Russian Alpha 3 NO a Mistake?

[Witt]

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.

[BulwFi]

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.

[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.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@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?

[Guest]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

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  :-)

[BulwFi]

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.

[knp7765]

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.

[Cow]

Sea lion is not a doomed strategy. Maybe if you are a bad player it is. You can easily kick russia out of Europe within a turn or two.

If russia loses this NO, USA should start with 6 more inf, russia should get a bomber, uk should get another destroyer somewhere, and a inf on london.

hmmm these changes sounds like fun.

I do not understand why people complain about this bonus. The axis win most games anyway.

If you are going to nerf anything from the allies you should give them stuff.

[Cow]

The way I see it, if one side is favored to win the other side needs to be in position to make big things happen.

The allies can make big things happen in the pacific, but europe not so much. So most games end up pacific heavy with usa to try and cut japan’s income down enough that china/anzac can take it from there at the round russia falls, because after that it is pretty much full atlantic usa to stop the europe win and that is it… huge allies income advantage and done. Usually the axis beat that strategy if Japan is wise and germany is quick… you can expect to take russia over at round 6 or 7 with germany.

[ghr2]

@Cow:

The way I see it, if one side is favored to win the other side needs to be in position to make big things happen.

The allies can make big things happen in the pacific, but europe not so much. So most games end up pacific heavy with usa to try and cut japan’s income down enough that china/anzac can take it from there at the round russia falls, because after that it is pretty much full atlantic usa to stop the europe win and that is it… huge allies income advantage and done. Usually the axis beat that strategy if Japan is wise and germany is quick… you can expect to take russia over at round 6 or 7 with germany.

The key is being able to get enough in position to save londn/egypt in time.  Russia usually falls turn 6, this gives the US very little time i think.

[cenator01]

I can’t understand why they removed the german sub national objective. I think it was quite historical and the brits are not too strong at all, even with 5 IPC more every other round. They added quite some NO for Italy and Germany (Oil bonus, North Africa) while they skipped the submarine Bonus for the UK. UK isn’t the most exciting country to play. They are every where, but can’t accomplish much after round one without the help of the US.

I would prefere the submarine NO for the UK (no german submarine in atlantic or indic oceans, except hidden behind Danmark) and the London NO for Germany (or Italy as well). Sealion seems not to be the best and game winnig strategy in Alpha 3.9 any more (USSR NO) and it became a lot harder to accomplish compared to earlier versions

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Cow:

You can easily kick russia out of Europe within a turn or two.

Cow do you have any games saved on TripleA or on the forums where the above actually happens?

@Cow:

The axis win most games anyway.

As we’ve already established. The issue is though, that it is done with Barbarossa. Not sealion. I have played in two games recently (both allies) where Germany went sealion, and have watched several more, all of which saw Russias outearning Germany for 3+ rounds.
My question (which you seem to keep ignoring or just lack the ability to comprehend), is whether or not sealion should be a feasible strategy to make games less one-dimensional. That is NOT the same thing as wondering whether things should be made easier for the axis overall.

[Zhukov44]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

My question  is whether or not sealion should be a feasible strategy to make games less one-dimensional. That is NOT the same thing as wondering whether things should be made easier for the axis overall.

That’s a pretty subjective question.

From what I understand, the versions of Global prior to 3.9 favored Sea Lion.  In the OOB game, Sea Lion was pretty much mandatory for Axis against an expert Allies.  Initially, playing Sea Lion over and over was a lot of fun, but eventually people tire of this and want Barbarossa to be an option.

With the 3.9 changes, I wouldn’t say Sea Lion isn’t viable, provided that Germany/Italy is a strong player.  Absent bid, Axis probably has a better than 50% chance to win via Sea Lion.  After all, even after 3.9 came out there were complaints that Sea Lion was the only way to go, and presently there are threads wondering how to counter the seemingly unstoppable Sea Lion.

However Sea Lion (in 3.9) seems risky compared to Barbarossa.  And….that is probably the (historical) dynamic the game designers are going for.

If they tinker with the set-up, I wouldn’t object to strengthening Russia.  But I doubt they would go back to a set-up where Sea Lion is the the most optimal strategy.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Who said anything about making it the most optimal strategy? I jump into a game on TripleA whenever I can and watch for a bit, and sealion happens maybe 1 out of 10 times if that.

No one said sealion should be the best option. But from my experience on TripleA, if the Axis actually wants to win they won’t go for sealion. A2 had a lot more balance in terms of Germany deciding sealion or barbarossa, A3 is overwhelmingly Barbarossa.

Anyways, IMO A3 kills sealion and makes for one dimensional games, the same-old same-old more often than not. I was wondering if that is a bad thing since one-strategy games seem boring to me, but it seems that most are happy with it. I guess I have my answer.

[Cow]

Cow do you have any games saved on TripleA or on the forums where the above actually happens?

Yes, there are a number of games in garg’s tournament where sea lion is a success. The key is also being able to blow up with Japan.

I do sea lion with germany if the following conditions are met: 1) better than 55/45 odds to take london 2) Japan can still DOW on J2 (usually I already DOW on J1 so I pretty much just look at the odds for london) 3) I am in the mood

Taking london works. In fact if you want to hold it in a cheapo fashion, you can just buy 3 infantry for it a turn.

Usually the axis win in the pacific in sea lion games. USA is needed in the pacific or you can substitute USA in the pacific with lots of russian mech flooding it or you can have a KJF combo… then gamble on Germany winning on the Europe half.

Sealion is still powerful. In fact if the Russia NO did not include Africa, I would just concede after sea lion and play a new game.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Cow:

Sealion is still powerful. In fact if the Russia NO did not include Africa, I would just concede after sea lion and play a new game.

This seems to be severely exaggeratory. Sealion was easier in Alpha 2 and the Russian NO was weaker, did you automatically surrender in every Alpha 2 sealion too?

[Guest]

@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

@Cow:

You can easily kick russia out of Europe within a turn or two.

Cow do you have any games saved on TripleA or on the forums where the above actually happens?

So Russia falls within a turn or 2 of the fall of London?

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

I’ve been looking at the situation and it seems that the most Germany can bring G3 is 13 inf, 9 tanks, 4 art, 4 ftr, 4 tac, 2 bmb (2 planes in 110 to help cruiser/CV with scramble.

If Germany does not get it’s lucky shot at 2 off of canada, then that frees up a transport. I don’t see anyone going 109 anymore, so that transport is freed up to go to canada and land back UK 1.

G1 is France/Normandy/Yugo/110/111/106, buy CV, 2 trn. I really haven’t seen anyone do anything different. Perhaps that’s where I am doing sealion wrong.

UK1 hit 96, 110 tobruk, somaliland, move ftr from gib to UK, move trn from 106 to 109, then one from 109 to 106, land 2 units in england (before you say “But what if the sub won in 106?” To that I say if your sealion needs that to be successful, then we don’t need to look at it any further.), buy 1 ftr 6 inf. Land tac, ftr on Egypt, pick up inf art from malta and drop in egypt from red sea. Take E. Persia

G2 buy 10 trn, move all planes in position.

UK2 9 inf 1 tank, move transport from 106, drop 2 units. Evac bomber if desired.

G3: Hit 23 inf, 1 mech, 1 art, 2 tank, 5 AA, 6 ftr with 13 inf, 4 art, 9 tank , 4 ftr, 4 tac, 2 bmb, 1 bombard cru.

Germany wins that only 34%, and will take massive plane losses most of the time. After all that, you still have to face russia.

Are you doing G4? Is UK scrambling G1? Are you ignoring 110 and/or 111 and focusing on 106 and 109? Is UK buying battleships? Is this combined with a G2 strat bombing?

[Cow]

So Russia falls within a turn or 2 of the fall of London?

The gray area on the map is real europe to me. You can say russia is on the Europe continent if you want.

Alpha 2 was bad. You have no excuse for losing as the axis in that version. NO EXCUSES. I’ll take axis @ -30 ipc please, I don’t need AA guns.
~
yeah well sometimes you don’t roll hits with your defending royal navy and there are subs lurking and the bship is untilted, those are the games where sea lion tends to happen especially if you scrambled to end up missing.

These games come up frequently enough so does the other extreme where the royal navy stands.

It is situational. Even in low luck sometimes you miss. 106 is the same in dice and low luck… you just have to accept that every game can be a difference of +15 or -15 (sometimes -23 if the subs roll a hit on defense). It sucks when there is 2 subs there and you send a dd and bomber… and end up being very sad a sub lingers. When I am germany sending 2 subs to 106 to lose that battle… it is not too bad.

For competitive dice games I never ever do Normandy, I hate losing the battle for France.

I prefer to strafe Yugoslavia if I can (hit it and retreat into romania so the southern germany units are forward). I take romania with germany.

I buy 2 transport carrier round 1… I always stack baltic states round 2 so I can hold novgorod round 3… unless of course the game says I should buy a bunch of transports/naval to take london… like basically the extreme luck scenarios. I may as well take advantage of it.

By default I do barb, but people get cocky or get diced and I got to do sea lion in those scenarios. I can’t let people drop minor ics turn1 on egypt or place units in south africa… that is just asking me to do sea lion and I have to keep people honest. Which is why I always get carrier 2 fighter… sure a sub and 3 russian air units can sink a cruiser 2 fighter and carrier… a little bit of gamble but it is fine. If the transports are still around mid/late game they can get back norway/finland for the NO or stay hidden… or keep shuffling 3 artillery and 3 inf.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

Ah now we see it, it’s a good strategy if UK has bad dice and made the poor decision to scramble.  A strategy that relies on mistakes by the opponent and for them to have poor dice is hardly a good strategy. Next we will see Cow’s invasion plan for the USA. All it requires is the minor detail that USA’s land units hit at less than 15%. It’s a good strategy though. Not doomed at all.  :roll: It’s “situational.”  :roll: