Worst Alpha Modifications

[Young Grasshopper]

Vote and have your say, one changeable vote per member.

[BigBadBruce]

I tend to have negative comments myself... but wouldn't be more productive to have the question the other way around?

Since OOB rules was a complete fail (as Axis don't stand a single chance), I would rather answer a question about best Alpha modifications.

I mean, we want to enhance the game, right? Not keeping pounding trials that didn't worked for whatever reasons.

 Scrambling : I like Alphas' (2 and 3 are same) better than OOB
 Convoy Disruptions : I like Alpha2, with German option better (the gambling of Alpha3 less interesting IMO)
 Strategic Bombing Raids : I like Alpha 2 better, more logical (and historical) to have interceptors firing first.
 National Objectives : Like better some of Alpha2 and some of Alpha3.
 The Setup : Didn't see last Alpha3, hard to say.
 Political Situations : Rather Alpha2, but would force the 12 IPC to be place in Pacific board and allow just land units.
 Research & Development : I never play with them. Bad gamble IMO.
 Multiple AA Guns : Without hesitation Alpha 2.
 Kamikaze : Don't recall OOB about this... but I like Alpha (2 and 3 same rule)
 The Turn Order : Certainly prefer Alpha (2 or 3, not much of a difference IMO)
 The Mongolian Rule : Kinna like the last version of it, but rather 12IPC spent in pacific board myself. So I would leave it as optionnal rule, to players to chose which (Mogolian rule or 12IPC)

[The Fire Knight]

I said research and development, not b/c it has changed for the worse, but b/c it still sucks, just like in its out of the box form. So really it's the lack of a positive change.

[Young Grasshopper]

I said research and development, not b/c it has changed for the worse, but b/c it still sucks, just like in its out of the box form. So really it's the lack of a positive change.

The research and development charts can be easily repaired with a few well thought out house rules, without changing the rest of the game.

[knp7765]

I voted for National Objectives mainly because I don't like the new Russian NO where they get 3 IPCs for every territory they manage to grab in Europe -- including Turkey.  For one thing, I just don't think Turkey should be included in this at all.  As for other neutrals, I actually agree with Finland and Bulgaria, perhaps even Yugoslavia and Greece.  Finland and Bulgaria start out Pro-Axis anyway and should be treated like any of the other originally German territories.  As for Yugoslavia and Greece, well, they are sort of considered Eastern Europe and the Soviets did want to spread communism as much as possible, so those would be okay.  Sweeden and Switzerland should NOT be included.  Neither should any of the little islands in the Med NOR Ireland.  I would be fine with including any Italian territories as well (N Italy, S Italy, Albania) 
One thing that really bothers me about this is the idea of Russia hitting strict neutrals and basically getting rewarded for it.  I think a good solution to this would be that Russia can get the NO for each of these territories, including Turkey, if it is FIRST taken by an Axis power.   Plus, I think 3 IPCs is too much, knock it down to 2.

A close second choice would be the Mongolia Rule.  Mainly, I just think they have made it too complicated.  Not really sure if there really needs to be any kind of penalty if Japan attacks Russia OR if Russia attacks Japan.

[special forces]

I chose the Mongolian rule, not because it is so bad, but it is too complex and should be simplified. Rules should be simple and clear.



edit: maybe the Russian NO could be tweaked to "double the value of the country". You take a 1 IPC country, you get 1 extra. Country of 2, you get 2 extra. Country of 3, you get 3 extra. Just a thought.

[Young Grasshopper]

I don't understand why the Convoy disruption rule is getting such bad press. Right from the very first A&A edition, everything in this game had to be earned with dice rolls. I didn't like the Alpha +2 rule because it gave you something for free, just for getting a unit there. The only thing that I would modify with the latest rule, is giving German U-boats a small advantage over all other units, perhaps allowing them to roll an extra dice or making their attempts @4 or less.

[The Fire Knight]

I said research and development, not b/c it has changed for the worse, but b/c it still sucks, just like in its out of the box form. So really it's the lack of a positive change.

The research and development charts can be easily repaired with a few well thought out house rules, without changing the rest of the game.

I am aware of that. However, that would not be alpha, would it now?

[Young Grasshopper]

I said research and development, not b/c it has changed for the worse, but b/c it still sucks, just like in its out of the box form. So really it's the lack of a positive change.

The research and development charts can be easily repaired with a few well thought out house rules, without changing the rest of the game.

I am aware of that. However, that would not be alpha, would it now?

No.... I suppose you're right.

[BigBadBruce]

I don't understand why the Convoy disruption rule is getting such bad press. Right from the very first A&A edition, everything in this game had to be earned with dice rolls. I didn't like the Alpha +2 rule because it gave you something for free, just for getting a unit there. The only thing that I would modify with the latest rule, is giving German U-boats a small advantage over all other units, perhaps allowing them to roll an extra dice or making their attempts @4 or less.

I understand your point and I think it's a good argument. Not saying Alpha 3 is not good, but if I have to choose between battle of a "chance" to cause convoy disruption, I'll most likely go for battle. Same goes for "exposing" unit, I'll play more conservative if I'm not sure to cause disruption.

Bottom line, I think gamble of Alpha3 version will reduce motivation in a convoy strategy. Perhaps not, time will say.

[special forces]

i skipped the personal attacks part so i hope i'm not echoing soneone else too much here

I don't understand why the Convoy disruption rule is getting such bad press. Right from the very first A&A edition, everything in this game had to be earned with dice rolls. I didn't like the Alpha +2 rule because it gave you something for free, just for getting a unit there. The only thing that I would modify with the latest rule, is giving German U-boats a small advantage over all other units, perhaps allowing them to roll an extra dice or making their attempts @4 or less.

Personally, i feel that convoy-raid-dice-throwing is like if your IPC income would depend the dice instead of solely on the earned income from territories. Not everything needs to be decided by the dice.

Look at it this way, if you don't do any active battle (or tech), you shouldn't have to throw anything in your turn.

About "just getting the unit there", moving a unit to do a convoy raid spot makes it unable to do another thing (not in all cases, i know), so it is not exactly 'free'.

Having said all this, i have to admit i haven't actually played it this way (partly assuming it will change again anyway, and partly because i haven't had the chance to play at all lately, grr)

I hope the rule ends up to something like: subs doing 2 damage (and german subs 3), surface warships 1 and planes also 1 (or 2 if a carrier does nothing).

[Young Grasshopper]

i skipped the personal attacks part so i hope i'm not echoing soneone else too much here

I don't understand why the Convoy disruption rule is getting such bad press. Right from the very first A&A edition, everything in this game had to be earned with dice rolls. I didn't like the Alpha +2 rule because it gave you something for free, just for getting a unit there. The only thing that I would modify with the latest rule, is giving German U-boats a small advantage over all other units, perhaps allowing them to roll an extra dice or making their attempts @4 or less.

Personally, i feel that convoy-raid-dice-throwing is like if your IPC income would depend the dice instead of solely on the earned income from territories. Not everything needs to be decided by the dice.

Look at it this way, if you don't do any active battle (or tech), you shouldn't have to throw anything in your turn.

About "just getting the unit there", moving a unit to do a convoy raid spot makes it unable to do another thing (not in all cases, i know), so it is not exactly 'free'.

Having said all this, i have to admit i haven't actually played it this way (partly assuming it will change again anyway, and partly because i haven't had the chance to play at all lately, grr)

I hope the rule ends up to something like: subs doing 2 damage (and german subs 3), surface warships 1 and planes also 1 (or 2 if a carrier does nothing).

I hope you get in a game soon, and I hope you try the new convoy disruption rule, it's not that bad in my opinion (and I'm not trying to spoon with Larry on cold November evenings, it's just my honest opinion).

[special forces]

Well, as soon as i get the chance i'll give it a try.

[ghr2]

Why can't we all be friends guys?

[Gargantua]

The worst alpha thought was that whole debacle with the tank/mec combined arms scenario, where tanks were only going to attack at two or whatever, unless paired with infantry or mec.

That should be on this list! The Mechanized Armor arms Fiasco!