Making AA guns more powerful (e.g. fire at 3 planes before the first round; fire at 1 plane before subsequent rounds in victory cities) would increase the deterrent to Germany and Japan slamming London or Calcutta with a big pile of planes and relatively little ground forces. It makes these attacks either more costly (i.e. in transports, tanks and the time it takes to build them) or more risky (i.e. too many expensive planes can be lost). Those planes will be needed later.
@Vance:
Making AA guns more powerful (e.g. fire at 3 planes before the first round; fire at 1 plane before subsequent rounds in victory cities) would increase the deterrent to Germany and Japan slamming London or Calcutta with a big pile of planes and relatively little ground forces. It makes these attacks either more costly (i.e. in transports, tanks and the time it takes to build them) or more risky (i.e. too many expensive planes can be lost). Those planes will be needed later.
I disagree 100%
So with all the talk I have heard saying that the game is unbalanced and it’s too hard on the Axis, now you want to boost the power of AA Guns so it is even harder for the Axis to advance? Sorry, I just can’t go along with that. I don’t really care much for these invasions with massive air fleets and very few ground forces either, even though I have done it myself on a number of occasions. It almost seems like cheating, especially with Japan starting out with such a huge air force. Still, sometimes you just can’t get enough ground units to the front and when you see an opportunity, you got to take it. But making AA Guns into some sort of superweapon that keeps firing on aircraft through the entire combat phase isn’t the way to cure this. Unless my cruisers and battleships can fire support each combat round. If there was a naval battle, then they don’t get to support my troops the first round of combat, but from the 2nd round on they can. Is this ludacris? Perhaps, but I don’t see it as any different than always firing AA guns.
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
Also, keep in mind you fire ALL AA Gun shots simultanoiusly, the attack can designate what target is hit, if anything was hit. So just forget about killing strategic bombers with them in either of the battles. ^_^
@Young:
@Vance:
Making AA guns more powerful (e.g. fire at 3 planes before the first round; fire at 1 plane before subsequent rounds in victory cities) would increase the deterrent to Germany and Japan slamming London or Calcutta with a big pile of planes and relatively little ground forces. It makes these attacks either more costly (i.e. in transports, tanks and the time it takes to build them) or more risky (i.e. too many expensive planes can be lost). Those planes will be needed later.
I disagree 100%
….
With what?!
If AA is stronger, there is great risk to planes. Therefore the plane-heavy Axis will do risky attacks using their air power less.
You can’t disagree with that logic.
@Cmdr:
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
I agree that the Axis have been buffed significantly. In fact I think the current set-up favors them, particularly in Europe.
However a smart UK will probably prevent you from taking London on G3. And on G4, is it even worth it even more? Compared to Alpha 2, London is quite a bit safer - everything is the same, but UK has 4 more hits, and Germany has 1 more Strat and a transported Artillery can be replaced by an Armor. UK’s change is more significant.
And I still question taking Calcutta by J4. I don’t doubt it’s possible but still have some questions. Japan shouldn’t have a landing spot for its planes (Yunnan or Shan State) as long as India blocked correctly and took those territories back from Burma.
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Grasshopper:
I think he’s only talking about the AA Gun increase on Victory Cities. (Which makes it too complicated for Larry to add to the game I think) but that would mean E. Poland won’t be changed, but France would.
@Cmdr:
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
Also, keep in mind you fire ALL AA Gun shots simultanoiusly, the attack can designate what target is hit, if anything was hit. So just forget about killing strategic bombers with them in either of the battles. ^_^
Jen, my group and I consider ourselves to be above average players and there is some concern between us that the Axis have it tough. We respect your opinions, but the ease in which you describe a sealion operation in Alpha+3 baffles us as much as how you plan to protect the eastern front when Russia enters after London falls. Is there a link you can send me that describes your plans in detail? I don’t have battlemap on my computer so I prefer not to try and decipher online games. I love sealion, and I was hoping you could start a thread on how I can pull it off with a balance of risk vs reward. Thanks.
@Cmdr:
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense.
shouldn’t be too hard Hop just go to play board games and look at the first couple of german turns seems like alot of people are doing sealion
@Cmdr:
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense.
A second fighter was lost when it was turned into a strategic bomber.
@Cmdr:
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense.
A second fighter was lost when it was turned into a strategic bomber.
Hey Jen, you need to recheck the Alpha+3 setup again. UK gets 2 fighters in London + 1 Strategic Bomber. The bomber was added to London, not replacing a fighter. Only the UK fighter in Normandy was lost.
Ya sure? Cause the way Larry worded it, it sounded like he was transforming a fighter into a strategic bomber…
anyway, you still lose a few high value defending units just due to not having enough time to get back. (No units from Canada, so don’t bother adding those when you do your check.)
@Young:
@Cmdr:
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
Also, keep in mind you fire ALL AA Gun shots simultanoiusly, the attack can designate what target is hit, if anything was hit. So just forget about killing strategic bombers with them in either of the battles. ^_^
Jen, my group and I consider ourselves to be above average players and there is some concern between us that the Axis have it tough. We respect your opinions, but the ease in which you describe a sealion operation in Alpha+3 baffles us as much as how you plan to protect the eastern front when Russia enters after London falls. Is there a link you can send me that describes your plans in detail? I don’t have battlemap on my computer so I prefer not to try and decipher online games. I love sealion, and I was hoping you could start a thread on how I can pull it off with a balance of risk vs reward. Thanks.
I love how the topic always seems to go to sealion. :P
Seriously though, if you want to talk about the validity of sealion, there are many threads already dedicated to that. (and tons of off topic convos like this one)
Anyways…. I think that the AA guns should not keep firing throughout combat. If anything, just make them fire four or five shots instead. (still a step down from the old rules, where they fired on all planes)
I love how the topic always seems to go to sealion. :P
Seriously though, if you want to talk about the validity of sealion, there are many threads already dedicated to that. (and tons of off topic convos like this one)Anyways…. I think that the AA guns should not keep firing throughout combat. If anything, just make them fire four or five shots instead. (still a step down from the old rules, where they fired on all planes)
How can a conversation on AA Guns be permitted in a topic named “Alpha 4”, and not Sealion?
@Cmdr:
Ya sure? Cause the way Larry worded it, it sounded like he was transforming a fighter into a strategic bomber…
anyway, you still lose a few high value defending units just due to not having enough time to get back. (No units from Canada, so don’t bother adding those when you do your check.)
He considered removing the French fighter or a British fighter, but ended up simply adding the bomber.
If you’re hitting 110 and 111 on G1, then the Canadians will probably make it to London. You’ll have to make choices.
And every single other British plane - Malta, Gibraltar, Med Tac - will make it back to London. I’ll bring them to Gibraltar on UK1, and you will not stop them from defending at London. The lack of Airbases is a pain in the ass, but they’ll still make it.
No, I did not list that SZ 110 was a fight I wanted to engage in. You may keep your cruiser and battleship. You may also keep the cruiser in SZ 91. You may attack SZ 112 with 2 Cruisers, 1 Battleship, 3 Fighters, 1 Strategic Bomber but I will have 4 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, 1 destroyer, 1 damaged Battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 aircraft carrier there at a minimum - I will probably also have a submarine present, not sure if it is really necessary after all, England has just thrown away it’s RAF.
I know of brick walls less defensive.
@Cmdr:
No, I did not list that SZ 110 was a fight I wanted to engage in. You may keep your cruiser and battleship. You may also keep the cruiser in SZ 91. You may attack SZ 112 with 2 Cruisers, 1 Battleship, 3 Fighters, 1 Strategic Bomber but I will have 4 fighters, 1 tactical bomber, 1 destroyer, 1 damaged Battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 aircraft carrier there at a minimum - I will probably also have a submarine present, not sure if it is really necessary after all, England has just thrown away it’s RAF.
I understand. I was just saying, in the event that you attacked both Battleships, I would most likely have Canadian re-inforcements.
But you’re skipping 110. More than fair.
I won’t be hitting 112, but you will find that every plane (1 Scotland, 3 London, 1 Gibraltar, 1 Malta, 1 Med fleet) will be defending against Sealion. You will not be able to stop this.
This in in addition to the extra 5 hits (4 AA and 1 Strat) added to London.
