Worst Alpha Modifications

Another way:

The IPC value of a territory is defined by its historical production capacity, with a little balance thrown in.  Game balance tells us England is worth 6 but Japan is worth 8.  I want to say that the great and might world power that is and was the British Commonwealth could probably have out produced the tiny little island of Japan.  History tells us that E. USA probably out produced Moscow, and wow, there it is on the board!

Now, the actual IPC you hold is not this, it represents this, but it is not that.    If it was related soley as a fixed value as to represent how many widgets your people produced, then you cannot explain a national objective at all!    Some might say you can explain it through morale.  Fine.  I would say that the American people would have worked three times harder if Germany had a few hundred thousand divisions of soldiers in Mexico than they would have if Germany was over there playing in Russia.  (Yes, that is more infantry than Germany had in the entire war, that’s why I picked that number.  Now no one can say “but they only had half a division!” or some other nonsense to divert the discussion.)  So if a national objective was suddenly the people working harder, then America should not get an objective until invaded.  But that is counter-productive for the game.

Another look at it, why would the Persians suddenly produce twice as much in a month when it was conquered than it did when they were free?  They wouldn’t!  If anything, they would produce LESS, because of local resistance groups and “blue flus” etc.

So obviously, the national objectives have literally nothing to do with production levels.  Nothing.  So what are they?

Web definitions
(Military objective) A goal or objective is a projected computation of affairs that a person or a system plans or intends to achieve—a personal or organizational desired end-point in some sort of assumed development. Many people endeavor to reach goals within a finite time by setting deadlines.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_objective

(Military objective) The object of an armed attack during wartime.
www.hrea.net/index.php

A military objective is attaining a goal from a prolonged set of actions instituted by many people, the culmination of many plans?  How does this encompass keeping the Continental United States free???  There are no plans for that!  There is no system of plans for that!  There was, however, a system of plans to island hop to Japan!  There was, however, a coordinated effort to attain a military objective in the capture of Iwo Jima!  Iwo Jima was the “object of an armed attack during wartime.”  Hell IT IS the definition of objective!

Funny, so is Stalingrad!  Hey, maybe there is a whole pattern of these!  Hmm…let’s look closer:

Iraq, yes has to be attacked and conquered.
C. Persia, yes has to be attacked and conquered.
All the +3 nos for Russia, have to be attacked and conquered.
N. Africa?  That’s a “system of plans” to attack and conquer!
Wait, what about japan?  DEI!!!  Attack and conquer!

You mean to tell me that ALL the national objectives for Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan require you to attack and conquer something?  Even the British ones require you to maintain ALL your territories as free?  But the Americans only have to manage to somehow, and I know this is going to be hard, but somehow NOT lose one of the 3 territories that can build 10 units a round with a country that makes enough to produce 20 units a round?  I don’t know man!  How will America ever make a system of plans to do that?  (Yes, I’m being sarcastic.  It’s a stupid NO and never should have been there, but even in Larry’s comments to me, he admits he makes America a power house on purpose.  Therefore, this is purely to make America a power house and has no real basis in history or in the definition of military objective.)

That said…Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Here we go again.  Mantlefan, I am using the definition provided by the dictionary for military objective.  You are using your “anti-jennifer” definition which states that any definition I use is inherently wrong, even if it is the official definition.

ah, but who cares?  US needs the unmolestable ipcs in order to be the Damocles sword over  the heads of the Axis.  If those ipcs’ had to be conquered, then US might not be able to get off the blocks let alone take those islands.

Having US be interested in an island hoping campaign is a good idea though, with its final destination as Iwo or Oki.  I would say Us has to hold 3 or 4 islands plus Iwo to get the 3 ipcs.

@JimmyHat:

ah, but who cares?  US needs the unmolestable ipcs in order to be the Damocles sword over  the heads of the Axis.  If those ipcs’ had to be conquered, then US might not be able to get off the blocks let alone take those islands.

Having US be interested in an island hoping campaign is a good idea though, with its final destination as Iwo or Oki.  I would say Us has to hold 3 or 4 islands plus Iwo to get the 3 ipcs.

Yes.  That is Larry’s argument exactly.

I don’t think the allies should just GET this money.  If you need to increase America’s buying power, why not increase E. USA by 4 IPC, C. USA by 3 IPC and W. USA by 3 IPC and get rid of the NO?

In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.  Not saying it’s racism that hurts anyone, this is benevolent racism.  I understand!  We all want our country to be the best, the most powerful, the perfect nation.  It’s even got a term!  American Exceptionalism.  Fine!  I get it.

My solution?  Increase the land value (at least then if Japan does a hail mary to get W. USA, they GET something for it as well as their NO and America does not lose their buying power…not sure how 10 IPC became the difference between winning or losing the game and thus America had to have it, but I’ll conceed it if I get increased land value instead of NO.)  Then add in Iwo and Okinawa as NOs.  At least those two make sense!  They required a plan or a set of plans to achieve in a military sense! (This is a game of military, as much as Larry may have thought he was introducing politics, he was not.  This is not “Diplomacy” it is “Axis and Allies” and is a military game.)

@Cmdr:

In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

Pulls the racism card

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

Pulls the racism card

Not to get into a discussion about racism, but not all racism is bad.  American Exceptionalism is an accepted form of racism in The United States and it basically means we think we are better than everyone else in the world.  This is probably false, but it’s accepted anyway and no one really sees and real harm done.

This is what I am referring too.

Back on topic:

Starting to feel AA Gun rules from Alpha 3 and everything else from Alpha 2 and you’d have yourself a pretty good game!  (Yes, this would mean England has 1 more defensive point, and YES Jim, I know you technically can stop Sea Lion if you dont get even the slightest bit diced, but wouldn’t it be nice to have that one extra hit in there?)

If we have to tweak it more, then add a couple armor in Amur.  Give Russia that little OOMPH.

Oh, and definitely keep the extended range to Rockets technology!

Why?  4 Range means S. Italy can hit Egypt and vice-versa.  Egypt can hit S. Ukraine.  S. Ukraine can hit S. Italy.  Etc.  If you dont play tech, then this wont really apply to you.

@Cmdr:

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

Pulls the racism card

Not to get into a discussion about racism, but not all racism is bad.  American Exceptionalism is an accepted form of racism in The United States and it basically means we think we are better than everyone else in the world.  This is probably false, but it’s accepted anyway and no one really sees and real harm done.

Perhaps “racism” isn’t really the proper term.  Maybe “nationalism” would be more appropriate.  Basically it’s taking pride in one’s country, patriotism, with perhaps a little “we’re better” ego thrown in.

@knp7765:

@Cmdr:

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

In my opinion?  It’s subjective racism.

Pulls the racism card

Not to get into a discussion about racism, but not all racism is bad.   American Exceptionalism is an accepted form of racism in The United States and it basically means we think we are better than everyone else in the world.  This is probably false, but it’s accepted anyway and no one really sees and real harm done.

Perhaps “racism” isn’t really the proper term.  Maybe “nationalism” would be more appropriate.  Basically it’s taking pride in one’s country, patriotism, with perhaps a little “we’re better” ego thrown in.

(sorry for more off topic)
My thoughts exactly.  Racism is directed at a single race, like Korean, American, English, etc.  Nationalism is for an actual country.

Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”

@Cmdr:

Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”

You said they should just add the IPC’s to USA’s continental zones.  I think Larry wants to simulate wartime economy though.

@Zallomallo:

@Cmdr:

Yes, but I was lumping nationalism in as part of racism. As I said, the word got a bad rap because of “bad racism.”  Good racism could be a competition between the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to get to the Moon first and the one that loses is “inferior.”

You said they should just add the IPC’s to USA’s continental zones.  I think Larry wants to simulate wartime economy though.

I get that, but cant that part be represented by the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, Wake, Midway, Mexico, W. Indies and the Aleutians represent that?  At least if you bump the American income then Japan can actually take the money, then America can take it back…makes an American conquest at least entertaining - if futile.  And that’s the real problem I have with America!  Why should America be essentially immune from destruction just because it was not invaded in WWII? (No, taking the Aluetians and Wake does NOT count as invaded the USA, those were territories, not states.)  We could take it in Classic and Revised, I even took it twice in Anniversary, but as of now, I see no possible way to take it in Global.  The one option we did have (in Alpha 2) has been banned by Larry.

I think it would have been essentially impossible for the Axis to have invaded the USA in real life.  It’s so far away that whatever they sent at it could be intercepted, or prepared for.  Also, this would take pressure off of nearby enemies, allowing them to gain the upper hand.  The only way it would’ve been possible is after the Axis had conquered Russia and England.

You could never have taken america out in revised unless the game was already over and Germany and japan were fighting america alone. I am a pro at revised version. If you want to test your merritt vs mine let’s go.

@theROCmonster:

You could never have taken america out in revised unless the game was already over and Germany and japan were fighting america alone. I am a pro at revised version. If you want to test your merritt vs mine let’s go.

Geeze, that was so long ago I wouldnt be able to give you specifics.  I just remember using German and Japan strikes similar to Canadian Shield in Classic. (if you dont know what that is, look up CSUB articles or if you cannot find them, I have them all on PDF.  Interesting, works sometimes if your opponent didnt read the strategy as well!)

AAR rocked, the Russians were UNSTOPABLE!  (I used a method that bagged 2 German fighters and took 3 territories with a 4th as easy pickings.  It only had an overall 75% chance to work and if it failed it was game over for Russia, but it ROCKED!)

There is no way to take out 2 German fighters… Unless you are refering to attacking norway and Ukraine and west russia. This is known as a tripple strike. If you failed in the tripple strike (over 50% of the time you do) Germany easily takes out russia. I had some of the best players in the world try the kill america strategy. Didn’t work at all. There are counters to everything. The main problem with kill america strategy is that the allis can always outproduce the axis in fleet size. Also america can plop down 12-13 infantry a turn if it feels sufficently threatened. Then when america is protected russia is a juggernaught because you put all your eggs into one basket to take out america. I would give you a 5% chance to beat me only if you got extremly lucky with dice on R1.

Quote from Mantlefan… reposted due to deletion:

"It is unreasonable to claim that the “official” definition [of military objective] (if we are to believe that one definiton is the the only possible acceptable one anyways, but let’s not even go there) of Military Objective has to the the exact defintion for National Objective for at least two reasons.

1. “National” implies a broader context than “Military,” unless the totality of a Nation is 100% purely it’s military, which is practically impossible to achieve, and definitely does not describe any Nation involved in WWII. Please don’t waste time by trying to argue that every single aspect of life and organization in any country in WWII was 100% Military in nature. Please just concede that “National” is broader than “Military” so we can move on.

It does not when limited to the confines of Axis and Allies which is a purely military game, and I made such delineation at the time.

2. Larry has obviously not tied the definition National Objective entirely to Military Objective, so if your interpretation is that they are identical, you have not looked at the facts. We don’t have MOs. We have NOs. To look at Military Objective and say that is what NO’s are ignores the fact that Larry obviously disagrees. Please don’t impose your definitions upon other people, especially when two different things are being defined! You saying that MO must apply totally to what an NO is is like me saying that the defintion of a cheetah is what must be used to define a leopard."

Really?  Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Cairo, Calcutta, London, Sydney, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Washington DC are not military objectives?  They’re ALL military objectives, it’s just a matter of degree!

Larry does not obviously disagree.  It’s pretty obvious that the original intention of National Objectives was to spread game play around the board.  I believe he said as much when Anniversary came out, but I cannot point you to a direct post, so let’s count it as hearsay.  Anyway, the only NO that does not do this is the Continental US NO, all the rest do.  So, as they say in Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other!  One of these things just does not belong!”

Now, if he was to reconstrue the objectives and allow for things like Japan to shuffle 10 IPC to the United States on the condition they did not attack Japan or put X number of ships in the Pacific, you’d actually have a leg to stand on when making this argument.  Further, if the United States of America was allowed to declare war on England and join the Axis, then we’d have a game in which diplomacy was part of the game and thus, it would no longer be a PURELY military campaign game.  Then one could make the argument that a national objective was a political objective, not a military one.

These are the glaring, huge, Grand Canyon sized holes in this argument.

That is NOT the reason or the post. The reason is something Mantlefan can never repost because it is too obvious to anybody that it was insulting to certain members here.

@theROCmonster:

There is no way to take out 2 German fighters… Unless you are refering to attacking norway and Ukraine and west russia. This is known as a tripple strike. If you failed in the tripple strike (over 50% of the time you do) Germany easily takes out russia. I had some of the best players in the world try the kill america strategy. Didn’t work at all. There are counters to everything. The main problem with kill america strategy is that the allis can always outproduce the axis in fleet size. Also america can plop down 12-13 infantry a turn if it feels sufficently threatened. Then when america is protected russia is a juggernaught because you put all your eggs into one basket to take out america. I would give you a 5% chance to beat me only if you got extremly lucky with dice on R1.

I dont have my notecard anymore to remind me what units attack what.  It may have been Norway, Ukraine and E. Europe leaving W. Russia for cleanup duty and I think that’s correct.  There was 75% or better odds of all three succeeding.  I bet Darth could tell you better, I think it was his plan, originally, and it worked AWESOMELY!  But yes, it was an all or nothing move for Russia.  Either they won at least 2 of the 3 (the ones iwth fighters!) or they lost the game for the allies.

@Imperious:

That is NOT the reason or the post. The reason is something Mantlefan can never repost because it is too obvious to anybody that it was insulting to certain members here.

Ah. Well then I really can’t judge b/c I can’t see the post. However, it seems this post was also deleted. So I have reposted it as a protest against heavy-handed censorship.

EDIT: lol at red comments. Feeling Larry-like, are we?

Yup!  It’s a good idea!  Besides, it makes me feel like I run Psicorps, you know, Psicorps is Mother, Psicorps is Father…(ie evil big brother.)