I think London defense was boosted too much in Alpha 3.9 (Sea lion should remain viable in the right circumstances). We generally remove one inf, and one AA gun from UK to make them build ground units there. I will say that I like the new Royal Navy arrangement around England. It should still be a challenge for the Germans to pull off Sea lion, and keep on pace if/when they do.
As for the Russian bomber, we tried that once (seemed like they should have one). How it turned out was it ended up on England paired with the Russian sub to take out German blocker ships (sz 110) for the Western allies to attack Norway. This hardly seemed historical, so we haven’t given Russia a bomber since.
The Italian NO? Yeah we have house ruled it a couple ways too. Always only mainland Europe & Mid East (no African safari, or island hopping w/US or UK transports). We have allowed for the pro allied and strict neutrals if axis take them (or activate them) as mentioned in other posts. Normally 2 IPC for neutrals (depending on which ones are allowed), 3 IPCs for orig Ger/Ita.
We have also looked at splitting the Russian lend lease NO. Awarding 3 IPCs for the way it is in the rules, and 3 IPCs for a Mid east route. Allied control of of sz 80m, NW Persia, Persia, and Caucasus (sometimes also include Stalingrad). One game Italy got whacked early, so w/o much axis involvement in the Mid East it just seemed like a give-me for the southern route, and Russia also getting paid for those neutrals was a cash cow for them (balance). Just saying watch what you put in the game. By all means experiment, but balance is thrown off quite easily…
The axis are still a solid favorite to win, even with an 8-12 bid for allies I’d still prefer the axis. Russia making a bigger income is how it is supposed to be after doing sea lion, the allies need something going for them with uk gone like that.
The Russians being able to maintain, and expand in a Sea lion game yes. That’s why we have also included both the pro allied and strict neutrals if the Russians liberate them from the Axis. What is happening though even in games that are Barbarossa is the Russians are replacing lost income taken by the Germans & Japanese with a small forces in N Africa. The Western allies are leaving some of these territories for them in some cases which just seems wrong IMO. If the Russians were in danger of loosing Moscow, they surly wouldn’t be sending forces away from the “Motherland”, it would be all hands on deck.
historically russians did do stuff in the middleeast/africa… I don’t see why they should not get a bonus, besides it is only 14 ipc a turn, which is not a big deal. look at germany’s income without even advancing on russia… it is stupid.
14 IPC is a HUGE deal, are you trying to make a joke? 4 more land units PER TURN doesn’t make a big difference?
I look at it as Russia getting the NO for Persia and Iraq represents the middle east lend lease route. Finland and Eastern Europe states also make historical sense. The gamey part is when Russian mobile units drive down into Africa. For the game, it does give Italy a good reason to strive for Egypt even if they already have Gibraltar/Greece/South France, perhaps timing a landing in Egypt/Transjordan on the turn when the Russians are there so they can kill them. Still the African safari feels fake. It would be better if the NO included the phrase “….in mainland Europe or the Middle East”.
The NO works great in a sealion game, because Russia becomes almost unbreakable if they get Finland, Poland, Hungary, Rumania for a turn or 2, and doesn’t try to hold them but spends all that money on infantry and saves what they don’t spend for later on. In that case it’s up to Japan to do something tricky in the Pacific or go hardcore to Stalingrad with Italy somehow kept strong enough to hold Egypt (not easy).
I agree w/Vance, German tanks in N Africa is cool, they should and do get an NO for that (Egypt), but Russian mech or tanks?. The Lend lease angle for the Russians getting the Mid East countries is something I hadn’t thought about, but makes sense. The rules don’t allow them to get the NO for Persia (only the territory value), but they would get a bonus for Iraq so its all good. If the Russians hold those two countries they get 7 IPCs, and deprive the axis from the Oil bonuses.
Like I said we have experimented with the Russians getting an NO for both pro allied and even the strict neutrals (under certain circumstances), but don’t really have enough play time to give an honest opinion. We have stuck to territories in mainland Europe & Mid East for quite some time (which most ppl seem to support), and am hopeful that a change may come in the upcoming revisions as they will have had time to evaluate it.
Sorry, got confused about my Persias. :-)
Maybe once Gargantua’s online global tournament winds up we can look and see how many games have the Russians going down to Africa.
I’m cool with the Russians in the mid-east, it’s a little weird in Africa but so be it. It gives Russia some extra income, which is ahistorically low in my opinion. So you can trade one historical falsehood for another.
I say: Give them back the Russian battleship in the Baltic to balance things out. I so miss that thing!
14 IPC is a HUGE deal, are you trying to make a joke? 4 more land units PER TURN doesn’t make a big difference?
you will conquer russia before that is a factor and if you do sea lion to get uk, guess what you got a country out of the game on round 3 or 4 and you can easily pressure america so japan can win it.
germany makes a ton of cash without even advancing on russia, I see no problem with the NO as it is. allies have it bad enough, but little things like this makes it closer to an even game.
Historicaly if the Soviets had of went anywhere near the middle east durring ww2 the British would have went mental. Im Thinking of doing away with the Middle East NO’s for the Soviets and introducing a NO bonus forthe British to balance Soviet IPC loss, some thing along the lines of ‘Strengthening of the CommonWealth’
Any thoughts??
I think a NO for having the Atlantic free of Axis Subs is a good starting point for the UK.
There are already two for maintaining the empire (hard to collect most of the game, admittedly.) What else were youthinking?
Maybe something like Allied (not Soviet) control of Iraq, Persia, NW Persia the Suez Canel and the Straights of Gibraltar (‘Stratigic Oil deposits and shipping lanes’) for a NO of 10 IPC’s to counter the loss of the Soviet middle east NO, if they where removed.
The thought behind this is that this would force the German player to committ more to the defence of western Europe and the Med as the British would play a bigger role earlier on, therefor take some aggro off the Soviets.
Just a thought…
I see.
Thought the idea of the NOs was based on each country’s people thinking the war was going its way and so excess income was being generated from happiness or hard work (or that could just be pure dementia based fancy). Anyway, my point is: did the UK care as much about the Middle East as Hitler did? Otherwise makes sense.
The British knew that the Wehrmachts Afrika korps had to be stoped otherwise they would have swept right through Egypt into the Middle east. Realisticly who would have stoped them if not for the Commonwealth??
Think in our groups next game i will try the NO I mentioned inmy last post and see how it pans out.
???
the whole point of the middle east / africa NO is to make up for the loss of London should germany take it… which happens often in games.
I don’t really see the problem with the NO. It is pretty easy to stomp russia as germany if you go barb as long as Japan is doing his job in the pacific and trying to win. The allies have a hard time saving russia while stopping japan.
There is a reason why some people refuse to play the allies with less than 10 bid… especially low luck games.
@Cow:
???
the whole point of the middle east / africa NO is to make up for the loss of London should germany take it… which happens often in games.
I don’t really see the problem with the NO. It is pretty easy to stomp russia as germany if you go barb as long as Japan is doing his job in the pacific and trying to win. The allies have a hard time saving russia while stopping japan.
There is a reason why some people refuse to play the allies with less than 10 bid… especially low luck games.
Just because that is the “whole point” does not mean it is a good reason to have it. It does not just “make up” for the loss of London: the NO makes sealion a doomed strategy. I don’t see why it needs to be that dead sealion=good.
You make it sound in an earlier post as though the USA MUST commit everything right away after sealion retake London. With Sealion, Russia can easily outearn Germany for a good several turns, and easliy push into eastern europe and get Romania, Poland, and Slovakia, and sometimes bulgaria for a turn or two. If Germany doesn’t invest a lot in protecting their fleet from even modest american (or even soviet) threat, then Norway and Finland are easily Soviet for a long while too. USSR does not need USA to forfeit the game in the Pacific for USSR to survive.
We all know that Germany can stomp Russia if they go Barbarossa. We Know. We Get it. We Know. What I have been saying is that this NO from many of the games I have watched and played is what really kills SEALION.
The main question that I am asking is if this NO is a mistake because of what it does with Sealion? Saying that Germany can just go Barbarossa to avoid the NO is not the point and has never been the point. With sealion neutered tons from A2 from AA guns taking hits and the German NO for UK being gone, and this NO really coming into play only when Germany goes sealion, is it really any good at all for the game? Isn’t sealion already deterred enough relative to A2?
Just because that is the “whole point” does not mean it is a good reason to have it. It does not just “make up” for the loss of London: the NO makes sealion a doomed strategy. I don’t see why it needs to be that dead sealion=good.
You make it sound in an earlier post as though the USA MUST commit everything right away after sealion retake London. With Sealion, Russia can easily outearn Germany for a good several turns, and easliy push into eastern europe and get Romania, Poland, and Slovakia, and sometimes bulgaria for a turn or two. If Germany doesn’t invest a lot in protecting their fleet from even modest american (or even soviet) threat, then Norway and Finland are easily Soviet for a long while too. USSR does not need USA to forfeit the game in the Pacific for USSR to survive.
We all know that Germany can stomp Russia if they go Barbarossa. We Know. We Get it. We Know. What I have been saying is that this NO from many of the games I have watched and played is what really kills SEALION.
The main question that I am asking is if this NO is a mistake because of what it does with Sealion? Saying that Germany can just go Barbarossa to avoid the NO is not the point and has never been the point. With sealion neutered tons from A2 from AA guns taking hits and the German NO for UK being gone, and this NO really coming into play only when Germany goes sealion, is it really any good at all for the game? Isn’t sealion already deterred enough relative to A2?
Very good points. Personally I find it really fun to play as Russia in a sealion game :-)
Personaly in 3.9 I think too much is lost on a successful sealion for Germany, i.e land units, air units and IPCs, after all they still need to go deep into the USSR and/or Egypt to achieve victory. The Soviet IPC income becomes enormous during rounds 3+ and time is against the Axis.
If anything Sealion should be used for Japan to achieve Victory in the Pacific, with the diverted USA spending into the Atlantic.
BulwFi,
Personally, I think your Middle-East NO for UK is a great idea. I’ve always thought it really sucked that UK only gets 1 NO and that one is usually gone round 2. I’ve also thought that the Allies should be able to get NO points for controlling the Middle-Eastern countries; UK for certain and perhaps even the US.
Not Russia however. They had different goals, mainly trying to gobble up as much of Eastern Europe and Scandanavia as possible.
