The Triplea java-based game has an option for “Honorable Victory” here either side wins if it has attained a certain amount of VC’s by end of a round. The Default I believe is 14. The games I’ve played against the (so-called) “Hard-AI” have all been won on this rule. The Axis have clearly lost at this point and I don’t have to go the extra hours necessary to achieve the OOB Victory Conditions. I’d suggest this added rule as it doesn’t change any of the other gameplay.
Changes still needed to the game, IMHO
-
@Cmdr:
First, the idea is to give America an incentive not to let England, Africa and Europe fall to Germany unopposed. Moving the Objective to these territories, effectively, does that. But since it is an incentive, America does not HAVE to move to stop it.
Second, since the NO would only start on Round 4 (generally) it gives the Axis time to stop it.
Third, if America invests in the Atlantic to keep the NO, it loses equipment against Japan - YAY we are helping Japan, the only country in this game that needs help!
Fourth, if America decides not to invest in the Atlantic for the NO, it loses 5 IPC a round it can use against Japan - YAY we are helping Japan, the only country in this game that needs help!
Fifth, if America does invest in the Atlantic only, then Japan will win the game - YAY we effectively split the American build and made them just like every other country, able to put only 50 IPC on any given side of the board at a time!
This makes good sense. If you come up with a good NO for this then you would not have to add ANY units to the setup. What if the Mexico NO was changed to a liberation of France NO that US would have to go get. It would do everything we need it to do for US
I would start here and if that still didn’t work than I work talk about adding a few units to Japan.Adding units to Germany and Italy (except maybe on the capitals) really makes things messy. I would rather not have to do that.
-
I do not mind the idea of switching from the Alaskan NO which probably should stay to the Mexican NO which was probably designed only to give America yet another NO (only valid game reason I can think of.)
Instead of the United States controlling Mexico, Southern Mexico, Central America (Panama Canal) and the West Indies make it so that the Allies control Morocco, Algeria, Tunis and the West Indies.
America could literally control all of those territories as well, and it gives the United States a reason (outside of just denying Italy the N. Africa NO) to take and hold Africa.
Not to mention, when in all the nine levels of hell has anyone seen America lose the West Indies or Mexico in Alpha 2? I rarely, if ever, saw it in 1940, and (except for AARe) virtually never saw it there and as for classic, you mean someone invaded the West Indies? WHY? lol. Hence why I think it was added to the game only to give America an NO and thus, moving it shouldn’t be overly detrimental to the game balance things, it just makes it a little more interesting for America in the Atlantic.
As for German’s losing planes:
1) They probably do not lose any around the British Isles anyway. Those attacks are pretty safe (except for the U-Boat commanders.)
2) If I can get 3 of them in the Adriatic Sea, awesome! It’s my best shot at them and I can trade British ships that will die anyway, for German planes that could really screw up the Sea Lion balance making it easier for Germany (and thus Germany loses less ground troops!)
3) I’m really hoping my AA Gun will shoot at least one German plane down during Sea Lion.The name of the game is kill the Luftwaffe! The less planes Germany has, the stronger Russia’s position. The stronger Russia’s position, the more leeway the Allies have in getting Japan back into their little bottle. The more leeway the Allies have to get Japan bottled up, the more sure they can be of success.
Can Germany replace the planes lost? OF COURSE! Just keep in mind, 3 replacement fighters = 10 Infantry. In the case of SZ 97, to replace the 2 fighters and tactical bomber you lose 9 Infantry and 1 Artillery worth of IPC. What has England lost? The carrier, cruiser and destroyer that were not getting out anyway. (Unless you escape through the Suez, but then you leave Italy with a Battleship, Cruiser and 2 Transports and we really do not want to do that!)
If they lose another 1 or 2 over London, we’ve reduced the Germans from 4 Fighters, 5 Tactical Bombers, 1 Strategic Bomber to 2 Fighters, 2 Tactical Bombers, 1 Strategic Bomber.
That’s a loss of 2 Fighters, 3 Tactical Bombers or 52 IPC worth of equipment. Sure, I lost England. Yay, who cares. But maybe I also forced Germany to decide between taking England with a tank or retreating with a plane? eh. Not to mention, 5 Aircraft vs 3 Aircraft is more managable for Russia!
-
Jen, why do u keep assuming germany will scramble in the adriatic?
-
ALos germ starts with 5 fighters in alpha 2, 1 in norway, 1 in holand, 2 in wgerm and 1 in hungary
-
all the german airforce in s italy does is deters the UK from an attack there, it by no means worth defending the seazones with, its to just make it look tough. And I do support something to limit a UK1 attack on italian stuff,
-
all the german airforce in s italy does is deters the UK from an attack there, it by no means worth defending the seazones with, its to just make it look tough. And I do support something to limit a UK1 attack on italian stuff,
Because 101 times out of every 100 attacks, Germany scrambles to inflict more damage to the British navy and all it does is lose some German aircraft. It’s the only reason I attack SZ 97 with England, to sink German planes. (Yes, I realized that 101 scrambles out of 100 attacks is mathematically incorrect, I am illustrating a point, not writing a mathematical proof!)
If Germany does not scramble, then I just remain with more units and now Germany has to help Italy sink the 2 Fighters, undamaged Carrier, Cruiser and Destroyer in SZ 97. I’m good with that, I’m also good with Italy taking 3 CRD and not being able to leave boats in SZ 95 too.
-
Technically in 100 attacks you could only scramble 100 times, not 101.
-
well germany either must have either A a grand master plan that involves sacrificing some air by scrambling, or B should not scramble period
-
@Cmdr:
(Yes, I realized that 101 scrambles out of 100 attacks is mathematically incorrect, I am illustrating a point, not writing a mathematical proof!)
Technically in 100 attacks you could only scramble 100 times, not 101.
Holy hell, I knew you were just arguing to argue! You really are not reading what I type, are you? Post RIGHT OVER YOURS TOO! It’s not like you had to read 7 more posts and could have some legit-leg to stand on that you “forgot” I said that!
well germany either must have either A a grand master plan that involves sacrificing some air by scrambling, or B should not scramble period
Personally, that’s the route I am leaning towards. Put the fighters in S. Italy so that England has to attack only SZ 97, not both sea zones, but don’t scramble. The option to scramble is there if England does not come in strong enough.
Too bad a lot of players do not do this, most seem to always scramble, and in that case, YUMMY! Killing German fighters have always been the #1 priority of the Allies in these games (as Russian fighters were #1 for the Axis).
-
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
(Yes, I realized that 101 scrambles out of 100 attacks is mathematically incorrect, I am illustrating a point, not writing a mathematical proof!)
Technically in 100 attacks you could only scramble 100 times, not 101.
Or I could just be poking fun at you pointing out the obvious… By and large I agree that the Axis needs some tweaking.
-
@Cmdr:
well germany either must have either A a grand master plan that involves sacrificing some air by scrambling, or B should not scramble period
Personally, that’s the route I am leaning towards. Put the fighters in S. Italy so that England has to attack only SZ 97, not both sea zones, but don’t scramble. The option to scramble is there if England does not come in strong enough.
Too bad a lot of players do not do this, most seem to always scramble, and in that case, YUMMY! Killing German fighters have always been the #1 priority of the Allies in these games (as Russian fighters were #1 for the Axis).
Thats my point. Germany should not be foolish enough to scramble like that when its obvious ull need virtually ur entire airforce against russia.
-
Fine with me, but tell it to the other players who do scramble.
-
So dont always assume germ will scramble :)
-
@Cmdr:
Instead of the United States controlling Mexico, Southern Mexico, Central America (Panama Canal) and the West Indies make it so that the Allies control Morocco, Algeria, Tunis and the West Indies.
America could literally control all of those territories as well, and it gives the United States a reason (outside of just denying Italy the N. Africa NO) to take and hold Africa.
Exchanging the Mexico NO with a 5IPC NO for the US (at war) that says- “Allies need to control Algeria, Tunis, Morocco and Gibraltar”. Call it a “strategic foothold in the Mediterrean and Europe.” You don’t even need West Indies.
Realistically, US would be w/o this NO until (at the earliest) round 6-7 and from that point Axis and Allies can jostle back and forth for it. It also sends more units to Europe side and that means less to Japan. I think it does everything we need it to do to balance and solve the US balancing diliema.
I really like this idea- so much so that I believe you wouldn’t even have to change the starting setup- no need for addition of Axis units to capitals (although that could be a tweek if needed after testing game with this new/exchanged NO.) :-) :-) :-)
-
I just think UK1 being able to crush italy’s efforts in africa so easily needs a change.
-
That is a bad NO, because Italy could just decide not to capture Algeria/Tunis/Morocco and then US cannot recapture to claim its NO.
-
That’s why he said the word Allies in his statement, not US.
-
I just think UK1 being able to crush italy’s efforts in africa so easily needs a change.
When Alpha+2 was designed that was the tradeoff- Brits get Med if Germany goes Sealion. If Germany goes Barbarossa instead then Axis can secure the Med- Germany would be able to send units down there.
-
Exchanging the Mexico NO with a 5IPC NO for the US (at war) that says- “Allies need to control Algeria, Tunis, Morocco and Gibraltar”. Call it a “strategic foothold in the Mediterrean and Europe.” You don’t even need West Indies.
Realistically, US would be w/o this NO until (at the earliest) round 6-7 and from that point Axis and Allies can jostle back and forth for it. It also sends more units to Europe side and that means less to Japan. I think it does everything we need it to do to balance and solve the US balancing diliema.
Think about it…Rounds 1-3 won’t matter because US is NOT at war anyway- doesn’t get any NOs…so round 4-6 the US would not be ready to attain this NO (exchanged for the Mexican NO)- so that’s a loss of $15 IPCs of material over time. From round 7+ US would have to jostle for it and commit units to keep the NO- taking away some pressure off of Japan.
If US ignores the NO altogether…fine, then they go for the KJF strat that Jen’s mentioned…OK but over 10 rounds (minus the first 3 rounds not at war) US will have $35 IPC LESS of material to work with- will that be enough???
If not, then I would add the units to the captials that I mentioned recently to Toyko, Rome and Berlin
-
That is a bad NO, because Italy could just decide not to capture Algeria/Tunis/Morocco and then US cannot recapture to claim its NO.
Then they would be French and France is an ally of America, therefore, America would get the NO.
As for the relative ease of England owning Africa, keep in mind the relative ease of Germany owning England and it being a moot point.
Suggested Topics
