• Sponsor

    Actually it came out yesterday. Jennifer is right, let’s play a game before we rip it.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Young:

    Actually it came out yesterday. Jennifer is right, let’s play a game before we rip it.

    I am just very interested to see if the addition of AA Guns to England, and allowing them to be free hits, essentially, will allow England to actually play the game and if it will allow England to keep Germany from getting Sea Lion 98.750% of the time on Germany 3. (I pulled that number out of thin air, there is no scientific data or analysis to support that number, it is purely used to make a point.)


  • Looking forward to trying the new ALPHA+3 next weekend, I just printed them and some extras to spread around the group to read this next week
      After reading them I think it will be a very good game it will just take some getting used to the differences.
      This week is going to be ALPHA+2
      Interesting


  • Who wants to play UK if all you are doing is building infantry every game to defend from Sealion. Boring. Hopefully now UK can spread some units around the board like its meant too and do something interesting.

  • Sponsor

    I will find a way to take out England early.


  • @Young:

    I will find a way to take out England early.

    Why would you want to?


  • Absolutely agree with Jennifer - we have to wait and see… but I can’t wait to start using AA the way it always should have been… I lobbied unsuccessfully many years ago that they should be casualties. The nes AA rules just added another variable to a game that already has many variables…

    How does Russia position AA on defense?

    How does Germany position AA as the aggressor?

    Does Calcutta have to purchase one, or two more to deal with Japan’s air power?

    New variables are good for the game. Without playing yet, my instinct is that this great game only got better.

  • Sponsor

    @Kobu:

    @Young:

    I will find a way to take out England early.

    Why would you want to?

    Because planning a successful sealion strategy is fun. Building up a ton of infantry and mec infantry for a 10 hour territory race with Russia is boring.


  • I don’t know why Most people are ripping apart the new AA rules,  ok so they soak hits,  this only helps on the initial setup and to be honest it only really gonna help the defender if he/she thinks their going to loose the territory anyways. cost 5 attack 0 defense 0 only good for 3 shots on aircraft it’s expensive fodder and people should be thinking twice about using them to soak hits,  this would be a last desperate choice for me.  I think it adds a good dynamic to the game allows players to build up air defences  instead of the single gun does it all as it was before.


  • Peck,

    Remember that the AA guns are targeting the attackers most powerful units ‘exclusively’, and each one now has a 50% chance of making one hit.  The fact that they ‘may’ be taken as causualties means that you now have a choice, much as an attacker must decide in the last rounds of attack to take aircraft as causualties if occupation is to occur.


  • Mantlefan. I disagree because you haven’t played a game yet. Come back after four playtests and then I’ll be interested in your very vehement opinions.


  • DTDeGrave - rmember that AA Guns used to have unlimited power against aircraft… 15 fighters meant 15 shots. That was a 100% chance to kill 2.5, by the math you’re using. Now, we’ve been given the tools to make more nuanced choices with positioning, and with purchasing. I’m thinking a few more AA with Russia, even with 6 already on the board, is a nice idea. I’m thinking that Italy will want a few more to defend the underbelly, considering that the US will have an ever-expanding air presence.

    I don’t believe 5 IPCs for an AA Gun will feel like such a hard purchase to make, now that they’re considered a casualty (finally).


  • Please explain to me where the chances of hitting aircraft has increased… The maximum amount of shots an aa can shoot is the amount of planes being brought into the battle( same as before) but if you bring in more aircraft then aa’s can shoot these planes get a free ride.

    As for uk and sealion, taking an enemy capital before turn 6 should never happen in the first place.  You should only be able to take uk with Germany by making a full commitment or a major blunder on uks part


  • It should be very interesting with the allies reduced income,  maybe during playtesting they found that the allies needed a little help because the reduced income hurt too much.  I will give my full honest opinion after about 10 games.


  • Good point Peck - it’s important to note that if Sealion were as easy for Germany in WWII as it had been in Global, it probably would have happened, and none of us would be playing A&A. Or we’d be playing a different version, in which the Axis always win or we get shot in the back of the head. We’d all be descendants of parents of beaten nations, and we’d be celebrating Hitler Remebrance Day, and looking forward to the next 930 years of the Thousand Year Reich.

    The game is ok with a tough-to-achieve Sealion.


  • The more I think about it the new aa rules hurt the allies.  In the case of large airforces (Germany and japan) their power is diminished,  allies now have to spend ipcs to have the same protection they had before.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @mantlefan:

    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).

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Peck:

    The more I think about it the new aa rules hurt the allies.  In the case of large airforces (Germany and japan) their power is diminished,  allies now have to spend ipcs to have the same protection they had before.

    Agreed, which is why I think England has 4 AA Guns.  It allows England to have a shot at every attacking German aircraft if they build no more aircraft and bring all to bear on England.  The fodder value is negligable really, a one turn delay by Germany would give them SIGNIFICANTLY more punch to hit England with if they really wanted it.  (I think 2 submarines are a much better value, honestly.)

    England: 6 IPC
    Scotland: 2 IPC

    1 German submarine does 3 dmg, 2 submarines can knock out England AND Scotland from SZ 109.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @DTDeGrave:

    Peck,

    Remember that the AA guns are targeting the attackers most powerful units ‘exclusively’, and each one now has a 50% chance of making one hit.  The fact that they ‘may’ be taken as causualties means that you now have a choice, much as an attacker must decide in the last rounds of attack to take aircraft as causualties if occupation is to occur.

    No they do not!

    AA Guns target ALL aircraft, not specific ones.  So the attacker can still select fighter, tactical bomber or strategic bomber.
    AA Guns can only fire ONCE per aircraft UP TO three attacking aircraft each.  (so for all 4 guns to fire all their shots, Germany has to attack with 12 or more aircraft.)  They do not fire 3 times at each plane.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Stalingradski:

    DTDeGrave - rmember that AA Guns used to have unlimited power against aircraft… 15 fighters meant 15 shots. That was a 100% chance to kill 2.5, by the math you’re using. Now, we’ve been given the tools to make more nuanced choices with positioning, and with purchasing. I’m thinking a few more AA with Russia, even with 6 already on the board, is a nice idea. I’m thinking that Italy will want a few more to defend the underbelly, considering that the US will have an ever-expanding air presence.

    I don’t believe 5 IPCs for an AA Gun will feel like such a hard purchase to make, now that they’re considered a casualty (finally).

    Eh, 6 for Russia is probably enough, I dont think I’d need to buy more.  India, Japan and 1 for S. Africa would most likely be all that you see built, and the defender would almost certianly have to rebuild one on a capitol each round if it was attacked consistently.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

41

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts