Those are some good ideas. I think to make this game balanced, I do need to make some adjustments. Just giving Italy the Axis NOs and ANZAC the Allied NOs doesn’t quite work. It seemed to be working for a while, but once ANZAC got the upper hand, it just gradually got worse and worse for Italy. I know that happens even in some games of regular A&A, but I don’t think there was any hope of Italy turning things around once ANZAC started getting ahead.
We just finished this game tonight. It took 15 rounds before Italy surrendered. For the first three rounds, Italy really grew and just about closed the gap between them. Rounds 4-8 were somewhat even between the two. If Italy did well on one front, ANZAC was doing well on another front. From Round 9 on, Italy was more and more defensive. ANZAC managed to take Japan and pretty much ruled all the Pacific and Asia within the next 2 rounds. Once all other Italian presence was eliminated, all ANZAC had to do is keep pounding on Europe until something gave way. Between amphibious landings every turn in Western Europe and a flood of tanks, mechs and planes rolling in from Russia, Italy was finding it harder and harder to maintain any kind of border.
For a while, whenever ANZAC would land somewhere in W Europe, Italy had enough to take it back. There were a few sparks of good for Italy, like when they sacrificed most of their European air force to kill the ANZAC fleet outside of England, including a stack of transports. That delayed ANZAC for a couple of rounds, but soon they were making landings again and Italy couldn’t afford a whole new air force to risk against the navy.
While playing the game this way makes each round go somewhat faster, it is pretty hard keeping track of all the different fronts. You literally have attacks going on in every point of the map on some turns. It’s a little easier when Germany is dealing with England and Russia, Italy is dealing with the Med and Japan is dealing with China and the Pacific. Still, it is kind of cool to be able to carry out ALL your ideas in the same turn.
Does an A+3 Sealion = Axis victory?
-
Omega, are you not pursuing Sealion then? If you don’t buy the TTs on G2, I don’t see Sealion as possible.
Correct, I would not go with a Sealion with the moves you outlined. Question becomes how the UK would be able to perform. I am convinced that my strategy is not enabling Sea Lion in all circumstances, but does force the UK to invest somewhat to prevent it. That’s the idea.
-
Correct, I would not go with a Sealion with the moves you outlined. Question becomes how the UK would be able to perform. I am convinced that my strategy is not enabling Sea Lion in all circumstances, but does force the UK to invest somewhat to prevent it. That’s the idea.
I had suggested some ideas to tighten up UK1, but if you are not doing Sealion, then I see no further point in exploring UK2.
-
That’s what I would do, but his move was to bring the destroyer in 104 to block the German fleet and prevent boxing the med fleet in the Med.
Strategic Bomber from N. Italy to SZ 104.
85.49% chance of clearing the destroyer. (Slightly better than 50% chance to survive.)





