The Mongolia thing is good because it adds some complexity to the strategy where Japan builds a Korean major IC and then simply walks a big army across the north to take Moscow after Germany has softened them up (around J8 or so). But suppose Japan takes Amur by amphibious assault on J1 (with heavy air support and shore bomardment this is possible), and then they move the Manchurian and/or Korean ground forces into Amur in the noncombat phase of J2? Does USSR get Mongolia? Is the spirit of the rule intended to be “…any Japanese military movement into Amur…”, or only “If the Japanese attack Amur from Manchuria and/or Korea…”? I am not a lawyer but this looks like a loophole to me.
I like the new AA rules because the defender has to decide how much to invest in AA protection. How about if UK were to have 1 or 2 AAs instead of 4? Would Sea Lion be possible then?
I think Russia declaring war when London falls is stupid, both historically and for the game.
Or how about going for tech, then para dropping troops in? That’s a third direction, so it shouldn’t matter where they ‘originate’ from. This is such a bad idea.
KISS people…
Okay Krieghund, but what if I declare my planes in Korea to be moving
Korea - SZ 6 - SZ 5 - Amur?
They non-com back to Man/Kor, but didn’t actually cross the Man-Amu border in Combat move.
He answered in more detail on the other thread. Planes that take off from Korea/Manchuria cannot attack Amur without the Mongolian consequence, no matter what path they take. So it’s not about crossing the border with the planes (I specifically asked him that, because I thought of it too), but ALL units starting in Man or Kor cannot attack Amu without the consequence.
Or how about going for tech, then para dropping troops in? That’s a third direction, so it shouldn’t matter where they ‘originate’ from. This is such a bad idea.
KISS people…
Another loophole found. I love it.
How about the whole “Japan has to stay 2 zones away from Alaska, etc” rule. Taking away options for the Axis hinders them more. I like the idea, but it’s not KISS. This game has definitely gone way beyond beer and pretzels - it’s definitely for us A&A disciples. Spring 1942 is, I suppose, the beer and pretzel game.
I am enjoying the discussion on this thread more than any in recent memory. Keep up the good points everyone - it’s more fun to read this thread than to play 1940, for me. :-o
@Vance:
I think Russia declaring war when London falls is stupid, both historically and for the game.
While it is very limiting as far as gameplay, it does make historical sense.
@Vance:
I think Russia declaring war when London falls is stupid, both historically and for the game.
While it is very limiting as far as gameplay, it does make historical sense.
I agree. While Stalin wanted Germany and England to duke it out, if England fell he knew what would come next. The pact would not be good any more.
No, this is wrong! There is just no way that Russia would have attacked Germany if England fell. For one thing, the Red Army was in no condition to take on the Wehrmacht. Most Russian equipment was still obsolete and morale was extremely low due to the purges. Remember Russia’s war against Finland? They only won after taking huge casualties. They weren’t even ready in June 1941 when Germany attacked Russia. Look at how far the Germans advanced. It was the harsh Russian winter more than anything else that stopped the German advance.
Another thing was that Stalin really believed that Hitler would honor their non-aggression pact. He almost totally ignored the reports of the German mobilization to the Soviet border.
Also, Stalin distrusted the British and was only too happy to see Germany pound them. He wouldn’t commit to a war with Germany because London fell.
By the way, it has been suggested that the missing Stuka in Western Germany is a simple typo. In other words, Germany is still supposed to get 3 tacs there, NOT 2. Any clarification on this?
Never mind, found the correction. Thanks anyway.
Also, Stalin distrusted the British and was only too happy to see Germany pound them. He wouldn’t commit to a war with Germany because London fell.
It’s not that Stalin would be sticking up for the British. It’s that he would know that Hitler would be coming for him next. He WOULD commit to war if London falls, and apparently Mr. Harris agrees with me or he wouldn’t have adjusted his rules for this. And where are you guys (I’ve heard others say this) getting that Stalin thought Hitler would honor the Non-aggression pact? I find that very, very hard to believe. Dictators trust no-one, especially other dictators.
Another thing was that Stalin really believed that Hitler would honor their non-aggression pact. He almost totally ignored the reports of the German mobilization to the Soviet border.
He only believed in it as far as it would help his cause. He had no intention of being at peace with Germany permanently, it’s just that Hitler surprised him historically.
For one thing, the Red Army was in no condition to take on the Wehrmacht.
Correct, in 1941, after about a year of German preparation.
But after an invasion of England, with a mis-positioned and dramatically weakened Wehrmacht, the Red Army absolutely would have acted.
It was the idealogical goal of the Red Army to be an offensive force. That’s partially why they failed so dramatically while on defense.
Also, Stalin distrusted the British and was only too happy to see Germany pound them. He wouldn’t commit to a war with Germany because London fell.
Sure, he distrusted the British. But he sure distrusted the Germans as well. It’s just that it was to Russia’s advantage - temporarily - to align itself with Germany.
So played a game today with Alpha 3 and I got to say its not as bad as it seems. Tried a Sealion on G3 and it almost succeeded. The main reason it didn’t was some worse than average rolls. I would say an average roll or maybe slightly better than average would have been needed. I could see a problem with Russia getting to declare war if London had fallen, as all my troops would have been out of position. The AA gun in France was pretty irrelevant (no planes lost and just one extra casualty). The DOW with Japan and Russia and the freaking Mongolian’s is just weird to me. Trying to avoid that is more difficult than it seems. I will say though that Japan was on par with the US after Calcutta fell. Italy isn’t in as bad shape as they appear. They did clear out the Med on I3. They purchased mostly Naval Units to do it before turning their attention to the Mid East. I dunno guys, Alpha 3, is pretty darn interesting. Not saying I am going to give it 5 stars, but I think it might be ok. It doesn’t seem to have hurt the axis as much as it appears. I probably could have won if Sealion had gone just slightly better. (Or if there were 2 AA guns instead of 4)
Just my thoughts.
After a closer review I too think that the changes in Alpha+.3 may not be too bad.
I’d be content with everything if there would be a balancing benefit for the Axis against the Mongol rule.
Since I understand Larry is content with making the Med a very important scene, I suggest that some kind of neutral rule for Spain should be developed. Say Spain joins the Axis when all Italian No’s are fulfilled…? IMO this would provoke some serious action of all involved powers. Britain is in a good position to put up a fight there and Germany would have an alternative goal for the first rounds instead of SL, which would benefit them greatly in the later game. (Access to Gibraltar)
For example: G1 sink the Brit fleet, G2 and G3 help Italy to gain their NO’s and prepare for Barbarossa, G4 go east.
Any opinions?
My goodness? How is it possible to have any idea whatsover if Alpha 3 is good or not without 3 or 4 playtests?
Play some games, and if it’s not good, then hammer away. But it came out yesterday!
It looks fine to me until proven otherwise, and I do have some faith that some pretty good players playtested it and some pretty good minds spent time thinking about it. More time than any of us.
We’re all entitled to our opinion, but wow.
Viribus, that wasn’t directed to you, but to a huge group of people on both sites.
My goodness? How is it possible to have any idea whatsover if Alpha 3 is good or not without 3 or 4 playtests?
Play some games, and if it’s not good, then hammer away. But it came out yesterday!
It looks fine to me until proven otherwise, and I do have some faith that some pretty good players playtested it and some pretty good minds spent time thinking about it. More time than any of us.
We’re all entitled to our opinion, but wow.
Viribus, that wasn’t directed to you, but to a huge group of people on both sites.
I think people just need to play it. I was a little sceptical at first but after playing it I kinda like it. I think it is an adjustment. I kinda see a way for the axis to win. Just gotta change your strategy a bit. I think Air Power will be more important with Germany now. Anyways I like it after playing it. I need a few more games to be sure.
My goodness? How is it possible to have any idea whatsover if Alpha 3 is good or not without 3 or 4 playtests?
Play some games, and if it’s not good, then hammer away. But it came out yesterday!
It looks fine to me until proven otherwise, and I do have some faith that some pretty good players playtested it and some pretty good minds spent time thinking about it. More time than any of us.
We’re all entitled to our opinion, but wow.
Viribus, that wasn’t directed to you, but to a huge group of people on both sites.
We are not opening this game up for the first time. We have all played this, and some have played it extensively. It is obvious to see what some changes will do to established tactics. For example, I know Sealion is out because we have already hammered out the best UK defense possible in a thread, and I know what 4 extra soak will do because I can do math.
The ONLY thing we couldn’t say with any real certainty is if these changes open up new possibilities (which I doubt).
So don’t be so surprised when experienced players voice concerns,as they likely know what they are talking about. Its like GM decided to change the design of their cars to not have a windshield. I have enough experience driving a car to know that is a bad idea.
We are not opening this game up for the first time. We have all played this, and some have played it extensively. It is obvious to see what some changes will do to established tactics. For example, I know Sealion is out because we have already hammered out the best UK defense possible in a thread, and I know what 4 extra soak will do because I can do math.
The ONLY thing we couldn’t say with any real certainty is if these changes open up new possibilities (which I doubt).
So don’t be so surprised when experienced players voice concerns,as they likely know what they are talking about. Its like GM decided to change the design of their cars to not have a windshield. I have enough experience driving a car to know that is a bad idea.
Very well put, Jim. Thanks for saving me the time to say the same thing.
If we played Alpha 3 where is a good place to post your analysis of it?
I don’t mind losing Sealion, though. But I wonder about Japan’s ability now to assist in attacking Russia.
My successes as Axis all invovled Sealion, or a no holds barred attack on Russia. Both are now dininished, and I don’t see any other avenue to victory.
MAYBE the removal of $5 bonus from the US to Paris will help …
If we played Alpha 3 where is a good place to post your analysis of it?
Start a new thread.
Played for 12+ hours yesterday enacting my All Axis on the Soviet Union strategy. I found that Amur slowed me down a bit, but ultimately I made it across to Russia with 7 tanks and 5 infantry. course I lost everything on the pacific map, but Russia is totally surrounded using the Italians taking the Middle Easy and building a minor IC in Iraq and piping troops up from the south. Germany has Lenningrad and is about to retake stalingrad.
Although it appears on the surface that it is pro Allies, the IPC changes to America helped as they averaged 72 IPCs till they retook the phillipines.
I bascially sacrificed holding the pacific map to get the Japanese forces into russia and do a serious money grab.
The AA gun changes also will help the Axis take Moscow as they only get shots against 6 planes. We’re not done playing yet, The allies are strong in the pacific map but can’t get to Cairo to reinforce or Russia to help out. There is a fleet pinned down by my 7 subs and I have 2 tacs and 4 fighters in Western Germany with ground troops . I have Italians in Frace.
I think overall the Axis recieved a 10 IPC bonus from loosing some NO’s that were easily attainable by Britian and the US.
Will post pics when I can!
So far… I’d say that the Axis did well in Alpha 3 with the NO changes and the Amur thing didn’t slow me down too badly . course if the game was based upon one side of the map or the other the pacific war is a total axis loss. But the Japanese are stomping with the rest of the axis on Moscow. They only have 11 IPCs and won’t get more than 9 for sure next turn.
