In a game that was at best decently balanced, at worst favoring the allies, the amount of help for the allies at the expense of the axis is appalling. Italy gets 2 ships moved (and this is interesting for what britain can attack now) and a bomber “upgrade”, and Germany gets a sub boost but practically everything else is more helpful for the Allies.
A. Sealion is nerfed. Good! Sea Lion on round 3 always struck me as seriously WRONG. Sea Lion is still possible on Round 4, if you dont want to take advantage of Germany’s over powering submarines instead.
1. Russia can attack if G3 sealion is successful eliminating the crucial repositioning for germany.
2. AA guns not only help britain better defend UK, but now the volatility of France G1 only increases in its danger for Germany. Do we really need more potential horse**** to happen on the first axis turn, ruining it before it even really started?
AWESOME! It was an idea I, and possibly others, wanted! It’s just plain STUPID that Germany can strip itself defenseless and a nation as aggressive as Russia cannot take advantage of it! I, honestly, wanted a rule that said Russia can attack if Germany has less infantry in Hungary, Poland and Romania as Russia does in Baltic States, E. Poland and Bessarabia, but this is good too! Think of a strategy, don’t count on one sucker punch to win a game for you.
3. The extra commitment to France means also that less can be put against the royal navy and the other two territories of france (assuming south france is your thing)
Right, 1 aa gun makes you commit hundreds more men to France. I think Larry’s idea was to make Germany choose some attacks, instead of getting to do everything. My opinion, give up W. France. You are probably not going to do Sea Lion, so that fighter is not going to make England impenetrable anyway. Since you can neuter them with a couple of Submarines and fighters cannot shoot at submarines without a destroyer, problem solved.
4. FOUR AA GUNS IN UK!
Yes, now they can shoot at 12 attacking Aircraft. What’s your point? You’d rather them only have 1 so you can send 3 escorts and 3 bombers to automatically cap dmg on England every round?
B. For some reason, Japan’s options against the US needed to be more limited, with the 2 SZ restriction. Even if the effect is not big, what is the actual benefit?
Here I agree with you. I think Larry is a bit too much in love with The United States. He seems hell bent in every game to make them so ridiculously overpowered that if you cannot figure out a way to snipe them early, you’ll never get them. We had a Kill America strategy, but now it cannot be employed (reaffirming my opinion of Larry’s “American Exceptionalist” attitude.)
C. Now Japan gets nothing for being invaded by the USSR, and if Japan does invade the USSR, Russia can really muddy things up in china easier. I guess Japan can invade Amur from the sea. IF you read the text carefully, Japan can amphib assault and then NC move in from Korea/Manchu.
Yes, Japan can attack from SZ 5 as long as no planes, infantry, artillery, or armor come from Korea or Manchuria. Otherwise, Russia can get +6 Infantry and a bunch of neutrals worth 0 IPC. BTW, I like this one rule. I like it A LOT. It will actually make me consider attacking China instead of just ignoring it, crushing Russia like an over-ripe grape and giggling as the allies have no alternative but surrender.
D. IMO, the new Japanese NO is even harder to get than the old one that they barely ever had a chance to get.
yes it is harder to get, however, America is down 2 NOs now if they go all in on the Pacific instead of 1, so it should be more common to see American intervention in the Atlantic earlier. Since I already have to take many of these islands to prevent them from being bases for the allies, this does not impact my far reaching plans too much.
E. Strategic bombing is now just scary. Escorts now also have first strike like bombers, and the attacker doesn’t even have to lose bombers anymore, aside from aa. It’s almost completely asinine to send up interceptors now
If we look at what the problems allegedly were (Jen, haven’t you been saying for months that axis was too weak???) present with alpha +2, how can this be seen as an improvement? These changes are OBVIOUSLY a bigger boost for the Allies than the Axis. If anyone disagrees, please say why. Maybe I missed something. Even that Italian naval movement can be more harmful for the axis. Since depending on whether or not the cruiser by Gib survives, they can take out their usual ships plus an extra DD.
Yes, I felt that the axis were too weak in Alpha 2 and many of the tournament bids seem to agree with that assertation. Most of the bids are coming in at 9-15 IPC for the axis with very few removing an AA Gun to get the Axis (which essentially is a moot point since that AA Gun rarely does anything other than force you to put it on the map.)
I like the new rules. It’s more incentive for me to attack since now if you put interceptors up, I get a good shot of killing them (if I am SBRing then it’s probably in my favor to trade a fighter for a fighter AND drop a few bombs). One of the major conversations was the lack of SBR in the game. I’ve always liked SBR (mainly because in Classic it was the only way to get Japan or England.)
Maybe the new AA rules aren’t so bad, but England probably doesn’t need 4 if this game wants to have more than one dimension, and France definitely does not need any in the initial setup without some compensation for Germany.
I really think you are blowing that out of proportion. It is much harder to get the aircraft from the Med to England now, due to the destroyer moving. Also, those AA Guns have 0 defense and 0 attack ability. Further, they cost 5 IPC so they are probably not getting replaced which means you can overwhelm the air defense of England if you want too. Remember, unlike old versions, AA Guns can only fire 3 shots, and only if there are at least 3 aircraft attacking! Before it was 1 shot per aircraft regardless of how many there were.
There seems to be quite a bit of complaining really. I think many of the changes are great! (okay, so many of them I either heartedly agreed too on Larry’s site or voiced myself.) Some I think are missing (Axis win if Germany has Moscow and 6 other victory cities, +12 infantry in China for Japan, ability to replace the Chinese fighter with an American one flown over, etc).