Alpha +3

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
JimmyHat
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Alpha +3

Post by JimmyHat » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:22 pm

I apologize for not being around yesterday, I still have a few pages to read but wanted to mention something about the sz99 Italian DD that nobody seems to have said yet.

Italy had 'home' ports in that sz. They controlled the Dodocanese and Rhodes. So that dd could be defending those holdings.

I know Larry already posted a revised setup, just wanted to add that it is totally possible for Italy to have a ship there and remain historical.

I have not constructed a new Med setup yet.... I'm trying to put it together.
Truth be told... I'm concerned that a blocking 99er might be too effective and the Italians will become a monster in the region. Thanks for this interesting info nonetheless.

User avatar
Kobu
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Kobu » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Larry wrote:Kobu where have you been? Is that an Italy before the UK I'm seeing?
I must have missed it, Larry. What's the reasoning here?

It's more like confusion than reasoning :lol:
I was trying to make the point that Italy, at this late date, going before the UK is too risky and that we've talked about this just recently. I thought you participated in that conversation.

To be clear, because I posted this turn order about 15 times now, and each one has been different, it should be: Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, US, UK , Italy, ANZAC, France, China.

ANZAC, France and China are all kind of interchangeable.

Another way to look at this -
The present setup in Alpha +3 (as posted on page one of the thread) is:
Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, US, China, UK, ANZAC, Italy, France.
I simply want to move Italy up one and place it before ANZAC. Why? To avoid the Allies from having four turns in row as it currently does.

So... I'm (trying to say) that this should be the turn order: Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, US, China, UK, Italy, ANZAC, France.

I think I'm trying to do too many things at the same time here... sorry.

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

Re: Alpha +3

Post by mantlefan » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:24 pm

"Germany Soviet Union Japan US ANZAC Italy France China UK" sounds excellent to me, maybe take off an italian DD and/or sub and it should be great.


See my post to Kobu above.... Turn sequence is: Germany Soviet Union Japan US China UK Italy ANZAC France


Definitley not everyone has been saying that SBR's are too weak.

Either Alpha 2 or Alpha 3 SBR rules as they are written are just fine.

Adding the +2 to the A3 where interceptors are much weaker and escorts are much stronger than in A2 simply breaks strat bombing for the USA.

Those saying strat bombing is still too weak seem to have not understood the impact of allowing escorts to be taken as hits instead of bombers on interceptor hits, as well as the fact that escorts also first strike now.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

m7574
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Alpha +3

Post by m7574 » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:41 pm

for what its worth in most of our games the UK has mustered in sz92 and avoided attacking Italy. UK positioned to strike if Italy left their home port. It was effective. Italy could preserve their fleet for a while, a lot of it depended on how much the germans were willing to invest. Africa and the Middle east could be taken but the sacrifice was a monsterous Russia which we've concluded is a losing proposition.

If Germany puts most of their resources into a massive Barbarossa campaign, Russia is completely neutralized. Only waves of Allied air and mech through Persia can keep her. In this event the Axis reach an economic parity with the allies and hold the innitiative. Its a good situation to be in if you are the axis.

If Italy is able to hold her own all by itself while beefing up Whermacht forces, where does that leave us? -Not to mention the removal of key UK infrastructure like the airbase in Gibraltar. Hopefully this gets tested and vetted properly before its committed to.

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

Re: Alpha +3

Post by corriganbp » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:58 pm

The math on SBRs still basically holds although the escorts and interceptors add an interesting dynamic. However, the net impact of their use is to create an even greater barrier cost to SBR, because not only are you committing a bomber(s) that would otherwise be attacking naval or land units, you are now committing fighters and tactical bombers that would otherwise be attacking naval or land units. Yes, maybe the attacker is secretly hoping that the defending air units will take to the air and fight so that he or she can shoot some of them down, but this is always at the defenders option, so a good defender will only take the option when its to his or her advantage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cost of the aa gun fire will still be 1/6th of tacs and strats, and since tacs can't bomb factories, I'm thinking that the strats that bomb the factories will not get to use other air units to soak up their losses. So yes, there's an incremental pick up for the attacker of 3.5 - 1/6th of 12 ipcs or 1.5 but the argument is that there are almost always going to be more productive uses for that bomber somewhere else on the board. The reason is that -- attacking at a 4 with a range of 6 to 7, makes the bomber the best offensive piece in the game.

The problem is that historically long range high altitude bombers were most effectively used for fixed targets, not for short range mobile targets.

So the problem is not really the SBR rules in isolation, it's the trade off of giving up your best attacking unit against land or air, to go attack a factory, where it's net yield is half an infantry unit. Why do that when against an isolated destroyer it can net an expected 1.8 ipcs? (I can post the math if you like). or better yet, you shield the bomber, send a sub and a bomber against an isolated destroyer and the expected pickup is closer to 5 ipcs. Since a sub used by itself against the destroyer expects to yield a net 1.2 ipcs, the incremental value of a bomber shielded by a sub against a lone destroyer is about 4 ipcs - a much better investment than a SBR.

so the solution is not only to beef up the SBR, the solution is to reduce the impact of a high altitude long range bomber against mobile targets like land and naval units.

That's why I suggest -- 2d6 or double or as much as I can talk Larry into for the SBR
attack at 2 or 3, defend at 1.

do that, and you not only make the SBR more enticing, you make the use of the high altitude bomber against mobile units less likely.

or try something completely different, like allowing for units to conduct both SBR and attacks against Naval and Land units in different phases, do THAT, you are also guaranteed to increase the SBR activity even without the extra enticement.

If you really want to make things juicy try this

Day raids occur during the standard combat phase.
Night raids occur in their own separate phase.

when SBR is done during the day, air units can't also attack land and naval units. however, you give them the sweetener +something, double or multiple dice (2d6 standard 4d6 for heavies).

when SBR is done at night, you make them less effective either d6 or d6-1 or something, but you either eliminate the impact of aa fire or make aa fire less effective (need to roll two ones instead of a single one - roll your standard aa gun shots, then roll again for each hit, and each subsequent one scores a hit). Finally the night SBR allows the air units to also attack land or naval units. but still possibly with reduced effectiveness (att at 2 or 3)

User avatar
Kobu
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Kobu » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:41 pm

Larry wrote:It's more like confusion than reasoning :lol:
I was trying to make the point that Italy, at this late date, going before the UK is too risky and that we've talked about this just recently. I thought you participated in that conversation.

To be clear, because I posted this turn order about 15 times now, and each one has been different, it should be: Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, US, UK , Italy, ANZAC, France, China.

ANZAC, France and China are all kind of interchangeable.

Another way to look at this -
The present setup in Alpha +3 (as posted on page one of the thread) is:
Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, US, China, UK, ANZAC, Italy, France.
I simply want to move Italy up one and place it before ANZAC. Why? To avoid the Allies from having four turns in row as it currently does.
OK, I see, but you've also moved China? I'm a bit more confused now. We'll have UK attacking into China more again. :lol:

User avatar
Kobu
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Alpha +3

Post by Kobu » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:44 pm

m7574 wrote:for what its worth in most of our games the UK has mustered in sz92 and avoided attacking Italy. UK positioned to strike if Italy left their home port. It was effective. Italy could preserve their fleet for a while, a lot of it depended on how much the germans were willing to invest. Africa and the Middle east could be taken but the sacrifice was a monsterous Russia which we've concluded is a losing proposition.
Could this be why your Russia hasn't been doing well? I rather think so. Beat the Italians into oblivion on UK1 and the game is nearly in the bag. You should play on the forums so we can deconstruct your games. :twisted:

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

Re: Alpha +3

Post by mantlefan » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:53 pm

I really like UK after US because UK first means the likelihood of a UK denmark invasion followed by huge US drop on Berlin is made to 0.

US should really go before UK in my opinion. It was a great change.

There's all this turn order stuff that is incredibly complex and there is no time to test it combined with other changes.

Let's just add a DD to 99 and remove Gib airbase and that pretty much solves the Med. Italy keeps 2 navies and UK can't use Gib to bottle up Italy so easy.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests