It’s a fine line between sealion becoming more difficult, and impossible. I think a sea lion option promotes fun instead of always running for Moscow. My opinion is, leave everything as it is, and just put back the Alpha+2 UK units in the French territories, but it seems that stranger tides are looming.
BTW if anyone is using the map I posted here, check the Italian setup - i missed the tank in Albania and the transport in the Adriatic. sorry about that
At this point will they ever get it right or just new gobly guk the +2 is a good challenge
I’m not sure why some of my posts get flagged as spam… anyways…
I don’t know, I’ve had the same ANNOYING problem. There is some way over active bot/filter in these forums. Gives some BS message about how it will have to be cleared by a moderator, but never is. However, I’ve discovered you can see the missing posts if you reply to something in the thread–they show up in the topic summary.
It would be nice if they are going to call someone a spammer if they explained why so that we could alter the posting style. Calling someone a spammer is fighting words…just pisses us off for no reason.
My thought was to take the UK cruiser from SZ112 and put it in SZ110, move the transport from SZ109 to SZ91, and add 1 inf to Gibraltar or move the Algerian french unit over 1.
It forces the Germans to attack SZ110 on G1 or this happens.
The Brits move Egypt navy with inf and arm to SZ92, SZ110 goes to SZ104 to block.
It forces te Germans to attack SZ104 on G2 or this happens.
UK moves SZ91 and SZ92 to SZ109 (a German block on G2 in SZ104 would be taken out by RAF and everything NCMs) adding 3 inf and an armor to the UK on UK2.
If the Germans take their subs from SZ109 to attack the block in SZ104 on G2 that adds more ipcs for the UK to spend.
It also leaves the uK navy to worry about after the Germans take London. It makes it easier for te allies to kill the German fleet after the fall of London.
It still leaves German the option for sealion but reduces the odds slightly.
It doesn’t pose any real threat to Italy.
It gives the UK some more options of play
The UK could take brazil, Persia, and Iraq to gain more ipcs to put in London too.
All said above can be stopped by Germany but at the loss of a few planes which also lowers the % of taking London. So I don’t see it making London too strong too early
sea lion is just a little too overwhelming right now. I still believe adding a tank to UK is going to have to happen. Is london still going to fall? yeah, but that is a few more losses for germany.
Pushing a cruiser back to 109 and leaving the french cruiser as is, causes some problems, but nothing too drastic.
You guys should go with my version, because it is only 2 changes to achieve the same results. A few more losses taking london.
Now if you want to make germany taking london more of a 50/50 kind of deal we’re looking at adding 2 inf and an armor to UK on top of proposed changes. I feel that in the big picture. +12 uk is better for axis than -12 or even -10 germany because if Germany does not pursue london the +12 from UK takes a long time to mobilize and get off the island and german air has a double threat (sink naval or take back territories). So UK is going to have to no matter what invest in a cruiser to deal with the strong luffwaffe.
With that being said. listen. if you don’t give allies a bid- you should. If you don’t like the system and want something static.
do the proposed changes but add +2 inf and 1 tank to london. your sh*t will still get conquered, but you will waste a ton of germans in the process. Which honestly lets russia trade blows with germany and makes the game pretty close and even.
Hey Vance,
Your maps still contains a number of other errors (mostly carried over from the original A3 module which TMTM has since updated).
Errors:
Japanese starting IPC should be 26 not 30
missing airbase and naval base on SITA
missing mech on EGY
1 extra Soviet infantry on NOV, 1 Soviet infantry missing from ARCH
1 ANZAC fig on NSW instead of QUE
1 neutral infantry on Chile instead of 2
2 neutral infantry on Argentina instead of 4
1 neutral infantry on Angola instead of 2
1 neutral infantry on Mozambique instead of 2
1 neutral infantry on Peru instead of 0
6 pro-allied neutral infantry on YUGO instead of 5
Your maps still contains a number of other errors (mostly carried over from the original A3 module which TMTM has since updated).
SLAP IN THE FACE!!!
Whoopsydaisie that’s what I get for plagiarizing. Here it is with those errors fixed. Sorry sorry sorry.
It’s OK ol boy, that’s what happens when you carry a plastic gun, it comes with a plastic brain…. Lol cheers.
should still play with an armor in UK. Like for real, UK didn’t have a tank in 1939? I call bullshit
I actually got a pistol for Christmas that shoots yellow plastic BBs.
“Come and face the strange Ch-Changes”
what is your take gargantua? you are one of the more experienced players on the forum.
The resulting layout of the typical or “optimal” G1 strategy, post these changes, is what is going to determine if they are relevant or not.
Personally I’m glad to see something being done, but is this it? More testing is required.
I like the concept that the british might be able to strike at the Germany Navy, or atleast deal with sub interdiction early.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
It also looks like the Russian NO will be 3 IPCs for every territory that was originally German, Italian or pro-axis neutral.
BTW (sigh) I found two more mistakes on that map: missing 2 infantry on Portugal and 1 fighter on Hawaii. Oh well I tried.
Good players will always try to optimize the best axis options to win no matter what odds are against them. However, once they do…… everyone cries foul, and takes away the strategies they worked so hard to create, than its back to the drawing boards with even more odds against them. The popular opinion from OOB up to Alpha+3 (before the Alpha 3.5 setup changes) has always been that the allies were to strong for the axis to win, yet here we are thinking about how we can cut the legs out from under Germany. I’m open to changes, and I would welcome smart, creative setup alternatives, but taking sealion off the table is a slippery slope. If Kevin and Larry find a way where I can attempt sealion without being called stupid or suicidal, than I will congratulate them immensely, but if Germany’s only option becomes massive builds in land units to blitz a very unsurprised Russia, than I will be incredibly disappointed, and our group will have no choice but to invent and play our own house rules.
YG, I liked your old avatar more :-(
With this new proposed setup I actually see more options for the Germans (as you aren’t forced to buy navy G1) but I’m not sure this is enough to stop a G3 sealion with a 90%+ success rate.
YG, I liked your old avatar more :-(
With this new proposed setup I actually see more options for the Germans (as you aren’t forced to buy navy G1) but I’m not sure this is enough to stop a G3 sealion with a 90%+ success rate.
I guess CHANGE is not alway welcome by all (nice pun considering the topic). It’s more of an avatar to commemorate my upcoming match with Gargantua, during the Field Marshal Games Convention this spring in Canada (I wanted a dude smoking a cigarette to face off with him).
Are there any official changes I need to mention to my group, before our game this Saturday?
