Alpha 4?
-
@Cmdr:
AA Guns can fire 3 shots in round 1 and 1 shot in round 2;
I think AA-guns should start to behave just like the other units and roll one die each turn. It looks mad that AA-guns only fire at aircrafts during the first wave and ignore them the next day. I mean, a turn is like 3 or more months right, and the aircrafts go home and refuel and load more ammo between every die-rolls, right, but the AA-gun crews is a bunch of lazy retards who only do their job the first day.
So basically I think that every round of battle should start with AA-gun fire.
Each AA-gun roll one die that target one aircraft if its a hit. Then combat as usual.
This goes on and on as long as you have Aa-guns. -
So, they can fire at planes(attacker chooses which planes to lose) every turn? If it was only one shot per turn, per AA, that could be good. Though it would probably create some problems.
-
This certainly makes more sense than the arbitrary 3 units. Does this shot occur before the attacking aircraft get to fire? I ask because I feel that sneak shot is crucial in order to vary the dice of the attacker prior to any rolling. Not knowing how many units you’re going to have make it into the attack is a great variable.
-
OK here is a simple idea that might help solve the issue of London and Calcutta being too vulnerable to attacks that are excessively plane-heavy:
AA guns fire at up to 3 planes before the first round in territories that do not contain a victory city. In territories that contain a victory city, they fire at up to 3 planes before EACH round of combat.
This idea came from reading this thread so I put it here; maybe should be in House Rules.
BTW I like the idea of bids with AA guns, USSR having some artillery in Sakha, and China producing anything they want in captured ICs.
-
China should really only be able to produce infantry. The arty are almost too powerful but needed from a game perspective, and the ftr should be able to be replaced by the US. I could perhaps see them being able to produce aa guns if needed.
I say this because China in the 40’s was vastly different than China today. They were an agrarian economy that saw ‘commerce’ as a foreign invasion.(example, Chinese riots and attempts to nationalize foreign built rail lines, even though the peasants benefited from the rail lines and could not benefit if the lines were nationalized) When most of your population are farm peasants, pretty much all you have is manpower.
Now China did have some industrialized areas, and they were the first people in history to create a specialized cottage industry in the shanghai region, but that had been a few hundred years earlier, and modernity had not hit China in the 40s. Chinese reformers were busy trying to establish factories that would produce the things you needed just to build factories! They had a long way to go and we are now just seeing the end results today.
-
JimmyHat:
I agree, China at the time was agrarian and not industrial, but they would have been able to capture a factory and, if they could get supplies from India, perhaps, would have been able to use it to churn out units for themselves. Also, realistically, they would have captured some Japanese equipment, they didn’t lose every battle, you know? Just a thought, not saying it has to be or even should be, just something to consider.
I like the American rule for replacing the fighter (house rule): America lands a plane in China. After America’s next round, if the plane has survived and has not moved at all, then during China’s place new units phase they can convert the plane to Chinese. This gives Japan, essentially, two rounds to kill the thing.
Vance:
I like it, but maybe 3 shots round 1, and 1 shot each additional round - per surviving AA Gun.
-
I don’t understand why you all want to make AA Guns more powerful than they already are. As it is, each single AA Gun gets to fire at up to three attacking aircraft. Granted, they only hit on a “1”, but any of those hits will kill the attacking aircraft with no shots from the aircraft whatsoever. A lucky roll by the defender and it can get very expensive for the attacker, not to mention his/her ground forces losing that all important air support. Then, on top of this, after they have taken pot shots at the attacking aircraft, you can use these same AA guns to soak up hits and save actual “shooting back” units for another round of combat. In a close battle, even one or two extra hits could make the difference.
Frankly, I think they are strong enough just as they are. Fire the FIRST round of combat only. Also, for any of you that think this is not probable, consider this: by the 2nd round of combat, you could consider the two sides “fully engaged”. In other words, attacking planes and defending planes would be going after each other in the skies. In that case, you don’t want to be blasting away with AA fire for fear of hitting your own planes. It’s the same idea as cruisers and battleships only providing shore bombardment on the first round of combat. If they kept trying to bombard the shore in further rounds, they take the chance of blowing up the attacking forces.By the way, I do think it would be cool if China could capture a Japanese IC and make artillery and even tanks. Plus, I have always thought that if the Chinese fighter were lost, USA could fly another over to replace it. In fact, since the US was supplying China with most of their war goods, I don’t see why the US couldn’t fly more fighters over to become Chinese, like say a max of 2-3. After all, it would be kind of silly for the US to fly over 10+ planes and suddenly China has this huge air force.
-
I don’t understand why you all want to make AA Guns more powerful than they already are. As it is, each single AA Gun gets to fire at up to three attacking aircraft. Granted, they only hit on a “1”, but any of those hits will kill the attacking aircraft with no shots from the aircraft whatsoever. A lucky roll by the defender and it can get very expensive for the attacker, not to mention his/her ground forces losing that all important air support. Then, on top of this, after they have taken pot shots at the attacking aircraft, you can use these same AA guns to soak up hits and save actual “shooting back” units for another round of combat. In a close battle, even one or two extra hits could make the difference.
Frankly, I think they are strong enough just as they are. Fire the FIRST round of combat only. Also, for any of you that think this is not probable, consider this: by the 2nd round of combat, you could consider the two sides “fully engaged”. In other words, attacking planes and defending planes would be going after each other in the skies. In that case, you don’t want to be blasting away with AA fire for fear of hitting your own planes. It’s the same idea as cruisers and battleships only providing shore bombardment on the first round of combat. If they kept trying to bombard the shore in further rounds, they take the chance of blowing up the attacking forces.By the way, I do think it would be cool if China could capture a Japanese IC and make artillery and even tanks. Plus, I have always thought that if the Chinese fighter were lost, USA could fly another over to replace it. In fact, since the US was supplying China with most of their war goods, I don’t see why the US couldn’t fly more fighters over to become Chinese, like say a max of 2-3. After all, it would be kind of silly for the US to fly over 10+ planes and suddenly China has this huge air force.
I agree 100%
-
Making AA guns more powerful (e.g. fire at 3 planes before the first round; fire at 1 plane before subsequent rounds in victory cities) would increase the deterrent to Germany and Japan slamming London or Calcutta with a big pile of planes and relatively little ground forces. It makes these attacks either more costly (i.e. in transports, tanks and the time it takes to build them) or more risky (i.e. too many expensive planes can be lost). Those planes will be needed later.
-
@Vance:
Making AA guns more powerful (e.g. fire at 3 planes before the first round; fire at 1 plane before subsequent rounds in victory cities) would increase the deterrent to Germany and Japan slamming London or Calcutta with a big pile of planes and relatively little ground forces. It makes these attacks either more costly (i.e. in transports, tanks and the time it takes to build them) or more risky (i.e. too many expensive planes can be lost). Those planes will be needed later.
I disagree 100%
-
So with all the talk I have heard saying that the game is unbalanced and it’s too hard on the Axis, now you want to boost the power of AA Guns so it is even harder for the Axis to advance? Sorry, I just can’t go along with that. I don’t really care much for these invasions with massive air fleets and very few ground forces either, even though I have done it myself on a number of occasions. It almost seems like cheating, especially with Japan starting out with such a huge air force. Still, sometimes you just can’t get enough ground units to the front and when you see an opportunity, you got to take it. But making AA Guns into some sort of superweapon that keeps firing on aircraft through the entire combat phase isn’t the way to cure this. Unless my cruisers and battleships can fire support each combat round. If there was a naval battle, then they don’t get to support my troops the first round of combat, but from the 2nd round on they can. Is this ludacris? Perhaps, but I don’t see it as any different than always firing AA guns.
-
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
Also, keep in mind you fire ALL AA Gun shots simultanoiusly, the attack can designate what target is hit, if anything was hit. So just forget about killing strategic bombers with them in either of the battles. ^_^
-
@Young:
@Vance:
Making AA guns more powerful (e.g. fire at 3 planes before the first round; fire at 1 plane before subsequent rounds in victory cities) would increase the deterrent to Germany and Japan slamming London or Calcutta with a big pile of planes and relatively little ground forces. It makes these attacks either more costly (i.e. in transports, tanks and the time it takes to build them) or more risky (i.e. too many expensive planes can be lost). Those planes will be needed later.
I disagree 100%
….
With what?!If AA is stronger, there is great risk to planes. Therefore the plane-heavy Axis will do risky attacks using their air power less.
You can’t disagree with that logic. -
@Cmdr:
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
I agree that the Axis have been buffed significantly. In fact I think the current set-up favors them, particularly in Europe.
However a smart UK will probably prevent you from taking London on G3. And on G4, is it even worth it even more? Compared to Alpha 2, London is quite a bit safer - everything is the same, but UK has 4 more hits, and Germany has 1 more Strat and a transported Artillery can be replaced by an Armor. UK’s change is more significant.
And I still question taking Calcutta by J4. I don’t doubt it’s possible but still have some questions. Japan shouldn’t have a landing spot for its planes (Yunnan or Shan State) as long as India blocked correctly and took those territories back from Burma.
-
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Grasshopper:
I think he’s only talking about the AA Gun increase on Victory Cities. (Which makes it too complicated for Larry to add to the game I think) but that would mean E. Poland won’t be changed, but France would.
-
@Cmdr:
Who the hell is saying it’s too hard for the Axis in Alpha 3???
Seriously, by round 4 if you don’t have both London and Calcutta, you’re doing it wrong! Hence the talk about doing something to beef them up a little without making them stronger in their attacks, in my case anyway.
Also, keep in mind you fire ALL AA Gun shots simultanoiusly, the attack can designate what target is hit, if anything was hit. So just forget about killing strategic bombers with them in either of the battles. ^_^
Jen, my group and I consider ourselves to be above average players and there is some concern between us that the Axis have it tough. We respect your opinions, but the ease in which you describe a sealion operation in Alpha+3 baffles us as much as how you plan to protect the eastern front when Russia enters after London falls. Is there a link you can send me that describes your plans in detail? I don’t have battlemap on my computer so I prefer not to try and decipher online games. I love sealion, and I was hoping you could start a thread on how I can pull it off with a balance of risk vs reward. Thanks.
-
@Cmdr:
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense. -
shouldn’t be too hard Hop just go to play board games and look at the first couple of german turns seems like alot of people are doing sealion
-
@Cmdr:
Alsch91:
Tell you what. Play me in a game and I’ll demonstrate how it is impossible for England to prevent Sea Lion due to the loss of 2 fighters and airbases.
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense.A second fighter was lost when it was turned into a strategic bomber.
-
@Cmdr:
Jen, I’ve seen you say this on many occasions, but you’re not quite right here.
UK only lost the Fig in Normandy (which, in Sealion games, always died anyway). They lost no other planes. None.
So in a Sealion defense, UK will have the same fighter defense.
The loss of airbases sucks though.
They also have the Strategic bomber added, so that’s even one more hit for defense.A second fighter was lost when it was turned into a strategic bomber.
Hey Jen, you need to recheck the Alpha+3 setup again. UK gets 2 fighters in London + 1 Strategic Bomber. The bomber was added to London, not replacing a fighter. Only the UK fighter in Normandy was lost.
Suggested Topics
