I think its a big mistake to remove the Mexico NO, instead I prefer those NO ipcs to come from the hold the US one. I have in many games taken away the Mexican NO by capturing Windies and preventing a counter invasion. Taking away that NO makes moving into the Carribean as the axis not as sweet.
I do like the italian bmb idea, I have been building those for quite some time.
I also don’t like his idea of making 3 US trns worth 6 ipcs to Russia. US can still go 100% pacific and just buy 3 trns that sit in a safe location. (hudson bay) or south atlantic.
I personally prefer something easier to put together. US must have 2 to 1 naval superiority over the axis within the confines of the Atlantic Ocean in order to collect 5 ipcs. This means axis ships in the med or baltic will not count, but all other Atlantic zones would, and US would simply need twice as many ships as the axis can field.
We’ve been told, in no uncertain terms mind you, that the Continental US NO is sancrosanct and will not, for any reason, be altered or adjusted.
That only leaves Hawaii, Philippines, 5 of 7 and Mexico, of those, Mexico is the most easily moved as the Hawaii, Philippines and 5 of 7 are relatively easy to take for a round or 2.
@Cmdr:
… as the Hawaii, Philippines and 5 of 7 are relatively easy to take for a round or 2.
And these are also historically accurate. I like the idea of the Normandy or Italy based bonus in place of the Mexico one as well.
I just don’t like the NO fix as is now. Linking it to keeping trns alive just because its historical. Right now the reason Pacific works so well…as granpa-peepop Cyler from Squidbillies says, Allegedly!.. is because US is rewarded for taking the battle to Japan, stopping their income and grabbing Philippines and various islands.
A US NO in the Atlantic should have the same need, not some coastal province, but something in the interior like Libya that the US has to go and get in a campaign, not just grab. (or build 3 trns and let them sit idle in the Atlantic as they prosecute the war against Japan like always)
Gibraltar, Morocco and Algeria (also a historical objective, hell, Montegomery and Patton were there, as was Rommel!) was already shot down. Libya will be shot down for the same reason, it’s not Europe.
I think that the biggest thing that needs to be changed in Alpha 3 is to either strengthen Italy or weaken Russia. Rather than reward the US with NO’s for its involvement in the Atlantic, I think that the starting placement needs to be adjusted so that Russia’s survival depends on the US opening a front in Western Europe.
For the Italians, I would suggest either combining the Italian fleet into 1 sea zone or modify the Italian air force to give it more punch. As it is, Italy has too few resources to be effective against the Russians and it is never able to stand up to the Americans in the Med.
As for the Russians, I would eliminate the Archangel bonus when at war… as it is, Russia is able to stand against Germany without US involvement. I think that decreasing their bonuses while at war is in order.
It is so easy to negate the Russian Archangel NO. I have yet to see a game where Russia actually collected it.
I feel like all these changes might make it swing the other way.
It is so easy to negate the Russian Archangel NO. I have yet to see a game where Russia actually collected it.
Really? I generally have it for every round that I am at war except for just before America moves in to save me.
I think that the biggest thing that needs to be changed in Alpha 3 is to either strengthen Italy or weaken Russia. Rather than reward the US with NO’s for its involvement in the Atlantic, I think that the starting placement needs to be adjusted so that Russia’s survival depends on the US opening a front in Western Europe.
For the Italians, I would suggest either combining the Italian fleet into 1 sea zone or modify the Italian air force to give it more punch. As it is, Italy has too few resources to be effective against the Russians and it is never able to stand up to the Americans in the Med.
As for the Russians, I would eliminate the Archangel bonus when at war… as it is, Russia is able to stand against Germany without US involvement. I think that decreasing their bonuses while at war is in order.
I am very much in agreement with you about Italy. I asked LH for Italy to get 1 Destroyer so that the half of their fleet with 2 transports would not be destroyed on UK’s first turn so easily and risk free. I would be thrilled if he just did some combining of the fleet as you suggest or beefing up Italy’s Air Force. That being said I don’t think he agrees with me about Italy so the best we may see is Italy swapping out one T. Bomber for one S. Bomber. I don’t think just doing that will result in the balance we are looking for though…
He mentioned something about the possibility of relocating the fighter and tactical bomber to S. italy as well, so Germany didn’t have to do that job.
@Cmdr:
He mentioned something about the possibility of relocating the fighter and tactical bomber to S. italy as well, so Germany didn’t have to do that job.
I think that is one of the best ideas so far. I never understood why 2/3 of Italy’s air force was in a territory that didn’t have the air base and wasn’t the capital.
Yes, I enjoy it as well. The talk is relocate Fighter, TB to S. Italy, convert TB into SB.
@Cmdr:
Yes, I enjoy it as well. The talk is relocate Fighter, TB to S. Italy, convert TB into SB.
I think it is cool to save some of the German Air Force and all but that means if UK does the fleet raid on it’s first turn Italy will lose most of it’s Air Force with most of it’s Navy.
That is a large amount of real estate to lose before even taking their first turn…
That all depends. You can still choose to move German fighters there and use those, or you can keep your fighters for Germany nad use the Italian ones.
@Cmdr:
That all depends. You can still choose to move German fighters there and use those, or you can keep your fighters for Germany nad use the Italian ones.
That is true and I did not think of that. That means when the UK takes it’s first turn I get to pick my poison at least :(
Any word if LH is going to do anything to give Japan a boost? I would have preferred to see Italy stronger or Russia weaker but at this point I will be happy with anything the Axis get to give the game more Balance.
Not to my knowledge. To my knowledge he’s only talking about reassigning equipment in the Atlantic and moving the Mexican NO to anywhere else.
@Cmdr:
Not to my knowledge. To my knowledge he’s only talking about reassigning equipment in the Atlantic and moving the Mexican NO to anywhere else.
IMHO the Axis could use a little more help than that.
It looks like I will have to go back to the drawing board to find a way to win as the Axis against my friends :( Operation Sea Lion here I come!
I have just recommended (yesterday) that perhaps Germany/Italy should only need 7 Victory Cities to win, to offset this, Japan should have 7 Victory Cities to win. This would allow America to choose which war s/he wants to focus on while punishing America for ignoring one side or the other. (Without America, Japan can easily get 7 VCs. Without America, Germany/Italy can easily get 7 VCs. With America, Japan or Germany/Italy might get 7 VCs, if they play strategy!)
Larry is “considering it”
I still like the 6VCs on the Pacific side, 7VC on Euro side would definitely get America involved on Euro side- maybe :|
