Ok Jimmy! I’m looking through.
G1 - think about switching a Mech Infantry with a regular in Normandy. Since you should win with 1 Infantry, it could be a Mech instead and save you a mobile unit. If you know the ones in France will die - why not let regular Infantry take a beating instead?
***I think you’re right, this is a better idea and a reason to not put only inf in NormandyI don’t think any aircraft need to be used in Yugoslavia - they can both make it to naval battles and/or France. I use the Fighter from Hungary in SZ112, and the Tac from Poland in France. I openly defy the AA in France - it’s only a 1 in 6 chance, and it teams with Armor to give you an extra 4 for three rounds… which means you should keep an extra Armor and possibly an Artillery, by my math. That offer is too good for me to pass up, even with the threat of the Tac getting shot down. And with the land units you’re bringing, the Yugo battle is a two-rounder and should result in two lost German Infantry regardless.
***the aircraft in Yugo were really superfluous, they just wound up there because there were few other options for them to fly to. The one in Poland originally went to 112, I think you’re right and sending it there is wiser than Yugo in order to further safeguard the fleet. I’m not sold on a 1 in 6 chance of hitting a plane over Paris, I certainly wouldn’t count on that aircraft making it. I’d rather keep the aircraft from hitting Paris in order to guarantee their usage in G2 and G3.SZ112 just added the Fighter from Hungary, which gives you 12 pips or two hits, meaning a better chance to keep your Sub.
SZs 110 and 106 look good. It would be a bad idea for Britain to scramble.
That’s why I would consider hitting 91 with 2 subs and just air on 110. This would be in the hope that UK scrambles. If they do, the first 2 casualties will be BB hit and CA, after that it’s aircraft and someone might be unwise enough to save the BB over a ftr.Noncom - I would have used the Armor in Poland in Yugo - it can get back next round in time for Sealion.
This was my original intention, the armor went to WGerm because I knew no armor would survive on the French coast and leaving it in Wgerm means it can be shipped out G2. However you’re probably right, and Germany can still load up 3 inf 3 art for G2 naval threats.UK1 - I’d take out the Italian Destroyer/Transport combo with a Brit Destroyer/Fighter/Tac Bomber. Then you have the flexibility to park your fleet elsewhere.
that dd is needed to block for the British fleet off Gibraltar however.Even though I commented earlier on a different UK purchase, 9 Infantry is smart.
Noncoms look reasonable to me.
ITA1 - yes, I would also kill off the British as you did, but if I were the British I wouldn’t have given you the targets. And are you saving S France for G2? I’d let Italy have it, personally, and collect on it the first turn, and get closer to your NO.
Are you saying to forgo the blocker in sz94? Can the UK fleet survive without it? If so then I agree and UK should have moved that dd with the fleet. I forgot SFrance, it wasn’t crucial to my plans so I skipped it on my board.OK! It was cool to go through your moves and think about them. I also know it’s good to get some feedback.
Thx for the feedback, I;ll go back through and edit my moves so they are smoother, I’ll make sure to update the stats too, but it’ll prolly take a day.
AA.Org Official Alpha 3 Thread
-
What’s CRD?
-
-
So Jen, you don’t like rolling dice for convoy raiding? I take it you would prefer to go back to a set amount per type of ship? What about carrier based planes? While I’m not so sure about having to roll dice to get convoy damage, I kind of like that carrier based aircraft can now take part in it.
Also, as for the set up changes, are you referring to the airbases subtracted from Malta and Gibraltar? If so, I agree with you. I think they should be put back, at least the one on Gibraltar. I must admit, the airbase on Malta sure came in handy for the Allies. Plus, sometimes Italy would take it over and it came in very handy when staging attacks on Egypt.
One thing about the new setup I do like is some of the Italian fleet in SZ 96 and moving the 2nd Italian fighter down to S Italy on the airbase. Now Germany only has to send 1 plane to help protect the Italian fleet. I also like that Italy gets a strategic bomber. -
I feel that if we are going to allow a Submarine to do 6 CRD, then we need to allow the AA Guns to also represent coast guard ships and kill enemy ships prior to Convoy damage on a roll of a 1.
If not, then I really feel we need to go back to 1 CRD for surface warships and 2 CRD for submarines. No convoy raids from planes at all. This being the better of the two alternatives.
-
@Cmdr:
Alpha 3, when originally released, was probably more balanced than Alpha 2
I agree that the current Alpha 3 is pretty messed up right now.
But I don’t think that the original Alpha 3 was better than Alpha 2.Stronger UK, weaker Sealion, unchanged Russia = less options for Germany and a constantly neutered Italy.
Only part that was slightly in Axis’s favor was the movement of the 5 island NO for US to France. That’s about it.
-
I agree with you Alsch, I think Alpha2 is better and more balanced.
-
I agree with you Alsch, I think Alpha2 is better and more balanced.
Really, to me, the best part of Alpha 3 is that AA Guns cost 5 and can be taken as casualties. An alpha 2 with the technology changes and the AA Gun rules that I mentioned (not the limit on number of shots, the other ones) would probably be best possible scenario. That would give England 1 more hit and make Sea Lion just an itsy bitsy little bit harder, not impossible, but just a wee little bit harder.
-
Actually jen I see what you’re saying. I kinda liked the change in AA guns, it wasn’t really all that big of a change but definitely made things more interesting. Although if they can be taken as hits, I think they should also have the limited number of shots.
The other changes brought by Alpha 3 seem too drastic to me, or just plain unbalancing.
-
The other changes brought by Alpha 3 seem too drastic to me, or just plain unbalancing.
Again, you speak for me too…
-
who would you say has the advantage with the new alpha 3 rules? Jen you make no sense. I have read in previous posts you say that alpha 3 favors axis. Now you are saying allies are favored… The new changes help out axis a ton! No air base on gibralter makes italy a part of the game. Less units for germany to have to kill R1 and an extra tank and bomber. How is it that alleis have advantage now over the first set of alpha 3 rules?
-
Considering there’s been like 400 changes to Alpha 3 since it was released it makes sense that my opinion would also have the potential to change as the rules do. It does not happen with each incarnation, but sometimes.
In a nut shell, instead of going through and reposting each and every argument: The axis have an easier time getting territories they always got anyway. The allies have a MUCH EASIER time holding capitols that they risked losing. Therefore, the benefit to the allies far outweighs the benefits to the axis.
Why?
Axis have to win.
Allies have to not lose.Not losing is far easier than winning.
-
With the new changes have you noticed that Italy is stronger? Germany having more units to attack with and allies less to defend against G1 attack isn’t germany much stronger? Less risk for Axis I think makes it easier for axis overall. Allies might still have advantage, but I am asking why did you think axis got a huge boost when alpha3 first came out, and now that axis have gotten an even bigger boost you say allies have huge advantage? your posts make no sense. You shoot yourself in the foot with saying axis have it easier in alpha3 than alpha2, and when the alpha3 rules make axis much stronger you change your stance and say alpha2 was more balanced and that axis had a better chance…
-
What are all the European neutrals that would count towards the Soviet Union NO “3 IPCs for each original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls.”? I’m working on an update to the abattlemap module.
-
What are all the European neutrals that would count towards the Soviet Union NO “3 IPCs for each original Axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) that the Soviet Union controls.”? I’m working on an update to the abattlemap module.
First, thanks.
Second:
- Finland
- Norway
- Ireland
- Denmark
- W. Germany
- Germany
- Poland
- Hungary
- Romania
- Bulgaria
- Greece
- Albania
- Yugoslavia
- S. Germany
- N. Italy
- S. Italy
- Sardinia
- Sicily
- Crete
and - Turkey
All in all, I count 20 territories for the NO. For your map, it might be best to put 4 rows of 5 boxes and just leave them unlabeled so that players don’t have to hunt and peck for the right box. Currently I am using boxes for territories I will almost certainly NOT get for territories I do get that don’t have boxes yet. (ie, Ireland and Finland primarily. I use Germany for Ireland and W. Germany for Finland. Odds of Russians getting those two are very slim!)
-
I was thinking about something. I know this is a stretch, but say it is possible that USSR could capture Southern France and/or Normandy-Bordeaux while France (Paris) is still in Axis hands. As such, USSR would get to use the Minor ICs and Naval Bases in these two territories, plus get the IPC value of these territories until France is liberated, at which time they revert to French control.
So, would the Soviet NO also apply to these two territories as well? -
I was thinking about something. I know this is a stretch, but say it is possible that USSR could capture Southern France and/or Normandy-Bordeaux while France (Paris) is still in Axis hands. As such, USSR would get to use the Minor ICs and Naval Bases in these two territories, plus get the IPC value of these territories until France is liberated, at which time they revert to French control.
So, would the Soviet NO also apply to these two territories as well?No. Neutral or Original Axis territories.
-
say it is possible that USSR could capture Southern France and/or Normandy-Bordeaux while France (Paris) is still in Axis hands. As such, USSR would get to use the Minor ICs and Naval Bases in these two territories, plus get the IPC value of these territories until France is liberated, at which time they revert to French control.
umm…. can I get a rules clarification here, but I dont think that is possible. I thought that since (in game anyway) the Soviet Union is part of the Allies, capturing French territory (France being part of the allies as well) wouldnt do anything but liberate them from Axis control, with the IPC’s being idle(along with the IC’s) until Paris is brought back on-line with the liberation of Paris, or did I miss something? Krieghund please help here
-
say it is possible that USSR could capture Southern France and/or Normandy-Bordeaux while France (Paris) is still in Axis hands. As such, USSR would get to use the Minor ICs and Naval Bases in these two territories, plus get the IPC value of these territories until France is liberated, at which time they revert to French control.
umm…. can I get a rules clarification here, but I dont think that is possible. I thought that since (in game anyway) the Soviet Union is part of the Allies, capturing French territory (France being part of the allies as well) wouldnt do anything but liberate them from Axis control, with the IPC’s being idle(along with the IC’s) until Paris is brought back on-line with the liberation of Paris, or did I miss something? Krieghund please help here
You never “capture” a friendly territory. You can walkin (if still under friendly control) or you liberate (the friendly territory is under ennemy control). The “liberator” can collect IPC of any territory liberated if the capitol is under ennemy control. As soon as the capitol is freed all “original” territories are return to original owner.
Example 1 : USA don’t collect IPC for France’s or UK’s territory in Africa if Axis never control it before.
Example 2 : If Paris is liberated, than all French territories under USA/UK/Anzac/Russian control are return to France the moment Paris is free. -
The “liberator” can collect IPC of any territory liberated if the capitol is under ennemy control. As soon as the capitol is freed all “original” territories are return to original owner.
Example 1 : USA don’t collect IPC for France’s or UK’s territory in Africa if Axis never control it before.
Example 2 : If Paris is liberated, than all French territories under USA/UK/Anzac/Russian control are return to France the moment Paris is free.……is this a new thing? :? I thought the rules specifically said that unless the capitol of is free the IPCs for that territory arent collected by the “liberating” force? Dont the new rules go to pains to mention that even IF British Indian forces liberate Egypt from the axis, they still dont get the money for it even if the Axis occupy London?
-
You bring another exception… India can never ever collect income from European Theater of war and, likewise, London never collect income from territories in Pacific theater of war.
In clear :
Paris is under Axis control, but Morocco still free, USA don’t collect income from walking in Morocco.
Paris is under Axis control, USA free Morocco from Axis control, USA put a control maker and collect 1… until Paris is free and therefore remove immediatly USA’s marker control. France will collect income from Morocca at their next turn.Now about the UK exception.
London is free, if Egypt is liberated from Axis control than UK(London) will collect income of Egypt at their next turn.
London is under Axis control. If Egypt is liberated from Axis, that “Alliance Nation” will place its marker and collect income… EXCEPT if it’s UK(Calcutta) as Calcutta never collects from European theater of war, so in that case you don’t place a marker, you just remove the Axis marker from Egypt.
Suggested Topics
