Worst Alpha Modifications

Yes, as I said on the other forums, if you want to go minimalist changes:

1. Restore the setup to Alpha 3 original
2. Add a Strategic Bomber to England
3. Add a Destroyer to SZ 109; SZ 96; SZ 93; SZ 98 (ANZAC)
4. Add a Transport + Destroyer somewhere in the south pacific for Japan, I’m thinking SZ 42
5. Kill the American Continental NO replace it with 5 for Iwo Jima, 5 for Okinawa (it’s a helluva lot more logical from both a game play AND a historical perspective!)
6. Restore the Russian NO to Alpha 3 circa whatever it was when Alpha 3 was released - MAYBE include Italian territories.
7. +2 Armor in Amur

That’s really only 5 very minor changes - all of which geared to make naval engagements a bit more deadly and tricky and thus bring the game back down more historical lines.  Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

@Young:

Many, many times I have seen accusations that Jen influenced Larry and his team to impliment her own ideas into the rules. What rules are Jens?

I think they are talking about the ONE issue I brought to Larry’s attention in Alpha +2 about America destroying Japan.  I outlined it round by round for Larry with no less than 3 detailed accounts against different players to show how it worked in theory and in practice.

What did he change?  He moved an NO to Normandy.  Hardly a laundry list of changes!

@Cmdr:

Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

See, I dont think that true, as having the USA and the Soviets being able to jump on Germany if London falls makes sealion far more risky for Germany, espically when you consider the heavy investment Germany would have to make for a dedicated sealion approach (I really really REALLY dont want to get into this any further).

To be fair, some of the problems you do bring up Jenn seem to be problems that no one else is having. The whole Soviet NO thing is the prime example. Im not disputing that what you say can be done, but the odds of it actually happening are very small and still the reason why you would do it arent really worth it (I also never recieved an adequate explanation as to why the Germans we’re powerless to stop it, but meh).

@Young:

@Cmdr:

@Young:

Many, many times I have seen accusations that Jen influenced Larry and his team to impliment her own ideas into the rules. What rules are Jens?

I think they are talking about the ONE issue I brought to Larry’s attention in Alpha +2 about America destroying Japan.  I outlined it round by round for Larry with no less than 3 detailed accounts against different players to show how it worked in theory and in practice.

What did he change?  He moved an NO to Normandy.  Hardly a laundry list of changes!

I personaly would deny having anything to do with the American NO in Europe, it was a horrible change. I think one of the Pacific NOs should have been moved to the Europe board, but the end result was a mess.

I agree…it should have been 5 IPC for france being free…

@Clyde85:

@Cmdr:

Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

See, I dont think that true, as having the USA and the Soviets being able to jump on Germany if London falls makes sealion far more risky for Germany, espically when you consider the heavy investment Germany would have to make for a dedicated sealion approach (I really really REALLY dont want to get into this any further).

To be fair, some of the problems you do bring up Jenn seem to be problems that no one else is having. The whole Soviet NO thing is the prime example. Im not disputing that what you say can be done, but the odds of it actually happening are very small and still the reason why you would do it arent really worth it (I also never recieved an adequate explanation as to why the Germans we’re powerless to stop it, but meh).

Round 3 I’ll have London and Calcutta.  EOS

@Cmdr:

Round 3 I’ll have London and Calcutta.  EOS

I know i’ve gone on about this before, but this statment is meaningless without context. Please dont take this as an opportunity to bang on about your strat, creat another thread for that, but seriously that statment has about as much meaning to me as me saying “Round 4 I’ll have Ottawa and Tokyo. POS”. It means nothing and it makes no sense, and quite frankly im getting a little tired of these blanket statments from people. All these claims that you can always do these things belies the real situation, and seems to leave no leeway for the random nature of a game where dice rolling is a main element. Im sure in some game, very rare game, you have managed to capture both London and Calcutta by round 3 however, there are other factors that remain unknown (as is often the case with these claims) and dont give a true picture of what took place. “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy” are the words of Helmuth von Moltke the elder and they remain true in any conflict, espically in Axis&Allies. Sometimes, things happen in games, but to claim that you can faithfully recreate it everytime is a fallacy, espically if its after the first turn of the game.

You say dont discuss the strategy then complain that the statement is unsupported?

How about this, we play a game on the forums and I demonstrate?

@Cmdr:

You say dont discuss the strategy then complain that the statement is unsupported?

This is innacurate, as I said the statment was unsupported (it is) but went on to say dont discuss it here (as it is very off topic) and then suggested you create your own thread to try and support it.

@Cmdr:

How about this, we play a game on the forums and I demonstrate?

No, I dont play on-line, mainly because I dont trust people when I cant see the board (this isnt directed at you specifically, just a general rule I have about expecting the worst of people). I also would have a very hard time keep track of my own units if I did not have the board in front of me let alone yours. I suspect this is why you have the odd occurrences in your games which you do. When I play I set up an extra board that I keep next to me and leve blank as oddly enough I can see the pieces better when they’re not there.

@Cmdr:

Yes, as I said on the other forums, if you want to go minimalist changes:

1. Restore the setup to Alpha 3 original
2. Add a Strategic Bomber to England
3. Add a Destroyer to SZ 109; SZ 96; SZ 93; SZ 98 (ANZAC)
4. Add a Transport + Destroyer somewhere in the south pacific for Japan, I’m thinking SZ 42
5. Kill the American Continental NO replace it with 5 for Iwo Jima, 5 for Okinawa (it’s a helluva lot more logical from both a game play AND a historical perspective!)
6. Restore the Russian NO to Alpha 3 circa whatever it was when Alpha 3 was released - MAYBE include Italian territories.
7. +2 Armor in Amur

That’s really only 5 very minor changes - all of which geared to make naval engagements a bit more deadly and tricky and thus bring the game back down more historical lines.  Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

5 changes, but the first one is the one I am intersted in.  Why?  What is better about A3 than A2?

2)why UK and not Canada where it can’t be used in the Med UK1?

3)no, too many ships.  Perhaps we should remove ships before adding them?  The only additions I see are for 1 Italian dd to make their fleet a little bit safer.

4)  I think Japan might need a TRn, but that’d be about it.  Not even sure about that though.  I do think Something should be in the carolines other than a CV, I mean Japan was prepared to strike many targets 12/7/41 and thats going to require trns.

5)nice knee jerk reaction to NO’s here.  NO’s do not have to be 5ipcs.  Make a few less, that way we can have more NO’s that make sense.  Inner/outer defense ring for Japan, Island hopping incentives for USA, Russian territorial expansions in Balkans and E Europe.  Having them be 5 ipcs means USA gets mega huge after containing Japan just for holding some worthless islands.  Remember the only value Iwo has is its airfield.  Nothing grows there and nobody lives there.

7)ok you got me.  I also would like to see Russia get the tiniest bet of oomph in the East.  I means /something/ other than inf.

I wish your ‘wish list’ had more explanations as to why you feel the way you do.  Instead of quick blanket statements, give us the reasons too.

@mantlefan:

@Young:

Many, many times I have seen accusations that Jen influenced Larry and his team to impliment her own ideas into the rules. What rules are Jens?

Whoa there, sir. Where did I say “Jen” in my post?

Besides you are missing the point. It’s not which changes were accepted, it’s the fact that many of the balance issues were exxagerated IN ORDER TO try to get input.

People had ideas they wanted to implement. Stating that there were balance issues (whether actually believed or not) was a great pretext. Saying “The game is fine but here is what I want” isn’t very convincing to Larry or anyone else. The excuse needs to be made up before the changes seem necessary.

I fully agree mantlefan.  We put together a comprehensive test of a G3 Sealion in A2 and proved it wouldn’t work.  I don’t remember that coming up in Larry’s discussions on game balance though.  I have actually tried to go back through the A1 and A2 threads on Larry’s site to figure out what the problems were but there’s too much chafe to find the wheat in there.

Of course A2 was not perfect, but it was light years better than A3.

@JimmyHat:

@Cmdr:

Yes, as I said on the other forums, if you want to go minimalist changes:

1. Restore the setup to Alpha 3 original
2. Add a Strategic Bomber to England
3. Add a Destroyer to SZ 109; SZ 96; SZ 93; SZ 98 (ANZAC)
4. Add a Transport + Destroyer somewhere in the south pacific for Japan, I’m thinking SZ 42
5. Kill the American Continental NO replace it with 5 for Iwo Jima, 5 for Okinawa (it’s a helluva lot more logical from both a game play AND a historical perspective!)
6. Restore the Russian NO to Alpha 3 circa whatever it was when Alpha 3 was released - MAYBE include Italian territories.
7. +2 Armor in Amur

That’s really only 5 very minor changes - all of which geared to make naval engagements a bit more deadly and tricky and thus bring the game back down more historical lines.  Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

5 changes, but the first one is the one I am intersted in.  Why?  What is better about A3 than A2?

1. Alpha 3 original had an extra fighter in England (much needed! for the defense of London, would love to walk you through some very naughty ideas about what to do to England if you like in another channel.)  It also had airbases in the Med which, upon playing the game, ARE REALLY NEEDED!!!.  It also had some British defenders in France (you know England lost a total of 2 fighters, right?)  I also enjoy the AA Guns and you don’t have them in the Alpha 2 setup…I guess that’s the real reason.

2. Number 2 is there becuase Larry did it.  I just mentioned it as a “change” since I said restore to original Alpha 3 setup (which did not have the bomber.)

3. Number 3 is there to add some naval complexity and not just make everything a shoe in for the Germans.  It also forces England to use more than a solitary fighter to clear SZ 96 before sailing for Gibraltar.

4. Number 4 is really there to balance the 2 Russian armor mentioned in #7.

5. I despise, with all of my being, that American NO for the Continental United States.  It is the most blatant example of American Exceptionalism (ie Racism) I have ever seen!  Does Russia get it?  No.  Only the Anglo-Americans, but at least you can kill England and Indias by taking some useless tract of land!  Iwo Jima, however, was a desperate struggle against the forces of Imperial Japan, it should be worth more, politically speaking anyway, to motivate the folks at home to work harder, thus, National Objective.  Okinawa really WAS a National Objective, it gave us bombers in range of Tokyo.  Again, major importance ignored.  So make it neutral?  Kill the Continental NO, add the other two.  America has the same number of NOs.  Japan has NEVER kept Iwo and Okinawa…of course, they never TRY TO KEEP THEM either, so maybe this will spread the Japanese a bit more?

6. Rewarding Russia for annexing pro-allied neutrals seems wrong.  I understand what he was doing, he wanted England killed by round 5 and Russia on it’s own, thus, it needs the extra cash, but I dont think that much.  If you are going to keep neutrals in the NO, then Russia shouldnt be able to collect more than double the territory’s value for their NO.  (Neutral’s worth 0?  Russia gets 0!  Neutral’s worth 1, Russia gets 2.  Etc.)  At least it would stop Ireland!

7. Yes, I sometimes (fine, almost ALWAYS okay?) send a tactical bomber to the East for Russia, because without one high value attack piece, they can’t push back on Japan.  With it, it means Japan has to reinforce with high value pieces of their own.  Putting the Armor here (and giving Japan a destroyer/transport somewhere else to balance it) would effectively do this without weakening the Russian air force.

@JimmyHat:

@mantlefan:

@Young:

Many, many times I have seen accusations that Jen influenced Larry and his team to impliment her own ideas into the rules. What rules are Jens?

Whoa there, sir. Where did I say “Jen” in my post?

Besides you are missing the point. It’s not which changes were accepted, it’s the fact that many of the balance issues were exxagerated IN ORDER TO try to get input.

People had ideas they wanted to implement. Stating that there were balance issues (whether actually believed or not) was a great pretext. Saying “The game is fine but here is what I want” isn’t very convincing to Larry or anyone else. The excuse needs to be made up before the changes seem necessary.

I fully agree mantlefan.  We put together a comprehensive test of a G3 Sealion in A2 and proved it wouldn’t work.  I don’t remember that coming up in Larry’s discussions on game balance though.  I have actually tried to go back through the A1 and A2 threads on Larry’s site to figure out what the problems were but there’s too much chafe to find the wheat in there.

Of course A2 was not perfect, but it was light years better than A3.

What Larry did was to make Sea Lion even more successful.  He listened to you!  Now you can’t get all those planes home.  You cannot defend the British fleet as well since Gibraltar cannot scramble for you.  Italians have more airpower to can open for Germany to allow them to sink the British fleet if it comes out or at least take Gibraltar and lock them in.

He listened!  I’m telling you, he WANTS England to die!  That’s why he took the NO away too, figuring since it’s so much easier to get, now you shouldnt get rewarded for it as well.  He gave us a token “Russia can also declare war if London falls” rule, but that’s all it really is at that point.

Note, India has been falling on R3 for a LONG time, he’s done nothing to bolster that either.

@Cmdr:

I despise, with all of my being, that American NO for the Continental United States.  It is the most blatant example of American Exceptionalism (ie Racism) I have ever seen!  Does Russia get it?  No.  Only the Anglo-Americans, but at least you can kill England and Indias by taking some useless tract of land!

@Cmdr:

He listened!  I’m telling you, he WANTS England to die!

@Cmdr:

I understand what he was doing, he wanted England killed by round 5 and Russia on it’s own, thus, it needs the extra cash

These claims are ABSURD! Im not seeing a chorus of people in agreement with you and I do not see these problems in games myself. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the problem is not with the game but with the way you are playing it. Jimmy and Mantlefan are 100% correct about people just making claims that the game is broken so they can have a hand in the game and I think these statments are a perfect example. Also, I wonder why you would bother with a game if you think it and by extension its creator is a racist?

@Cmdr:

Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

I don’t know if this warrants a separate thread, but why is Sea Lion any easier?

Is this based on an SBR and/or convoy strategy (Germany can do more damage this way than in A2)?

Edit: I missed your other comment about Gibraltar.  So the main factor making Sea Lion easier is Gibraltar’s lack of airbase to guard UK Mediterranean ships en route to the Atlantic?

@Clyde85:

@Cmdr:

I despise, with all of my being, that American NO for the Continental United States.  It is the most blatant example of American Exceptionalism (ie Racism) I have ever seen!  Does Russia get it?  No.  Only the Anglo-Americans, but at least you can kill England and Indias by taking some useless tract of land!

@Cmdr:

He listened!  I’m telling you, he WANTS England to die!

@Cmdr:

I understand what he was doing, he wanted England killed by round 5 and Russia on it’s own, thus, it needs the extra cash

These claims are ABSURD! Im not seeing a chorus of people in agreement with you and I do not see these problems in games myself. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the problem is not with the game but with the way you are playing it. Jimmy and Mantlefan are 100% correct about people just making claims that the game is broken so they can have a hand in the game and I think these statments are a perfect example. Also, I wonder why you would bother with a game if you think it and by extension its creator is a racist?

AHA!!!

See we have found it.  Larry DOESN’T have a plan for this game, at least not one he is willing to share and so we get these ideas to drive the game in differing directions.  An octopus with no head and more legs desperately grasping….grasping…grasping.

If we could get an idea as to what he wanted to achieve in the larger picture, and how he intended to achieve balance we could actually provide ideas.  Otherwise we just end up with wonky aa guns and slooowwwww fixes.

I know there’s no plan because of all the flip flopping.  Germ can sealion, Germ cannot.  Now they can, soon they will not be able to again.  Its all so frustrating because it seems horribly led due to not knowing the ultimate design.  The only part I can truely understand is one aspect of Larry’s intention to achieve balance.  The axis will have superiority in their theatres, especially against Russia, but the US will have the ability to play the cavalry and save the day.  This is sorta historic BTW.

I think the solution is to put Germany on the horns of a dilemma.  They can either take UK or take on Russia full bore.  But give them the option.

@Cmdr:

Yes, as I said on the other forums, if you want to go minimalist changes:

1. Restore the setup to Alpha 3 original
2. Add a Strategic Bomber to England
3. Add a Destroyer to SZ 109; SZ 96; SZ 93; SZ 98 (ANZAC)
4. Add a Transport + Destroyer somewhere in the south pacific for Japan, I’m thinking SZ 42
5. Kill the American Continental NO replace it with 5 for Iwo Jima, 5 for Okinawa (it’s a helluva lot more logical from both a game play AND a historical perspective!)
6. Restore the Russian NO to Alpha 3 circa whatever it was when Alpha 3 was released - MAYBE include Italian territories.
7. +2 Armor in Amur

That’s really only 5 very minor changes - all of which geared to make naval engagements a bit more deadly and tricky and thus bring the game back down more historical lines.  Many of the changes are geared towards the fact Sea Lion is stupid easy now, much easier than it was in Alpha 2 AND India is easy as well (not as easy as Sea Lion.)

PLease god tell you don’t actually talk to Larry you are CRAZY! I don’t even need to go into why america gets the extra money. THis is completely historically accurate. Read some history books before you makes statements you don’t understand! All these extra destroyers to make it harder for Germany….  Allies have a huge economic advantage. the axis advantage is in their starting units and where they are placed and what they can attack. 2 more armor in amur would really unbalance things over there. Historically russia never would have attakced japan and visa versa makes no sense. I would like to see another armor and artillery in the east though to make it harder for germany to just pound through russiaso easily. You are saying how easy it is to kill UK INdia T3. If you add a transport won’t this make it even easier?

@mantlefan:

It’s absolutely idiotic to state that the US Continetal NO is racist. Most of the US NO’s are to express the switchover to a wartime economy, to replace the clumsier system from OOB with a more streamlined one.

Fine they represent the scattered peoples of Alaska suddenly producing mass quantities of destroyers and aircraft carriers…there were no shipyards there, but whatever.  :roll:

For much of the war, once it really started (ie when Japan attacked America and I am only referring to the war as it relates to America) the Americans were losing.  If anything, the people should be considered disspirited and thus if all the US has is its own territories or not even all its own territories, it should have MINUS 10 IPC, not PLUS 10.

However, replacing this NO with Iwo Jima and Okinawa makes WAY more sense.  What is immortalized in bronze?  The fact that San Francisco was never invaded or the Marines taking Iwo Jima?  How is this even an argument?

And yes, ROC.  If you send Larry an email he will reply to you.  So you can talk to Larry.

Please look it up Jen. When America was attacked our wartime economy kicked in. Our manufacturing capabilities rose over 33%. So how in the world is it more historically accurate to go against history? Oh and by the way America produced well over 100 aircraft carriers in WW2. Japan produced soemthing on the lines of 20.