AA.Org Official Alpha 3 Thread

1. Game order. Switch between Italy and Anzac. Doesn’t change much. If anything will help Axis in European theater… but Anzac is rarely significant there.

2.In Alpha3, Russia can declare if Axis captures London. HUGE Alliance advantage, denying Axis to regroup against Russia after fall of London.

3.Political situation, Japan naval restriction. Doesn’t change much. Any Japanese adventure too close there (too soon) isn’t a real game helper anyway.

4.Soviet/Japanese non Agression Pact. Tricky rules… adds “color” to the game, but a cost of complexity. At Axis advantage I feel, as it gives more ways to enter Russia.

5. Russia NO : Alliance slight advantage. In fact, Bulgaria and Finland are now more income. But along the fact Russia can attack right after Germany takes London…

6. India NO : Easier to achieve, but still unlikely to happen. So Alliance slight advantage.

7. USA NO : If France is retaken and holds… well, it’s pretty much done for Axis anyway. Still Alliance slight advantage. The “lost” of islands battle in Pacific is sad. Lost of “color” in the game there.

8. Unit placement : 3 signicant changes.

• Italy. z96, this only deny the option to sink z95 Italian Navy (which isn’t the best strat anyway). So no clear advantage here.

• UK 7 more HP in London + 2 more in Scotland : Impressivly Huge advantage. Really, Sea Lion is now impossible against any fair alliance player.

• Ship plancement in Manche. Clear Alliance Advantage.

9. AA Guns. Very arguable which side benefits from that rule. Since the most significant difference is 4 more HP in London… I say it’s an Alliance great advantage. Axis never really use AA anyway, besides when they are already loosing the game.

10. Bombing raid. Depends more on player’s type of play here… so kinna no clear advantage by this new rule.

11. Convoy. Again, depends on players. No clear advantage for a side or another. IMO adding dice here just adds complexity.

what you are saying is, “If I want to do sealion and win, I have to wait till UK1 happens before I can determine if I should go through and do sea lion.”

yes, buy your damn carrier and destroyer round 1, retain 6, then buy all transports g2. You can only expect victory if UK used all his air to sink italy.

germany can only beat UK if he does something risky. Russians should be a force of reckon after germany spent all that on naval and fought for a capital. Germany still holds out just fine.

AA guns help Japan. Japan can move out much safer and it makes eyeballing defending japan easier and saves japan 9 bucks in infantry cannon fodder. Same thing for italy and germany. AA guns will help you greatly after taking london over against the russians.

Hell AA guns help greatly if you go strait for russia…. USA nutcrackers norway and denmark… uk comes in and conquers germany… aa guns can save you by being casualties.
~

3.9 is good. it is balanced. it is more aggressive. game play is more fluid. both sides have a fair shot at winning.
~ in fact the new aa gun rules were the best idea anyone came up with, it allows the axis to be more aggressive so you should be more aggressive and you will find that the axis is pretty damn good.

3.9 is exciting.

@Cow:

what you are saying is, “If I want to do sealion and win, I have to wait till UK1 happens before I can determine if I should go through and do sea lion.”

Nope, never said that. As Axis I plan Sea lion right from G1. Always did.

@Cow:

buy your damn carrier and destroyer round 1, retain 6, then buy all transports g2.

This is what I do (but don’t retain 6, I rather a Sub).

@Cow:

AA guns (…)

As I said, a whole debate can occur here, but nothing is more certain than the great help London gets. What’s most valuable than VC? Since Axis has “to get them”, then it’s clearly a stronger advantage for Alliance. Yes in some cases AA guns are useful for Axis, but not as much as VC defences.

@Cow:

3.9 is good. it is balanced.

And you say that after how many games?
Again same opponents?

@Cow:

so you should be more aggressive and you will find that the axis is pretty damn good.

You never played with me and yet you can comment on it?
I feel my Axis play just fine looking at my record…

@BigBadBruce:

5. Russia NO : Alliance slight advantage. In fact, Bulgaria and Finland are now more income. But along the fact Russia can attack right after Germany takes London…

• UK 7 more HP in London + 2 more in Scotland : Impressivly Huge advantage. Really, Sea Lion is now impossible against any fair alliance player.

Here are 2 things where you are just flat wrong.
Russian NO in A2: Russia could get extra income from absurd places such as eerie.
Now russia can only collect the extra money from territories that start the game as either axis or pro axis nuetrals.
in a2 it was any nuetral. Last time i checked when you subtract from a total you get…LESS TOTAL

UK AA guns: In alpha2 germany takes london NO MATTER WHAT barring a total incompetent german player or really bad dice. HOW IS THIS STRATEGY??? In A3 now london has a chance (if it spends all its resources on first couple turns) to defend itself. And now germany must observe and react, shall we say think?

@Uncrustable:

Here are 2 things where you are just flat wrong.
Russian NO in A2: Russia could get extra income from absurd places such as eerie.
Now russia can only collect the extra money from territories that start the game as either axis or pro axis nuetrals.
in a2 it was any nuetral. Last time i checked when you subtract from a total you get…LESS TOTAL

Actually that was an earlier version of Alpha 3.  I agree, that NO was terrible, but it wasn’t in A2.  In A2 it was just originally German territories, which was pretty good.  Very similar to the current A3 NO.

UK AA guns: In alpha2 germany takes london NO MATTER WHAT barring a total incompetent german player or really bad dice. HOW IS THIS STRATEGY??? In A3 now london has a chance (if it spends all its resources on first couple turns) to defend itself. And now germany must observe and react, shall we say think?

To be fair, if UK turtled in A2 and Germany went with Sealion anyway, Germany pretty much automatically lost.  The entire Luftwaffe would be crippled and the game was pretty much over.  The whole Sealion-German-Russian balance in the early part of the game was very well balanced.

@Uncrustable:

@BigBadBruce:

5. Russia NO : Alliance slight advantage. In fact, Bulgaria and Finland are now more income. But along the fact Russia can attack right after Germany takes London…

Here are 2 things where you are just flat wrong.
Russian NO in A2: Russia could get extra income from absurd places such as eerie.
in a2 it was any nuetral. Last time i checked when you subtract from a total you get…LESS TOTAL

Actually, I’m right… and you’re not.

Collect 3 IPCs per turn for each original German territory the Soviet Union controls.

Source : http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167

Please remain calm and polite. Also, make sure to refer to Alpha2 (source given) before adding any comment on my statements. You seem to be confused with earlier Alpha3 version.

Nope, never said that. As Axis I plan Sea lion right from G1. Always did.

LOL. no wonder you always lose as axis.

@Cow:

Nope, never said that. As Axis I plan Sea lion right from G1. Always did.

LOL. no wonder you always lose as axis.

Actually, I never lost here (1vs1)…

@Cmdr:

First off, in Alpha 2 England to spend and SEND everything to London to save itself from Sea Lion - a bit different than originally described.  This, in effect, handed over the Med, Africa, the Atlantic Ocean and I’ve even see Canada fall because England literally cannot do anything to save it’s holdings - so why bother with sea lion then?

Secondly, in Alpha 3 (current) England can both hold itself AND hold some territories OR really hold their territories and let America liberate on round 8.Â

Just my opinion

I agree with you Jen… which proves my point. What I’m saying is Alpha2 was redo because many (not me) were claiming it was too difficult for Axis to win. Thing is, in Alpha3 it’s even harder. Which is why I rather Alpha 2. That’s all.

@Cow:

Nope, never said that. As Axis I plan Sea lion right from G1. Always did.

LOL. no wonder you always lose as axis.

Cow, what I think he meant was that he made sure he was able to get Sealion if UK let him.
He meant just kept the option open - not that he pursued Sealion no matter what.  You’re right that it would be silly to do that.

@Cmdr:

First off, in Alpha 2 England to spend and SEND everything to London to save itself from Sea Lion - a bit different than originally described.  This, in effect, handed over the Med, Africa, the Atlantic Ocean and I’ve even see Canada fall because England literally cannot do anything to save it’s holdings - so why bother with sea lion then?

Well Jen, giving Italy the ability to grow and be aggressive is the point of threatening Sealion early on.
I think though that normally in A2 UK wasn’t quite that bad off.  Yes, bringing planes back on UK 1 let Italy grow.
But after G2, when Germany either decided to go Sealion (game over, if UK was smart) or Barbarossa, UK could go back to focusing on Italy.  Planes could go back to the Med, and you could start building in Saf and the Middle East.
It was tough, but it was certainly an interesting fight between the two.

Plus once US showed up in SZ 92, UK could start getting back all the territory it lost.

That’s pretty darn balanced, if you ask me.

Exactly Alsch.
I play G1 like I would go for Sea Lion. After that depends. Still, I find it easier to win with Sea Lion even if it’s costly. Why? Is US doesn’t show… Then it’s a single front for Germany. If US does focus in Atlantic, Japan has life easy.

I also agree with your comment on Jen’s statement.

you can still do sea lion, just not if uk has 3 fighters on it after uk1.

I still buy the carrier dd round 1. you can have germany take gibraltar which gives italy his bonus (south france greece and gib instead of egy)

germany can also clear out the naval for italy +5 bonus if needed.

~ the sea lion bluff forces uk to only send out a bomber, if UK knows for sure he can send his transport out to pick up 2 guys off canada and bring it back to UK then he can send out 1 fighter.

If usa is going heavy atlantic, I do not see how Japan is having problems winning the game in pacific.
~
So yes sea lion is still a strategy, you should bluff it if you like serious africa play and follow through if UK sends out too many fighters.

I don’t see what the problem is.

So what i am trying to say is, all previous editions of global sucked because NWO was better.

Japan can not war USA till the end of USA’s turn. Germany can push real hard toward russia. round 1 buy carrier 2 tran, bluff sealion turn around and drop woopass on russia. buy lots of mech/tank starting g3. drop inf/art blitz mech/tanks.

you can make big gains on russian income before having to defend germany. Plus italians in the mix can get down to iraq and persia the long way.

Every game is different, seen lots of crazy stuff. That is what makes it fun. Starting to feel axis has a slight edge to win as of late. allies are way out of position. Started to notice bid for allies games. people are going under 5 for now, very similar trend to aa50, started out even then got played more to a small bid for allies.

@Cow:

A+2 is stupid like all the other previous editions of global, Every time you start playing you start to feel like you may as well play NWO or WaW or small’s big world. Come on now.

You got to admit in all previous editions one side was gay.

Er…what does this mean?

It means one side was always a 1 trick pony. like sea lion every game. calcutta 3 every game etc.

Should I go on?

A3 is a little more dynamic in europe as well as other parts of the board.

@Alsch91:

@Cow:

A+2 is stupid like all the other previous editions of global, Every time you start playing you start to feel like you may as well play NWO or WaW or small’s big world. Come on now.

You got to admit in all previous editions one side was gay.

Er…what does this mean?

I have this thought with every one of Cow’s posts. He has a decent idea, stays semi-on-topic, then insults one minority group or swears.  :roll: :roll: :roll:

@Cow:

It means one side was always a 1 trick pony. like sea lion every game. calcutta 3 every game etc.

Ahh okay.  I understand what you were saying.

I would disagree, though.  I would argue that in A2 there were several very plausible options and choices for both sides.
Sealion/Barbarossa and Pac-Strat/balanced Allies are two prominent ones that come to mind.

well usa should have balanced purchases, something needs to go down in pacific for god sake.

Thankyou cow. You say all the things i think but cant transform into coherent words and sentences

and now bigbadbruce is cowers in the corner ;)