Russian Alpha 3 NO a Mistake?

[Zhukov44]

@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?

Ok I’ll bite.  First of all most Sea Lion deployments use 2 subs in 106.  So there is a high likelihood of success there.  The potential for failure is one of those things that make Sea Lion high risk…

Given that Germany will be down a sub, there is also a higher likelihood of British scramble.  But given your ac 2 tpt buy, scrambling is a high-risk move for UK.

I have to admit that most Allied players I have faced are not as careful as you are about having 5-6 planes on UK after UK1 to prevent a G2 Scotland landing.  Many Allied opponents attack 97 and leave themselves wide open.

Another factor to consider is if Germany takes 106 with 2 subs, then UK may want to divert a plane to 106 on UK1 to be sure it clears that space.  And if UK diverts 2 planes to 106, then that reopens the possibility of a Scotland landing G2.

Germany should have close to or better then 50% odds G3, but I’m not one to risk a game on a G3 assault that’s less then 85%.  So if UK is doing EVERYTHING right, you can still wait until G4 to attack.  You land 24 land units in Scotland…UK could probably attack this force, but the bulk of the UK forces will be infantry (since they need to assume Germany intends to attack G3) and it would be a high-risk attack.  Then on G4 you smash London and build some more navy.  At that point, Russia and United States can liberate London and defeat Germany…but Japan has a great chance of snagging the win because United States won’t be able to spend enough in the Pacific to hold India and Hawaii while also liberating London.

To reiterate, the desire for Sea Lion to be just as effective a tactic as Barbarossa is not what the game designers had in mind…that’s why 3.9 is how it is.  No prior A&A game is so friendly to Sea Lion as Europe/Global.  But Global was also meant to be historical…and Sea Lion is what is is…a high-risk gamble.  It should be difficult to pull off against a ‘perfect’ Allied response.

[Yavid]

@Zhukov44:

To reiterate, the desire for Sea Lion to be just as effective a tactic as Barbarossa is not what the game designers had in mind…that’s why 3.9 is how it is.  No prior A&A game is so friendly to Sea Lion as Global.  But Global was also meant to be historical…and Sea Lion is what is is…a high-risk gamble.  It should be difficult to pull off against a ‘perfect’ Allied response.

That’s why Russian units running around in Africa bothers so many players. But it does bother me that some players will complain that Russia gets bonuses for Africa but turn around and complain they killed Sea Lion. If the game is suppose to be historical then Russia should stay out of Africa-Mideast. But Germany needs to stay out of the British Isles. Sea Lion should be something along the lines of a 50/50 shot when everyone does everything right. and let the German players decide if they want to roll the dice on Sea Lion or not. Hitler decided not to for a reason. And that reason was it was to risky.

[Cow]

I kind of liked it being 30-40% in old versions of axis and allies… that made it a fun and quick game or I would just merge the naval in the med sea.

You would think that because the axis have positioning they would make the game more challenging for the axis to win than the allies.

I prefer the rules to promote action and not take away from it.

I do hate how 1 sub stops russia’s 5 ipc bonus.

[Yavid]

I hate that Norway is so important in A&A. Taking it denies Germany $8 a turn and if Russia has it Russia gets $6 for it (plus finland $5 just to get there) That’s a swing of $14. $21 if you are counting Finland too.

[Cow]

it is easy for you to hold. plus it is a silly spot for usa as well. =]

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Yavid:

@Zhukov44:

To reiterate, the desire for Sea Lion to be just as effective a tactic as Barbarossa is not what the game designers had in mind…that’s why 3.9 is how it is. � No prior A&A game is so friendly to Sea Lion as Global. � But Global was also meant to be historical…and Sea Lion is what is is…a high-risk gamble. � It should be difficult to pull off against a ‘perfect’ Allied response.

That’s why Russian units running around in Africa bothers so many players. But it does bother me that some players will complain that Russia gets bonuses for Africa but turn around and complain they killed Sea Lion. If the game is suppose to be historical then Russia should stay out of Africa-Mideast. But Germany needs to stay out of the British Isles. Sea Lion should be something along the lines of a 50/50 shot when everyone does everything right. and let the German players decide if they want to roll the dice on Sea Lion or not. Hitler decided not to for a reason. And that reason was it was to risky.

There’s at least one major difference: Sealion was a serious consideration by the Germans to which considerable resources were given to plan.

The other major consideration is that a viable sealion allows for more variation in games. I don’t know about you, but I don’t play A&A to carry out the war just like it happened.

Someone had the point that sealion is harder because the designers wanted it that way. I don’t see why the designers wanting something to be a certain way means that it is not potentially a mistake.

From what I remember reading A3 came out because A2 was too hard for the Axis because USA went all pacific, neutralized Japan, and then got back in time to save cairo and then started getting italy and west europe. It sounds like A3 is a lot easier for the axis because barbarossa is so much easier.  In my opinion it was a mistake to try to balance the game by making one strategy the only truly competitive option when the more entrenched you make the sides in specific strategies, the more imbalance will show up. In other words, the less variables that are in the game, the more obvious the imbalance is.

[gamerman01]

Excellent post by Zhukov IMO

I’d like to address the thread subject “Russian Alpha3 NO a mistake?”

I agree that it seems that little thought was really put into this NO (unfortunately, I get that feeling about a lot of things, especially throughout all the Global 1940 waffling!!!  Exhibit A: OOB Unlimited scrambling, but only on islands, and UK is not an island!)

This NO was even more ridiculous when it included all neutrals.  But anyway, I think it’s still queer, as do many of you.
Only my second game of Alpha3, but I am currently on R3 and all 4 Italian territories in Africa are sitting there beckoning some of my 2 Russian mech infantry and 8 armor.  It definitely seems gamey to send a mech and a tank down there, but you know what?  It would take 4 turns just to hit the first two territories.  A mech and a tank are worth 10 IPC’s.  I’m really not convinced it’s even the wisest thing to do, to send units down there.  It’s hard to quantify their usefulness on the Western front during all those rounds.  And then there’s even a delay after you get the money, until you can actually spend it.  Also the UK must lay off those territories during this time, and Italy is collecting on them.  Also, giving potential landing spots for Axis planes.  I just don’t think it’s as simple as drooling over 14 IPC’s per turn.

That said, I agree I would also house rule that it’s European territories only.  But since I play lots of different people online, house rules are not really a good option, so I just have to play it the way it is.  :-(

I want to agree with Cow about the other Russian NO.  It’s stupid.  To get 5, you have to control Archangel and keep all allied units out of all Russia territories (like AA50) but then you also have to have Z125 free of any Axis ships, and Germany goes right before you.  Too many requirements.  Why didn’t he just add to that, that you roll 2 dice and if it comes up with the number of the month you are currently in, that you can’t collect as well?  <sarcasm>You guys were also talking a lot about the middle east.  I have something for you to consider….  why do only Italy and Germany get bonus income for those three territories?  So if Japan takes them, then G/I are out of luck?  And Japan gets no extra?  Even if they don’t control any of the East Indies and are dying for more oil?  Why don’t Allies get any extra for controlling?  I like that Euro Axis can get these bonuses, but it introduces more weird inconsistencies IMO…

I would love to list other pet peeves and rifs, but will resist the temptation to deviate from the thread topic…</sarcasm>

[Cow]

mmmmm

Sea lion is still viable, it is almost 100% on G4, I don’t see what the big deal is. Secondly the Russian NO is supposed to balance things out. Thirdly Germany has way more NOs than Russia.

The one NO russia can achieve without help and people want to nerf it. Have you ever played Russia in global? It is pretty boring if you asked me.

[vonLettowVorbeck1914]

@Gamerman01:

You guys were also talking a lot about the middle east.  I have something for you to consider….  why do only Italy and Germany get bonus income for those three territories?  So if Japan takes them, then G/I are out of luck?  And Japan gets no extra?  Even if they don’t control any of the East Indies and are dying for more oil?  Why don’t Allies get any extra for controlling?  I like that Euro Axis can get these bonuses, but it introduces more weird inconsistencies IMO…

I would love to list other pet peeves and rifs, but will resist the temptation to deviate from the thread topic…

DOn’t worry about it, the above paragraph is to me on topic because it is important to compare an NO that might be off to another that might be off.

I don’t really have an answer for Japan not getting it, but I had often wondered about the allies in original Europe, and how if Germany got the middle east, they would have to be paid from the allies directly. There’s several lame excuses, and maybe one or two good ones why the axis gets it and allies don’t, but I think it would help to see why in original europe it was the way it was too.

[Cow]

Do games really have to have logic and rationale backing it up? Can it just be a hypothetical?

Say America has oil and the axis can only get oil from the middle east? Does that make sense to you?

[gamerman01]

Interesting, vonLettow… I never played original Europe…

Cow, you’re absolutely right. It does not have to have logic and rationale backing it up. Gameplay purposes is good enough reason.

It’s hard not to wonder about things like that, because in some ways Axis and Allies games are very true to history. It teases me to want more. Sometimes when something really ridiculous happens in a game (or every single game :-P) it just kind of… spoils it sometimes.

In RPG gaming terms, it ruins “immersion”… You’re getting all into it and it’s really cool, and then something crazy happens, and it’s just like, oh please. Some people like me just don’t like it when the rules cause some of this immersion breaking ridiculousness, like Russia getting 3 IPC’s per turn for controlling Italian Somaliland… :roll: Think about it… the CAPITAL territory is worth 3 IPC’s!!

But again, you’re absolutely right. We tend to forget that it’s a game and it’s about fun and gameplay, not a historical re-enactment… Sometimes we’re hoping for both at the same time - fun game and fairly historical - but I fully realize that’s never been the purpose of A&A - that is, to be realistic historically…

[Cow]

Dude it is called magic. Magic explains everything.

[BulwFi]

I agree that Axis and Allies wasnt meant to be historicly accurate, as the Soviet Union would be able to take on and defeat the Germans (with very minimal support from the rest of the allies.
Also the sheer Industral strength of the United States would render anything the Japanese done irrelevant.

Historical accuracy wouldn’t make for a very enjoyable game for the Axis.

[Veqryn]

@Gamerman01:

Why didn’t he just add to that, that you roll 2 dice and if it comes up with the number of the month you are currently in, that you can’t collect as well?  <sarcasm></sarcasm>

I believe this was almost considered, until someone pointed out that more intelligent players would opt to play Russia during the winter, and avoid Russia during the summer.  This was countered with the fact that Russians should benefit by being in the winter….

but honestly, making a silly National Objective (like controlling Somoliland nets Russia +3 PUs) is bullshit

if the concern is balance, there are other ways to balance it much better (ie: make other objectives, and make more sensible objectives, or give more money and/or more troops, etc etc)

I view this national objective as a mistake that they are too lazy to fix because fixing it would require more rounds of balancing (meaning months of work)

[Cow]

It is not BS, Russia gets to hop on the imperialism train… make everyone happy through propaganda.

[BulwFi]

@Cow:

It is not BS, Russia gets to hop on the imperialism train… make everyone happy through propaganda.

disguised as the spread of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Guest]

Veqryn is right; other more sensible NOs could have been made up that would at least feel more historically accurate.  For example Russia’s NOs could go like this:

1. 5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships or has an allied warship in it, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.

2. 3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls in mainland Europe or Iraq. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.

3. 5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 80 is free of Axis warships or has an allied warship in it, Persia and Northwest Persia are controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.

[Cow]

The first NO is just silly. They should make the no allied powers present on russia a seperate NO.

How about 10 ipc for not being at war with germany instead of 10 for taking berlin?

You can nerf the 2nd NO if you add an NO and replace the berlin one that will never ever happen (and if it does you won the game anyway).

[knp7765]

Hey Cow,
You mentioned earlier that if Germany pulls off a Sealion, Japan will likely win in the Pacific because the US will spend too much in the Atlantic trying to liberate London. Well, what if the US doesn’t do that? What if the US keeps spending the majority of it’s income in the Pacific and proceeds to pound Japan out of existence?
I remember one game where Germany took London and the Allies ended up winning that game and never liberated London. There were German units in the UK right up to the fall of Berlin.

[Cow]

E z, convoy usa with germany. Italy go middle east and stuff. russia income will always be in the 30s, easy to just drop 10 inf a turn and put the rest in naval for convoying usa. Eventually italy be a real power.

Like if usa got nothin in the atlantic you still got boats n oceans, just force usa to do something.

I seen one game where germany dropped 20 units on australia.