Ironically, I agree with Cow on this one. Russia could use a bomber. This alone could balance the game. Maybe a UK sub in the Med also.
Worst Alpha Modifications
-
@mantlefan:
Maybe because sealion is severely hampered?
No! no no no no no, we are not getting back on this topic, its been discussed to death! lets focuse on the changes and not sealion strats again. Heres an intresting one
@Clyde85:Im pouring money into trying to get jet fighters as Germany and getting nothing! Whats going on here, is the German jet-engine research team spending all the money ive been investing on trying to make the Me262 out of fudge!?! I mean, orignal thinking team and all but whats the bloody point!(outside of trying make very dilicious lufwaffe pilots)
I still laugh at this :-D
-
@mantlefan:
Maybe because sealion is severely hampered?
No! no no no no no, we are not getting back on this topic, its been discussed to death! lets focuse on the changes and not sealion strats again. Heres an intresting one
@Clyde85:Im pouring money into trying to get jet fighters as Germany and getting nothing! Whats going on here, is the German jet-engine research team spending all the money ive been investing on trying to make the Me262 out of fudge!?! I mean, orignal thinking team and all but whats the bloody point!(outside of trying make very dilicious lufwaffe pilots)
I still laugh at this :-D
ya, thats not bad.
-
@mantlefan:
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
Worst change? Getting rid of the British units in France and not replacing them with some or all French units!
Why would you say that? Without those pesky British units, the French territories are even easier for Germany to take now. C’mon, admit it. You WANT for Germany to take over France easier. Look at the words under your avatar. Are they French? NO, they are GERMAN! You WANT Germany to take ALL of France and rub it into non-existence! Join me, and complete your journey to the dark side. As Darth Sideous might say, “It is inevitable. You, like your avatar, are now mine.”
If you want the honest truth, I want the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to take over France. :P
Yes removing 20 IPC worth of British units from France makes it easier to take. Why did Larry pick on the British??? They also lost 30 IPC in Bases!
Maybe because sealion is severely hampered?
Not anymore it is not. It’s even easier now than it was in Alpha 2 given that it’s significantly harder for the British to get planes back, a plane was straight up removed and another was turned into a virtual nothing unit (Strategic Bomber) for defense.
-
@mantlefan:
So getting planes back are the only factor affecting Sealion? That’s good to know because I was about to actually think of the big picture instead of one isolated factor.
Yes, pretty much the ONLY factor. Without the planes, England has no high value defense pieces resulting in far fewer hits which in turn means Germany needs to dedicate less to the attack.
Fewer planes on the mainland also means less division of the Luftwaffe meaning more Luftwaffe available for the attack.
So yes, the only thing effecting SEA LION success rate (that changed it from a bone headed maneuver to a very valid and strong maneuver again) is the loss of British ability to get planes back to England fast. Notice, this has no bearing at all on Russia or America or what Australia or India might do, I am only talking about success rate of Sea Lion.
13 Transports, 2 loads = 26 ground units on England + 12 aircraft (since Germany got an extra Strategic Bomber.)
England: -5 units on the mainland, -3 fighters from Med/Africa
Battle looks like:Germany: 2 Strategic Bomber, 5 Fighters, 5 Tactical Bombers, 30 Infantry, 8 Artillery, 9 Armor, 4 Mech
England: 1 Strategic Bomber, 5 Fighters (including 1 French fighter), 22 Infantry, 1 Armor, 4 AA Guns
Odds of Success: 100%
Investment: 84 IPC for Transports, 3 IPC for Infantry, plus a few warships. Total needed: 100 IPC, amazingly enough, you start with 30, you get 19 from France and you get 51 for Round 2 which, coincidentally, is 100 IPC! And you may not need that 1 infantry, I am just assuming battles went REALLY badly in France and you are too lazy to walk a guy up.(Note, I treated each defending AA Gun as if it was an infantry unit, this skews the results in favor of England.)
-
I always attempted sealion in Alpha+2, and it was far from a bone headed strategy. However, in Alpha+3, it’s not the British fighters or valuable defense units that worry me (they never did) its the early Russian entry when London falls, and the missing $5 NO, thats preventing me from landing in England.
-
@Cmdr:
Not anymore it is not. It’s even easier now than it was in Alpha 2 given that it’s significantly harder for the British to get planes back, a plane was straight up removed and another was turned into a virtual nothing unit (Strategic Bomber) for defense.
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said, but I’d like to clarify that the bomber was added. It did not replace any fighter in London.
-
The Russians coming in early and the missing NO do not effect how easy it is to destroy England, they only impact the wiseness of the act. Mantlefan was on about how the missing planes were not the only factor effecting the ease of Sea Lion and I went on to show how they are, in fact, the only factor effecting the ease of completing Sea Lion.
Can the Russians walk into Finland, Poland, Hungary and Romania? Probably. Will it allow them to win? I don’t know. Will it stop Germany from winning? I don’t know. The big change is that now you don’t need Moscow to win - because you supplanted it with London. Will that make it easier for Germany to win? I don’t know. What do I know? That Sea Lion is easier today than it was in Alpha 2 and certainly a far cry easier today than it was the day Alpha 3 was released!
-
Jennifer, UK didn’t lost any fighter in London. The bomber was actually added for “free”, UK still gets 2 fighters in london, 1 french fighter in london, 1 fighter in scotland.
The airforce in the medi can reach London with the same ease as in alpha2, when they had airbases.
UK lost 1 fighter in Normandy, but they gained 3 more hits and 1@1 (the bomber).
Remember that the normandy fighter was usually killed G1…
The only real change is the second German bomber, but I don’t believe 1 unit changes the situation so badly. Also, I played as allied alpha+3 quite few times, and I can assure you Russia can become a monster even without Germany dedicating 100% on sea lion… And I don’t send russian transports to eire…
In my last game experience, Germany focused on Russia, Italy won the medi very easily and as Russia, I pushed enough forces north of leningrad to take Finland, Norway and then at later turns Sweden. The UK was providing me fighters for defence.
Germany easily got Leningrad but he was put on hold there, my production value was around 50…
-
In my last game experience, Germany focused on Russia, Italy won the medi very easily (….)my production value was around 50…
Unless US has been focusing nearly 100 % Europe from the start, this is not suposed to happen….
-
Here’s what happened:
My opponent during G1 bought only ground forces. This made possible for me to sink the starting German fleet with UK’s airforce and the surviving fleet (1bb 1cr 1dd).
Thanks to this “mistake” (And I don’t think it’s really a mistake, it’s just a different option) I decided to buy something different during R1. I bought 3 tanks and then infantries.
3 arms went in Leningrad, and Leningrad forces moved in the territory above it (don’t remember the name right now)When Germany DOW’d Russia, I conquered Finland, then Norway. This gave me an 11 IPC bonus. (but a higher shift, due to Germany loosing the Scandinavia NO)
Thanks to my move, Germany had an easy way to Leningrad, taking it very easily (I deserted it), but he didn’t had enough forces to get back Scandinavia, that had a decent sized force of Russians with a backup of 7+ UK fighters.
Due to my positioning I also decided to attacked the true neutrals on the same round with 3 different nations:
Russia took Sweden (+6IPC)
US took Spain and treated France from there
UK took Turkey -
Here’s what happened:
My opponent during G1 bought only ground forces. This made possible for me to sink the starting German fleet with UK’s airforce and the surviving fleet (1bb 1cr 1dd).
Thanks to this “mistake” (And I don’t think it’s really a mistake, it’s just a different option) I decided to buy something different during R1. I bought 3 tanks and then infantries.
3 arms went in Leningrad, and Leningrad forces moved in the territory above it (don’t remember the name right now)When Germany DOW’d Russia, I conquered Finland, then Norway. This gave me an 11 IPC bonus. (but a higher shift, due to Germany loosing the Scandinavia NO)
Thanks to my move, Germany had an easy way to Leningrad, taking it very easily (I deserted it), but he didn’t had enough forces to get back Scandinavia, that had a decent sized force of Russians with a backup of 7+ UK fighters.
Due to my positioning I also decided to attacked the true neutrals on the same round with 3 different nations:
Russia took Sweden (+6IPC)
US took Spain and treated France from there
UK took TurkeyOk, i get it !
If Germany lose his fleet then he has no control over Norway and Novgorod. That alone is enough for Russia to have a good game against Germany. But if you are in position to take the true neutrals on top of that… -
Yeah, it was a great game for Russia!
I was in position of attacking the Neutrals later on, and that’s cause Russia was making so much money that I was definitely ad advantage…It’s monstrous what Russia can do with the new NO if Germany is careless in scandinavia! Having a decent fleet with at least 3 transport would prevent that probably though.
-
@mantlefan:
Germany having allegedly a possibly easier time of gaining London is meaningless if it costs them the game. Sealion is not a relevantly better Axis strat for winning the game from the first draft of Alpha 3. From Alpha 2, it is still much worse.
Sealion is still dead as a good strat (not as a possible one :roll:). The current draft of A3 doesn’t change that from the first draft.
I dont agree that Sea Lion is a bad strat now. Given the significantly increased German punch, when compared to the pitiful British defensive punch, Germany is in a better position to take London now than it ever was in Alpha 2. Mainly because they dont need to invest as much, they dont need to send as much (I went with almost max, but you can easily downgrade a lot from what I listed and still have 90% or better odds) and they need far less to accomplish all they want in round 1 (actually possible to hit and win in ALL engagements AND add in S. France now) that it might actually be a far better option than Barbarossa!
-
@Cmdr:
@mantlefan:
Germany having allegedly a possibly easier time of gaining London is meaningless if it costs them the game. Sealion is not a relevantly better Axis strat for winning the game from the first draft of Alpha 3. From Alpha 2, it is still much worse.
Sealion is still dead as a good strat (not as a possible one :roll:). The current draft of A3 doesn’t change that from the first draft.
I dont agree that Sea Lion is a bad strat now. Given the significantly increased German punch, when compared to the pitiful British defensive punch, Germany is in a better position to take London now than it ever was in Alpha 2. Mainly because they dont need to invest as much, they dont need to send as much (I went with almost max, but you can easily downgrade a lot from what I listed and still have 90% or better odds) and they need far less to accomplish all they want in round 1 (actually possible to hit and win in ALL engagements AND add in S. France now) that it might actually be a far better option than Barbarossa!
I absolutely disagree with your opinion, but if you think so my advice is to implement your awesome 90% win ratio Sea Lion in every game u’r playing Germany.
-
@Cmdr:
@mantlefan:
Germany having allegedly a possibly easier time of gaining London is meaningless if it costs them the game. Sealion is not a relevantly better Axis strat for winning the game from the first draft of Alpha 3. From Alpha 2, it is still much worse.
Sealion is still dead as a good strat (not as a possible one :roll:). The current draft of A3 doesn’t change that from the first draft.
I dont agree that Sea Lion is a bad strat now. Given the significantly increased German punch, when compared to the pitiful British defensive punch, Germany is in a better position to take London now than it ever was in Alpha 2. Mainly because they dont need to invest as much, they dont need to send as much (I went with almost max, but you can easily downgrade a lot from what I listed and still have 90% or better odds) and they need far less to accomplish all they want in round 1 (actually possible to hit and win in ALL engagements AND add in S. France now) that it might actually be a far better option than Barbarossa!
I absolutely disagree with your opinion, but if you think so my advice is to implement your awesome 90% win ratio Sea Lion in every game u’r playing Germany.
I already showed that Germany had 100% with full thrust. Getting down to 90% just requires pulling some units off (probably less armor so they can stay on the mainland.)
-
@mantlefan:
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
@mantlefan:
Germany having allegedly a possibly easier time of gaining London is meaningless if it costs them the game. Sealion is not a relevantly better Axis strat for winning the game from the first draft of Alpha 3. From Alpha 2, it is still much worse.
Sealion is still dead as a good strat (not as a possible one :roll:). The current draft of A3 doesn’t change that from the first draft.
I dont agree that Sea Lion is a bad strat now. Given the significantly increased German punch, when compared to the pitiful British defensive punch, Germany is in a better position to take London now than it ever was in Alpha 2. Mainly because they dont need to invest as much, they dont need to send as much (I went with almost max, but you can easily downgrade a lot from what I listed and still have 90% or better odds) and they need far less to accomplish all they want in round 1 (actually possible to hit and win in ALL engagements AND add in S. France now) that it might actually be a far better option than Barbarossa!
I absolutely disagree with your opinion, but if you think so my advice is to implement your awesome 90% win ratio Sea Lion in every game u’r playing Germany.
I already showed that Germany had 100% with full thrust. Getting down to 90% just requires pulling some units off (probably less armor so they can stay on the mainland.)
But how many times does it need to be said that such a statement is useless w/o looking at the big picture? With the boost to USSR’s NO, it’s even more important for Germany to get on Russia early and hard. The investment for Sealion may somehow be less than A2, but the rewards are FAR less…
I am looking at the big picture.
No NO, but 1 less ally attacking your Western Flank. Does it balance out? Well, if you don’t lose a few hundred IPCs worth of equipment, like you did in Alpha 2, then hellz yea it is worth it! The NO is, at best +50 IPC over the life of the game, after all. So in 10 Rounds of Battle, you got a measely one extra round’s worth of income. That’s great, don’t get me wrong, but it’s the the end all be all of what should dictate your strategy! Otherwise, Russia should immediately resign the game the instant they cannot liberate SZ 125 and reclaim their NO. After all, 10 rounds of SZ 125 NO = 10 Rounds of London NO!
-
Not really interested in reading 20 pages about this again. However, I would love to read reports about games played using the latest Alpha+3 rules, in which there was a successful sealion operation leading toward an Axis win.
-
While it may be easier for Germany to take London now, I think it will only work if Japan is very aggresive in the Pacific. With the new rules saying that both USA and USSR can attack Germany once London falls, Japan really needs to do whatever they can to keep USA’s attention focused mostly in the Pacific. If USA puts most of their stuff in the Atlantic, USA and USSR will squeeze Germany. At the very least, USA is sure to liberate London which puts Germany in the position of having to deal with UK and USSR at the same time.
On the other hand, if the USA and USSR are busy pounding on Germany, maybe it will give Japan the time to win the game in the Pacific. I still think the Axis has an easier time of it only having to win on one board or the other. A lot of you guys say that the Allies have better chance to win but I just don’t see it. Maybe it’s just our strategies, but the Axis win the majority of our games.
That being said, there is a huge difference between capturing the required number of victory cities and total victory. In a few of our games, we decided to keep playing even though the Axis won with victory cities. In just about every game, eventually the Allies end up overcoming the Axis. -
@Young:
Not really interested in reading 20 pages about this again. However, I would love to read reports about games played using the latest Alpha+3 rules, in which there was a successful sealion operation leading toward an Axis win.
I can’t do that, I have not played the Axis yet. I can give you an INSANELY powerful Russia, however. (Ireland, Finland, Norway all in control of Russia + large contingent headed out to crush the Japanese and large army containing Germany/Italy.)
-
While it may be easier for Germany to take London now, I think it will only work if Japan is very aggresive in the Pacific. With the new rules saying that both USA and USSR can attack Germany once London falls, Japan really needs to do whatever they can to keep USA’s attention focused mostly in the Pacific. If USA puts most of their stuff in the Atlantic, USA and USSR will squeeze Germany. At the very least, USA is sure to liberate London which puts Germany in the position of having to deal with UK and USSR at the same time.
On the other hand, if the USA and USSR are busy pounding on Germany, maybe it will give Japan the time to win the game in the Pacific. I still think the Axis has an easier time of it only having to win on one board or the other. A lot of you guys say that the Allies have better chance to win but I just don’t see it. Maybe it’s just our strategies, but the Axis win the majority of our games.
That being said, there is a huge difference between capturing the required number of victory cities and total victory. In a few of our games, we decided to keep playing even though the Axis won with victory cities. In just about every game, eventually the Allies end up overcoming the Axis.That was always true, however. America can either pummel Germany or pummel Japan because Larry gave them WAY too much money to spend, in my opinion. (I’d like to see USA reduced to 50 IPC and make the islands worth more to USA. Maybe something like: Iwo Jima worth 1 + 5 American NO, Okinawa worth 1 + 5 American NO, Algeria, Morrocco, Tunis, FIC, Carolines, Marshalls, Formosa, Hainan the same.)
Suggested Topics
