.

Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:10 pm

Re: Alpha +3

Post by McMan » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:23 pm

JimmyHat wrote:hmm, this idea has some real merit. Cutting up the allied units decreases their attack potential while not hurting them on def. You wouldn't necessarily have to go with the CA either, you could make the dd ANZAC, or even the tac on the CV.

It doesn't have to be one ship either. You could add a frenchie in there or any combination.
However, this becomes troublesome with Larry's new turn order. If Italy goes between UK and ANZAC/France, then the combined fleet can't move as a defensive pack without exposing themselves to attack from Italy.

I may be looking at the wrong new turn order though...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests