Why Alpha 3

trololol uncrustable…… i dont mind though considering everyone on this forum has got to have their own opinion of what to change in global… though it is a house rule… damnt why not just put it in both :p

@ozimek1:

I realize that the AA guns are more effective when definding in the west against Allied “liberation” attempts. The big question is whether the tempo gain of bringing them east is worth it, and ultimately more efficient.

What I mean is: Yes, an AA-gun is better at defending a stationary stack than advancing with the aim of possibly taking some very random pot-shots at enemy planes. That is pretty obvious. � BUT they happen to start on the board in round one, and they typically won’t be needed in the west for the first several rounds. Bringing them east from the beginning will add some momentum to Barbarossa, but at the cost of a less attractive puchase mix during the mid-game if they are to be replaced by newly purchased AA-guns or their equivalent in infantry. Is the boost worth that downside?

There’s no yes or no answer to that.  Even on G1, where I move the aa guns depends on what went down on G1.  I’ll still be making those choices on G2-G3, depending on how the game is playing out.  The aa guns in the East have limited utility because they have no attack value–their utility is to lessen Russia’s odds of a successful counter-attack.  Whether Germany needs them out there depends on what Germany and Russia are doing.

I would avoid buying new aa guns mid-game as Germany.  With that in mind, I’d keep half the aa guns back, barring exceptional circumstances.  There’s the possibility of moving east until G3, and then turning back, in time to protect Berlin.

Meh…I think that goes both ways.  As to whether the bomber would be too strong, I think it might be good for the game now.  On the other side, if I had a bomber, I would immediately buy another one.  Lots of creative things to do with that bomber…I think it could prove to be pretty strong…but that’s just my opinion.

@questioneer:

@Cow:

boasting is awesome

that’s what I’m sayin :-D  pure awesome sauce!!! :mrgreen:

@theROCmonster:

Would be interested in seeing how your game goes. Keep me posted. Oh and by the way I am an expert bro.

:lol:

re:  soulfein - There are moderators, and they are active.

It is an interesting idea, but your explanation points to why your solution may not work.

Here is the jist of your suggestion, I think.

The USA has lots of CVs and BBs because they can afford it.  They are using them to soak hits because they have so many, so lets add a modest repair cost to stop that.

Here are my thoughts:

The problem is that the USA is the only power in the game (most of the time) that will shrug off the repair costs.  So you may actually make things worse for Japan in particular who would be much more affected by paying those costs.

Also your suggestion that a 1 IPC will deter a player from willingly taking hits from their capital ships right away is a bit confusing.  The next cheapest option is to lose a 6 IPC sub.  So a 1 IPC cost isn’t really going to change things.  But as was pointed out earlier, Naval bases are quite pricey as is and the need to pull back a damaged fleet is still a bit of a deterrent.  I think I’m OK with the rules as is.

Ghr2 is right mantle, you need a turn before russia attacks!  Use the london money to prep for russia or the american fleet… whichever is more threatening!  Like I said earilier, have Italy set it up so it’s appealing to attack them (aka keep the UK fleet in the Med).

Hopefully you understand a little bit better Zcion.  The Sealion is different in all the games of Global.  One time I was Germany, and was prepping for a Sealion and I failed my France attack!  Italy had to pick it up!  I was so mad, but went for the Sealion anyway, my UK player thought that since I didn’t have enough cash for a Sealion… he thought I was going for Russia.  Boy was he surprised lol.

Cheers man thats awesome……by chance where abouts in NZ do you live?

Yea that was a poor example that I made and poor argument in what I was trying to say.  I’m going to regroup and state my case again……  thanks for all the feed back…