The fig in slovakia can be used against yogo and then also land in s. italy. The Paris attack will not be a good one but the Italians can clear it up in thier turn.
With 3 figs in S. Italy and the fig in normandy dead i cant see any attacks from the britts on any of the two major italian fleets.
I am content that Sealion is now really difficult. I’ve no problem with that, but now I am not sure how they can win.
I’ll have to start a game here in the coming days.
Agreed, it was fairly difficult to pull off in Alpha 2… its almost as if one of the goals with Alpha 3 is to eliminate Sea Lion as a strategy all together. Between the new AA rules, the reduction in German air power, and the fact that Russia now gets to declare war when London falls, Sea Lion is all but off the table.
I do not want to knock this version too hard, as I have not gotten to play it yet, however on paper it certainly seems to take some options off the table for the Axis.
Mongolia rule is interesting, but too complex and buggy (Japan can attack by sea or from SFE/Siberia). The simplest was include the mongolians as part of the non-agression treaty. It’s annoying how we cannot have a decent NAP rule a version after another, being so easy as it is forcing the breaker of the pact to pay some IPCs (15-20)
China still has not aa guns and the ACME wall is still there. Crappy
I still think that Axis keeps alpha2+ advantage. Anyway, let’s hope Mr. Harris send us a final version someday. I continue refuse playing non final versions :| Testing alphas continue being work of WOTC testers, not player’s work
How do the Axis have the advantage in Alpha + 2? Sorry but I’m not seeing it.
O M G ! MY ITALIAN STRATEGIC BOMBER MADE IT INTO THE SETUP!!!
There also seem to be one less tac bomber in w germany even tho it is not marked as a change. If its not removed the 2 BB:s could both be good attacks even with scrambles. I cant see the point in removing this tbh, maybe just a missprint or might be to compensate for upgraded italian bomber.
The US should be able to defend sea zones south and west of Iceland against all threats. That was a US/UK agreement in WWII that allowed the UK to concentrate East of Iceland.
Other than one game, where i was the culprit with good reason (And the US was already in the war) why would anyone attack Iceland?
Naval attacks in the SZ south and west of Iceland. The US took on that responsibility after a transport with US citizens was sunk by a German sub.
Great discussion!
What’s to deter Russia from attacking Japan? Nothing.
I don’t like the NO for US/UK in Paris. If the US and UK are in Paris after war has been going on for several turns, I concede as Germany. The NO is pointless.
How do the Axis have the advantage in Alpha + 2? Sorry but I’m not seeing it.
Those 11 inf, big IC at Berlin plus 6 inf at Rome … and UK losing the option of sinking italian boats. But the first is the bigger, skyrocketing Germany to Leningrad
After a closer review of the possibilities I’m more eager to playtest Alpha+.3.
Nevertheless I don’t understand the Mongolia rule. As I understand it the Russians can attack Japan R4 any time and still Japan cannot attack Amur from Korea\Manchuria? But when Russia pulls back, Japan could land with a Transport there and NCM everything up? Or they could attack from Siberia without provoking the Mogols? And what about the Planes? Are only the ones in Man\Kor not allowed to attack?
I’d really wish for a clarification from Krieghund and\or Larry.
I also don’t understand why the Caucasus oil is now nothing worth for Italy, and I take the loss of the German Tac for a mistake.
IMO the Italian DD and TT in 96 is a free gift for the Brits since they can perfectly hide under their scramblers on Malta and now can even easily take out the Tobruk or Libya forces.
The AA rule is interesting even thou I don’t like that Sealion is no longer an option. This changes the G1 purchases since the Brits no longer need to be really afraid of a G2\G3 landing.
As I understand it the Russians can attack Japan R4 any time and still Japan cannot attack Amur from Korea\Manchuria?
Russians can attack in the East from the beginning of the game. R4 is only applicable to attacking Italy/Germany.
Nevertheless I don’t understand the Mongolia rule. As I understand it the Russians can attack Japan R4 any time and still Japan cannot attack Amur from Korea\Manchuria? But when Russia pulls back, Japan could land with a Transport there and NCM everything up? Or they could attack from Siberia without provoking the Mogols? And what about the Planes? Are only the ones in Man\Kor not allowed to attack?
I’d really wish for a clarification from Krieghund and\or Larry.
Then you need to message them, or get on Larry’s board. I think I understand the NAP rules, but it sounds like only Larry or Krieg are good enough for you.
How do the Axis have the advantage in Alpha + 2? Sorry but I’m not seeing it.
Those 11 inf, big IC at Berlin plus 6 inf at Rome … and UK losing the option of sinking italian boats. But the first is the bigger, skyrocketing Germany to Leningrad
Pretty sure the vast majority of us see the Allies as advantaged in Alpha 2, Func.
Doesn’t sound like you spent enough money lobbying for changes in China, either. :-)
What’s to deter Russia from attacking Japan? Nothing.
Well, Larry has faith in the players that they’ll “work out a treaty” :lol:
I don’t like the NO for US/UK in Paris. If the US and UK are in Paris after war has been going on for several turns, I concede as Germany. The NO is pointless.
Almost. But what if you or your opponent is/are trying to get the 6 cities in the Pacific, and you/they need control of Berlin to pull off the win? Then this NO is not pointless at all.
OMG, what have they done to my beloved sealion. You wouldn’t have guessed that it needed set backs considering how hard I’ve had to defend this strategy.
I don’t necessarily need Krieg or Larry, if you can explain it to me…
I just don’t get the point.
I think the US NO for the Europe map would be better served in Africa.
