Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition

@Zhukov44:

The only thing I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London, it becomes increasingly problematic for Germany to use naval blockers.  The intended effect of strengthening Russia on land might end up weakening Germany at sea.  Maybe adding 2 armor to Russia would be a better solution.

That said, the changes suggested would lead to a more balanced game.

True, but remember, that bomber can’t get to London before turn 3 or 4 or whenever Germany attacks them first which isn’t until round 3-4.  2 tanks makes little impact in respect to the dozens of land stacks between Germany and Russia that are built in the Eastern front.  Thats 2 tanks out of scores of land units versus one bomber that can make more of a dent which is what is needed for the Allies to gain some equality over the long run.

@cond1024:

I agree that no more changes should be made, but I am curious as to why adding a Russian bomber magically balances the game?

Not saying it does but it bring you a lot closer than the 6-10 IPC bids we are seeing consistently now.  Out of several little tweeks to help try to reach equality the Russian bomber makes the most sense.  It can balance and it is a unit people orginally wanted to see included.  All major powers have one except Russia.

It is also the most intriguing option b/c of what you can do with it.  In a Barbarossa, it can pick off key targets help Russian ground units in several ways.  In a Sealion, watch out!!!, Russia can build a second one!!!  A good tradeoff along with the Africa $$$ from the NO for losing a vital partner in the Allies (UK- London).

When this idea came up briefly near the end of the Alpha+3 project people were salivating at the idea.  Unfortunately and regretfully, I shot it down b/c I thought it would give Allies too much strength.  Now after playing and watching other games, it is clear that the Russian bomber would help and satisfy many players who not only want to see the piece entered in the game but also regain the best balance possible.  It piece’s placement on Moscow at the beginning of the game is also very intriguing- oops, I think I already mentioned that. :-D

I posted this on Larry’s site so I thought I would share it here also:

"…the Russian bomber would have a profound effect- more on the Europe side than the Pacific side. That is why when the idea came out near the end of the Alpha project I was strongly opposed to it.

However, many Alpha+3 games are tending to give a $6- $10 or $12 bid cash to the Allies-- and that is WITH the original Alpha+3 which INCLUDES the extra Brit inf on Egypt.

After scores of games played with Alpha+3 (essentially 2nd ed) setup here is what is happening:

Since Axis goes first they will determine the opening.

There are 2 main lines in Global- Sealion and Barbarossa. Every other strategy falls under these two openings in some way or another. Italy will assist and follow Germany’s lead as they work together, Japan will follow up by either attacking on J1 (a sharp yet very playable gambit that works) or attack on J2 (standard). J3 and J4 attack have now been proven to fail as they give the Allies too much time to build and contain Japan.

Sealion games- whether baited into it or purposely directed for it, Sealion happens on G3. There are times when the naval battles and such don’t go well for Germany and they have to abort the mission but most of the time they seem to have a decent shot at it. Usaully a successful SBR on G2 precedes the assualt on G3 softening up the landing. Germany can have anywhere between a 45-95% chance of success depending on the circumstances.

Britain can do 2 things, either turtle and hope to tharwt off the Germans or at the very least make them lose tons of units OR if they think the odds are against them they can half-turtle and use their navy and airforce in the Med to Taranto- suckerpunching Italy’s navy. Taranto is almost a standard move now b/c it is proven that in the longrun if the Allies don’t do this Italy will become a major power not a minor one.

In doing Taranto, you give up London though as those aircraft are needed to ensure a win in the Med. So the Allies can cripple Itlay and give up London or turtle London and give up the Med- not an easy choice.

When players give up London for an advantage in the Med the games tend to be long and dragged out. Russia with the help of the NatObjs will become stronger making $50 a turn or so. They will own own some Italian and Axis neutrals in MidEast and Africa to get some bonus cash and make a solid front in the East Poland region. In the longrun, it is difficult for Russian and US to make it on their own without a UK players turn, however, they can drag the game out and make it exhausting for the Axis player to get the VC win they need.

When players give up the Med and turtle London, they are not always guaranteed London will survive (although their chances are much better- good calculation is needed at this point) but they will at least deplete Germany forces to get the capital and maybe even repel the invasion if Germany did not “count the cost”. However, the Med is then completley under the control of the Italian who rack up nice bonus cash and begin to become a production power complete with a solid navy. Allies will have a hard time cracking the Med. This also can be a long grueling game.

In both of these situations, the Axis have proven to outproduce the Allies and seal a win thus forcing players to consider and play with a bid in the following games. A bid of 6-12 IPC is usually given to the Allies.

Barbarossa games- These tend to focus on securing the Med, trying to strap Brits to the island and going balls to the walls on Russia. Japan plan comes in very handy here as they can send aircraft and such to support in middle rounds.

What about Japan???

Japan can easily support a Barbarossa or a Sealion and it is discoveries in the Japanese strategies that have tipped the scale in favor of the Axis in most games, in which players now require a bid to go to the Allies.

Japan will either attack on J1 or J2 for the reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. They can gun hard for India and take it between rounds 3-6 or choke out Indian, ANAZAC, and Chinese economies while getting into a “building” war with the US always threatening a quick 6VC win. Japan can indirectly help the Euro Axis greatly by either forcing the US to engage in the Pacific by going after India hard or spend tons on navy forcing the US to do the same while threatening Honolulu, Sydney and/or Calcutta.

It is also hard for the US to liberate London when Japan is ready to pounce on a quick 6VC win if the US spends too much in Europe. It can be very tricky for the US on how much and where to spend its cash. It must spend wisely every round knowing that those units won’t see the front for another round or 2 whether Pacific or Europe.

The Russian Bomber and the Getting back the Brit Inf in Egypt- The game is on a $6-$12 bid WITH the extra Brit Inf. So that is a given that we put the Brit inf back in Egypt. How does the Russian bomber help???

1. In Sealion games it will give the Allies (specifically the Russians) the punch needed to keep Axis on its toes. In Sealion games Russian WILL have the flexibility to buy a second bomber. This is pretty fair considering UK-London is out of the game- at least for a long while anyway.

2. In Barborossa games Russia will not have the opprotunity to buy a second bomber but it will help many ways as far as can openers and naval pot shots as well as an SBR if needed.

3. The option to help the Allies in the Pacific is always there too although this will be a little tougher b/c of the turn order- Japan is always after Russia.

4. As many have wanted before- every major power has a bomber except for Russia- just doesn’t look right and now that bid money is consistently needed for the Allies, the Russian bomber makes perfect sense now."

I would even go as far as to say that not only do we need…

1 Brit inf back in Egypt but also…
1Russian bomber along with either… 1SS in z98 or 2inf in London