Russian Alpha 3 NO a Mistake?

I kind of liked it being 30-40% in old versions of axis and allies… that made it a fun and quick game or I would just merge the naval in the med sea.

You would think that because the axis have positioning they would make the game more challenging for the axis to win than the allies.

I prefer the rules to promote action and not take away from it.

I do hate how 1 sub stops russia’s 5 ipc bonus.

I hate that Norway is so important in A&A. Taking it denies Germany $8 a turn and if Russia has it Russia gets $6 for it (plus finland $5 just to get there) That’s a swing of $14. $21 if you are counting Finland too.

it is easy for you to hold. plus it is a silly spot for usa as well. =]

Excellent post by Zhukov IMO

I’d like to address the thread subject “Russian Alpha3 NO a mistake?”

I agree that it seems that little thought was really put into this NO (unfortunately, I get that feeling about a lot of things, especially throughout all the Global 1940 waffling!!!  Exhibit A: OOB Unlimited scrambling, but only on islands, and UK is not an island!)

This NO was even more ridiculous when it included all neutrals.  But anyway, I think it’s still queer, as do many of you.
Only my second game of Alpha3, but I am currently on R3 and all 4 Italian territories in Africa are sitting there beckoning some of my 2 Russian mech infantry and 8 armor.  It definitely seems gamey to send a mech and a tank down there, but you know what?  It would take 4 turns just to hit the first two territories.  A mech and a tank are worth 10 IPC’s.  I’m really not convinced it’s even the wisest thing to do, to send units down there.  It’s hard to quantify their usefulness on the Western front during all those rounds.  And then there’s even a delay after you get the money, until you can actually spend it.  Also the UK must lay off those territories during this time, and Italy is collecting on them.  Also, giving potential landing spots for Axis planes.  I just don’t think it’s as simple as drooling over 14 IPC’s per turn.

That said, I agree I would also house rule that it’s European territories only.  But since I play lots of different people online, house rules are not really a good option, so I just have to play it the way it is.  :-(

I want to agree with Cow about the other Russian NO.  It’s stupid.  To get 5, you have to control Archangel and keep all allied units out of all Russia territories (like AA50) but then you also have to have Z125 free of any Axis ships, and Germany goes right before you.  Too many requirements.  Why didn’t he just add to that, that you roll 2 dice and if it comes up with the number of the month you are currently in, that you can’t collect as well?  <sarcasm>You guys were also talking a lot about the middle east.  I have something for you to consider….  why do only Italy and Germany get bonus income for those three territories?  So if Japan takes them, then G/I are out of luck?  And Japan gets no extra?  Even if they don’t control any of the East Indies and are dying for more oil?  Why don’t Allies get any extra for controlling?  I like that Euro Axis can get these bonuses, but it introduces more weird inconsistencies IMO…

I would love to list other pet peeves and rifs, but will resist the temptation to deviate from the thread topic…</sarcasm>

mmmmm

Sea lion is still viable, it is almost 100% on G4, I don’t see what the big deal is. Secondly the Russian NO is supposed to balance things out. Thirdly Germany has way more NOs than Russia.

The one NO russia can achieve without help and people want to nerf it. Have you ever played Russia in global? It is pretty boring if you asked me.

Do games really have to have logic and rationale backing it up? Can it just be a hypothetical?

Say America has oil and the axis can only get oil from the middle east? Does that make sense to you?

Interesting, vonLettow… I never played original Europe…

Cow, you’re absolutely right. It does not have to have logic and rationale backing it up. Gameplay purposes is good enough reason.

It’s hard not to wonder about things like that, because in some ways Axis and Allies games are very true to history. It teases me to want more. Sometimes when something really ridiculous happens in a game (or every single game :-P) it just kind of… spoils it sometimes.

In RPG gaming terms, it ruins “immersion”… You’re getting all into it and it’s really cool, and then something crazy happens, and it’s just like, oh please. Some people like me just don’t like it when the rules cause some of this immersion breaking ridiculousness, like Russia getting 3 IPC’s per turn for controlling Italian Somaliland… :roll: Think about it… the CAPITAL territory is worth 3 IPC’s!!

But again, you’re absolutely right. We tend to forget that it’s a game and it’s about fun and gameplay, not a historical re-enactment… Sometimes we’re hoping for both at the same time - fun game and fairly historical - but I fully realize that’s never been the purpose of A&A - that is, to be realistic historically…

Dude it is called magic. Magic explains everything.

I agree that Axis and Allies wasnt meant to be historicly accurate, as the Soviet Union would be able to take on and defeat the Germans (with very minimal support from the rest of the allies.
Also the sheer Industral strength of the United States would render anything the Japanese done irrelevant.

Historical accuracy wouldn’t make for a very enjoyable game for the Axis.

@Gamerman01:

Why didn’t he just add to that, that you roll 2 dice and if it comes up with the number of the month you are currently in, that you can’t collect as well?  <sarcasm></sarcasm>

I believe this was almost considered, until someone pointed out that more intelligent players would opt to play Russia during the winter, and avoid Russia during the summer.  This was countered with the fact that Russians should benefit by being in the winter….

but honestly, making a silly National Objective (like controlling Somoliland nets Russia +3 PUs) is bullshit

if the concern is balance, there are other ways to balance it much better (ie: make other objectives, and make more sensible objectives, or give more money and/or more troops, etc etc)

I view this national objective as a mistake that they are too lazy to fix because fixing it would require more rounds of balancing (meaning months of work)

It is not BS, Russia gets to hop on the imperialism train… make everyone happy through propaganda.

@Cow:

It is not BS, Russia gets to hop on the imperialism train… make everyone happy through propaganda.

disguised as the spread of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Veqryn is right; other more sensible NOs could have been made up that would at least feel more historically accurate.  For example Russia’s NOs could go like this:

1. 5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships or has an allied warship in it, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.

2. 3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls in mainland Europe or Iraq. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.

3. 5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 80 is free of Axis warships or has an allied warship in it, Persia and Northwest Persia are controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.

The first NO is just silly. They should make the no allied powers present on russia a seperate NO.

How about 10 ipc for not being at war with germany instead of 10 for taking berlin?

You can nerf the 2nd NO if you add an NO and replace the berlin one that will never ever happen (and if it does you won the game anyway).

Hey Cow,
You mentioned earlier that if Germany pulls off a Sealion, Japan will likely win in the Pacific because the US will spend too much in the Atlantic trying to liberate London. Well, what if the US doesn’t do that? What if the US keeps spending the majority of it’s income in the Pacific and proceeds to pound Japan out of existence?
I remember one game where Germany took London and the Allies ended up winning that game and never liberated London. There were German units in the UK right up to the fall of Berlin.

E z, convoy usa with germany. Italy go middle east and stuff. russia income will always be in the 30s, easy to just drop 10 inf a turn and put the rest in naval for convoying usa. Eventually italy be a real power.

Like if usa got nothin in the atlantic you still got boats n oceans, just force usa to do something.

I seen one game where germany dropped 20 units on australia.

What about a Soviet NO such as 3 or 5 ipc each for soviet control of leningrad and stalingrad. Theme Not one step back. However any additional Ipc bonus would make the game very predicable I.e Germany would have to do barbarossa every time, in my opinion.

@Gamerman01:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149&start=3176

Kreighund confirms that in the reprint, the 0 IPC Italian territory NO has been changed.  So maybe only 6 IPC’s of bonus in Africa for Russia now.

Really? I saw at the above stated part of the thread that someone (“mantlefan”) expressed his hope for the editing of the NOs just after Krieghund’s confirmation. Krieghund did not answer to that. Or was it in one of the 397 pages of the thread before?