At least I took Wake with no loss. Your transport almost hit the entire USA fleet twice.
G40 Tourney Discussion/question(s)
-
Larry’s idea of a destroyer in SZ 99 is to block the British surface fleet from joining a battle in SZ 97. Remember, in Alpha 3 one of the Italian destroyers has been moved to SZ 96. The rationale for the additional warship is because England is now in a position where they can afford to get a “hat trick” taking out all three Italian fleets if Germany does not give up some of their attacks and land planes. (If they do, then England still has great odds at taking out two of the fleets.)
There’s also the change of the British fighter making it a Strategic Bomber that you have to consider here. It’s all but been put on the rules already. The turn order was changed, so now Australia and France go together after Italy. I don’t think it’s enough, but again, if Italy goes before England, Larry had the problem of the SZ 98 fleet being sunk.
Why am I discussing this? Because if we go with Alpha 3 we will have to make the changes to prevent the Italian fleet from being completely destroyed and thus, leaving Italy as a mere shell of a country, otherwise, Allied odds are going to be unrealistically high.
If it is left to me, it will be a German destroyer. That way, it can be used as Germany sees fit, or left to block the British. In essence, the maintenance of the Italian fleet is still in German hands, but now Germany can still conduct the battles they want too. I am, of course, open to suggestions on how to handle the revised situations. There was a suggestion to just remove the Airbase from Gibraltar and the naval bases from Egypt and Gibraltar which would, in effect, stop England from many of the attacks. (SZ 91 cruiser cannot get there. Gibraltar fighter cannot get there. SZ 98 fleet cannot get to SZ 92 or 93…etc.) What I like about this is that now you’ll have the British buying these facilities at some point in the game, giving the Axis a freebie SBR essentially. Free as in they dont actually have to risk their assets to get England to shell out money on units or repairs because the Allies need some of these facilities.
I do see Gibraltar occasionally getting a German naval base, but again, it’s a good thing.
Right now, I am heavily leaning towards going Alpha 3 with the partners being able to elect to stay Alpha 2. I am also thinking of Alpha 2 with the partners being able to elect Alpha 3. Honestly, if I had made up my mind on the situation, I’d just declare by fiat what was going to happen, not ask for advice and concern. I want feedback from the participants, I don’t want to make any significant changes and end up with someone having hurt feelings and I fear that if you don’t give me feedback and you allow one or two loud voices to make changes, then someone is going to get angry and resentful and even if they dont, I’ll think someone is and I’ll fret over who it might be.
Then again, I’m just a silly girl, maybe I’m making something emotional that does not have to be? Anyway, better safe than sorry. Jim votes for Alpha 3, so do I personally. BBB I think votes for Alpha 2, but I have serious misgivings as to his knowledge of Alpha 3 with the changes made over the past couple of months. (Becuase he said the destroyer in SZ 94 or SZ 96 specifically and Alpha 3 already has a destroyer in SZ 96 already. And a transport. This leads me to believe, and I am not saying it is necessarily true mind you, but it leads me to believe he has not kept up to date on the rules and may have missed all of Alpha 3 since that destroyer has been there since Day 1.)
-
Is there a starting map available of Alpha 3?
-
Is there a starting map available of Alpha 3?
I’ll attach an alpha 3 map with only the changes that were released. After release there have been no actual units added or changed to the board, but there are some being considered for now.
As I said, the focus is on the Med and there are a few different paths being considered:
1) British cruiser in SZ 98 changed to Australian.
2) German or Italian destroyer in SZ 99
3) Removal of the Airbase from Gibraltar, Removal of Naval bases from Egypt/GibraltarObviously, I think he’ll just choose one and not more than one.
Other than that, there are HUMUNGO changes to AA Guns essentially making them actual combat units that one might actually bring to combat! Some of the technologies changed, but we’ve never had tech be part of our leagues or tournaments here (to my knowledge) so that’s not going to play a factor. And a couple of the units from Alpha 2 have been moved (thinking the Destroyer/Transport moved to SZ 96, dont think anything else was moved.)
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149 (link to the rules.)
-
Indeed I vote for Alpha 2.
Yes I was talking about the “existing Alpha 3”. I was saying that DD doesn’t change much. If an Extra DD is added, then yes it may affect greatly. Oh! and no I was not aware of order changes that occured last week (“last couple month”… :lol: Alpha3 is barely 1 month old!!)
I did study Alpha 3 when if was posted (on Sept 1st), but didn’t keep the map. I discarded it as most “improvements” helps Allies and, therefore, makes if LESS balanced.
-
Oh! thanks for the map Jenn, I was typing when you posted.
-
Oh! thanks for the map Jenn, I was typing when you posted.
No problem.
Basically, the whole idea of the Destroyer in SZ 99 is because there is one in SZ 96 and thus, SZ 97 couldn’t be attacked by SZ 98 anymore (not with the carrier, cruiser, etc there with the planes yes.) That means, Germany isn’t locked into driving planes down to Italy. (No, I freakin refuse to FLY to Italy! Gosh dang it to heck for five minutes! It’s ITALY, they are not important enough to waste gas on…sheesh.)
-
Since there is 168 pages worth of posts that I’m not going to be reading, can you post a link to the proposed changes to Alpha3?
And am I right in assuming that there will be a bid should Alpha 3 be adopted?
-
The alpha rules are on page one. Larry updates them as they change there with updates in green.
There will be a bid. Whether it is higher, lower or the same is really up to the players.
Alpha 3 will be finallized shortly. I’d wager before Round 2 of the tournament starts, but that’s not assured. So they will be the official rules for Axis and Allies, the only question is, if they will be official for the rest of the tournament or not.
-
So far, I’m not seeing much difference in Strategy with either version. What works in a2 also seems to work in a3 despite the changes if you are focused (example-USSR first is still solid, UK first may still be.I’m not seeing much difference with the allies either-Kill Japan first still works in my opinion). We’ll see if that bares out in my current games. (Japan is not afraid of Mongolia activating, in fact that encourages a Neutral crush in my opinion by the axis based on tactics employed -not for every game-the units the allies get are far flung: S.America, S.Africa, Afganistan: Only Turkey presents problems-Spain increases axis air range and is likely the first target of the axis.)
-
James, the difference in that AA now have HP. I mean they can be taken as casualties instead of another other… so UK got 4 more units free. Also Russia will enter war the SAME turn that London falls. Those two things makes Sea Lion more difficult and more risky for Germany. That alone, makes the game (more than Alpha2) unbalanced.
I agree with you on the Japan-Russia front tho. Not giving the 12IPC + having multiple ways to blitz northern Russia (now passing thru Mongolia) is even more tempting for Japan to attack. But this is far from being a game change.
I don’t agree on neutral crush tho. Why would want to crush neutrals? Activate Mongolia on turn 1, then just invade them on following turns (blitz!). No need to active other neutrals…
-
Russia does not get 12 IPC, but they get 6 Infantry (18 IPC) no matter what territory Japan attacks as long as it boarders Mongolia. (Exception are the Chinese territories. I guess the Mongols don’t really care if they get flanked down there.)
AA Guns are free hits, in theory, but as you lose them, they are gone so you do less dmg to incoming bombers.
SBRs are WAY more balanced now. All defending interceptors and attacking escorts/bombers roll, all hits are removed, then AA Guns fire at remaining bombers. Any dmg shuts down the facility until the facility is repaired. (So no more sitting there with 7 dmg on your Major Complex and building 3 units a round.)
Convoys make more sense, you have to “hit” the convoy with ships present in the convoy, you don’t just automatically drop Italy to 0 income because you managed to get 4 or 5 submarines near it.
I think the game is a bit more balanced, since with Alpha 3 England could virtually ignore homeland defense, but now that SBRs will shut them down, they have to plan for a German invasion eventually. Now that there is no limited to how many planes you bring into a fight, I see India being shut down much faster and thus, Japan more able to come help in Russia, forcing the Allies to race to Russian defense or lose. So the trade off was the Med is gone and Italy crippled but India falls.
Many of the NOs were changed. For one, India and Australia get 5 IPC if any ally (including the Dutch) control the DEI. As long as Japan doesn’t have one of the four territories. France is now an NO for England and America. There is no longer the “no submarine” NO for England. If Japan takes Volgograd, Germany still gets the NO (same with Novgorod.)
There are other changes as well. Most of which I think are for the better. I don’t think BBB noticed that the tactical bomber in Italy is now a Strategic bomber. There is now an AA Gun in France. Etc.
It is not, of course, a whole new game, but many of the inconsistencies and abuses from Alpha 2 are gone. For instance, in Alpha 2 you can bring untold number of tactical bombers to “bomb a base” and use them as fodder to protect your strategic bombers from AA Guns over factories. Now you don’t have to give up the world, as England, and race every last unit you have to defend London because if London does manage to fall, Russia and America are both in the war immediately. America’s entire financial interests are not tied up in the Pacific anymore and with France being one of their NOs now, they have less to spend in the Pacific now.
-
Almost all those changes seem to be advantage to the Allies. The only trade off is a possible sooner fall of India due to SBR? Axis can be hurt by SBR too. Axis get no additional NOs but for the round 7 or 8 taking of Volgograd? The Axis get one concession of not having to take 2 German fighters to So. Italy… that’s it? Did Japan get any additional advatage at all?
I don’t see, with what you are listing as the changes, how Alpha 3 is any more balanced than Alpha 2 as the Allies are getting nearly all the benefits of the change. Sea Lion, which was an advatange to the Axis, is now effectively removed and they have nearly nothing in exchange.
-
The alpha rules are on page one. Larry updates them as they change there with updates in green.
I’m refering to his proposed changes, such as this DD you mentioned.
-
The alpha rules are on page one. Larry updates them as they change there with updates in green.
I’m refering to his proposed changes, such as this DD you mentioned.
Proposed means nothing until he puts them on Page 1.
At first blush you might think all the advantages are going to the allies, but I think you are missing the subtlety here.
You can SHUT DOWN Russia with SBRs now. They can’t just write off some damage and keep building.
The allies cannot shut down Italy with a smattering of submarines, they have to attack the sea zone and can only do that with ships and what planes are ON the ships. (note, you cannot fly bombers into a convoy zone to attack it, you have to have actual ships there. I suspect Larry means for this to be where you roll for dmg during the collect income phase to see how much you lost.)
I’ve said it before, I’ve demonstrated it more than once, and I am going to keep saying and demonstrating it, AA Gun changes benefit the Axis in a HUGE manner in regards to the battle in Russia. Russia only has 3 planes and coincidentally enough, each AA Gun can fire at, you got it, 3 planes! Extrapolate from there.
The allies lost 5 IPC for America and 5 IPC for England but gained 5 IPC in India. That’s a trade in favor of the Axis.
The axis can shut down India. There’s no way they are going to be repairing 2 or 3 strategic bombers worth of damage a round, so they are essentially not building units anymore.
But the Allies can own the Med from the start of the game.
In other words, I think this will be a very balanced game now. (Of course, no one has enough games under his or her belt to say definitively. We can’t even say Alpha 2 is balanced anymore.)
-
Proposed means nothing until he puts them on Page 1.
Then why is it being discussed here?
-
Proposed means nothing until he puts them on Page 1.
Then why is it being discussed here?
Because I should never have discussed proposed changes before they were officially added, so it was my mistake to even introduce them.
This issue came up in another game:
One person decided to put or move another person’s units and then complained that the pieces were used illegally. Likewise, if you take pieces off the board without killing them in a legal battle then your opponent is allowed to place them back on the board. I am not going to say WHO it was (but he or she knows who they are) but my official ruling in all such cases will be:
First offense: Warning. Any illegal act that happened due to the change will stand as punishment for screwing up the board on purpose.
Second offense: Expulsion from the tournament.Notes: Only applies to tournament games. You can play “bollshoot” all you want in non-tournament (or league) games. (Like the card game of similar name.)
Notes: In one game a person added units around and/or moved them illegally for an opponent, in a completely seperate game a person took pieces off the board that should not have been removed. There are a total of four individuals involved, so please don’t just go off half cocked thinking I am talking about you specifically. If you have a PM from me in your box about your acts in a tournament game, then you know who you are. If you do not, then don’t worry about it.Lastly, I want to clarify something:
If you discover, while doing India’s turn that you screwed up America’s income, you are allowed to fix it. Since your opponent has not had a chance to assume your income was correct, there is no harm, no foul. I refuse to penalize someone because they forgot an objective or forgot to put a flag out. If it becomes habitual then I might start ruling against you specifically, but we all make mistakes. I’ve yet to play someone without them forgetting a flag at some point, or forgetting to remove a flag at some point.
I want to assume that all players are honest, that they won’t go out of their way to screw things up. Putting a Russian destroyer up at the very tippity top of the screen in SZ 127, where someone might not see it is not what I mean. That’s honest play. Call it the fog of war. What I am talking about is hiding pieces under other pieces, removing pieces, failing to remove pieces that should have been removed or taking pieces off that should not have been removed. Purposely failing to update your funds to the correct amount either to say on your turn you should have an extra XX IPC or actually spending more than you should. Etc.
Basically, the map you post should be legal to the best of your ability. It’s not fair if you expect your opponent to point out every last typo in your posts. Likewise, if it is clear what your intent really was, it should not be held against you if you typed something wrong. For one, there are not Infnatry so if you want to be a sea lawyer, you could claim none of the INFANTRY moved, only INFNATRY. That’s unfair. Likewise, if someone specifically said they hit Java but really meant Sumatra and the pieces on the board and the battles are accurate for Sumatra (regardless what Java is or is not) then it’s pretty clear you meant to hit Sumatra and not Java.
-
Because I should never have discussed proposed changes before they were officially added, so it was my mistake to even introduce them.
OK.
-
I assume it is the responsibilty of the person who would have just finished to ensure the map he/she posted is correct?
And if a mistake is found, it is the responsibilty of the the current player to point them out, even if the mistake is to the detriment of the current player?
-
Putting a Russian destroyer up at the very tippity top of the screen in SZ 127, where someone might not see it is not what I mean. That’s honest play. Call it the fog of war. What I am talking about is hiding pieces under other pieces
Isn’t the piece that is hidden fall under the same category as hiding the DD in the upper corner? Fog of war?
I would think it is expected that the attacker checks for himself what is in a zone before attacking it?
As for the rest, is that not outright cheating, removing or adding units?
I do realize that mistakes are made (and I make plenty), but I thought this was settled when it was stated that the typed moves hold more weight then a map?
-
I assume it is the responsibilty of the person who would have just finished to ensure the map he/she posted is correct?
And if a mistake is found, it is the responsibilty of the the current player to point them out, even if the mistake is to the detriment of the current player?
The first person to notice a mistake should point it out. The rule of mistakes being permanent assumes a significant number of turns has gone by. (America makes an honest mistake, Italy goes, France doesnt notice, Germany goes, Russia doesnt notice it, then on Japan’s turn it is pointed out, then it’s too late, because many turns have gone by where you should have caught it.) Players are always free to come to a resolution on their own without an official ruling, mind you. If you go a full round and forget to collect 2 IPC for Brazil, for instance, and your opponent doesnt mind letting you have the cash, then there is no reason to call for moderation, right?
No, I see hiding units under other tiles as deliberate subterfuge. Putting it in the corner is still a place your opponent should be scanning, if he fails to do so, then it’s his fault. Moving your tiles around to see what’s under them is not something you’d expect your opponent to do routinely. I can see how a base might get tucked under something, but some of it should still be showing and only on those itsy bitsy islands should it ever be a problem. What I am thinking about is hiding a battleship tile under a pair of Aircraft Carrier tiles. (Example attached.)
In SZ 6 there are 2 Fighters, 2 Aircraft Carriers and 1 Battleship, but you cannot see the Battleship. It is purposely hidden from view with no reason to suspect one might exist there at all.
In SZ 127 there is a destroyer, but it’s tucked into a corner in hopes the enemy won’t see it. It is visible, however, and if the opponent fails to account for it, it’s a strategic error on his part.That’s the difference.
Suggested Topics
