Alpha 3 Intelligence Report - Straight from the front lines!


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @gamerman01:

    @Cmdr:

    @gamerman01:

    Wow, an official mention of Alpha 3?  That piques MY interest!  (But not enough to go scouring over Larry’s site finding tidbits yet  :-P)

    So far it seems that there is agreement to move one of America’s NOs out of the Pacific and make it Eurocentric.  This to end the, so far, OverPowered American Pac-Strat (in part) and to encourage America to spend some moeny in the Atlantic.

    Larry’s current thought is leaning towards 2 IPC per American transport in the N. Atlantic/C. Atlantic up to 6 IPC.  There are also changes to SBR (no details yet) and some other minor things.  As for concrete changes that you can go find, Gamer, none yet.

    Thanks for the summary, Jenn!!

    Just to start a thread to track what’s being said about the upcoming Alpha 3.

    Biggest Concern, appears to be, the lack of American involvement in Europe AT ALL and how effective it is - currently….



  • So get rid of Mexican, replace with that?  Mhhm, why wouldn’t they just build up a small navy with 3 transports, then go back to the Pacific?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Zallomallo:

    So get rid of Mexican, replace with that?  Mhhm, why wouldn’t they just build up a small navy with 3 transports, then go back to the Pacific?

    Yes, these are the issues we are discussing, and in fact, I made mention that there should be a limit on what sea zones these transports can be located in, as SZ 1 and SZ 86 don’t seem appropriate (amoungst others.)

    If it is transports, I think they should be in SZ 109-127 except SZ 113, 114 and 115 (the Baltic/North Seas).  Make them easy for Germany to shoot down if America and England do not defend them.  Though, I can see this being abused later in the game when England has a 500 IPC fleet (because no Sea Lion happened, glare) and all America does is toss 3 transports in SZ 110 and ends up getting 1 IPC a round more than they are now.

    I’ve pushed for a ground units NO for America where America has ground units in France and / or Greece and / or Egypt.  Harder to abuse without being “honest” with it.



  • I should probably put this on the Harris website, but I like 2 per territory that the US liberates, or takes from European Axis.  (maybe Pro Allied too? probably not)



  • I think its a big mistake to remove the Mexico NO, instead I prefer those NO ipcs to come from the hold the US one.  I have in many games taken away the Mexican NO by capturing Windies and preventing a counter invasion.  Taking away that NO makes moving into the Carribean as the axis not as sweet.

    I do like the italian bmb idea, I have been building those for quite some time.

    I also don’t like his idea of making 3 US trns worth 6 ipcs to Russia.  US can still go 100% pacific and just buy 3 trns that sit in a safe location. (hudson bay) or south atlantic.

    I personally prefer something easier to put together.  US must have 2 to 1 naval superiority over the axis within the confines of the Atlantic Ocean in order to collect 5 ipcs.  This means axis ships in the med or baltic will not count, but all other Atlantic zones would, and US would simply need twice as many ships as the axis can field.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    We’ve been told, in no uncertain terms mind you, that the Continental US NO is sancrosanct and will not, for any reason, be altered or adjusted.

    That only leaves Hawaii, Philippines, 5 of 7 and Mexico, of those, Mexico is the most easily moved as the Hawaii, Philippines and 5 of 7 are relatively easy to take for a round or 2.


  • Sponsor 2017 TripleA '11 '10

    @Cmdr:

    … as the Hawaii, Philippines and 5 of 7 are relatively easy to take for a round or 2.

    And these are also historically accurate. I like the idea of the Normandy or Italy based bonus in place of the Mexico one as well.



  • I just don’t like the NO fix as is now.  Linking it to keeping trns alive just because its historical.  Right now the reason Pacific works so well…as granpa-peepop Cyler from Squidbillies says, Allegedly!.. is because US is rewarded for taking the battle to Japan, stopping their income and grabbing Philippines and various islands.

    A US NO in the Atlantic should have the same need, not some coastal province, but something in the interior like Libya that the US has to go and get in a campaign, not just grab. (or build 3 trns and let them sit idle in the Atlantic as they prosecute the war against Japan like always)


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Gibraltar, Morocco and Algeria (also a historical objective, hell, Montegomery and Patton were there, as was Rommel!) was already shot down.  Libya will be shot down for the same reason, it’s not Europe.


  • '12

    I think that the biggest thing that needs to be changed in Alpha 3 is to either strengthen Italy or weaken Russia.  Rather than reward the US with NO’s for its involvement in the Atlantic, I think that the starting placement needs to be adjusted so that Russia’s survival depends on the US opening a front in Western Europe.

    For the Italians, I would suggest either combining the Italian fleet into 1 sea zone or modify the Italian air force to give it more punch.  As it is, Italy has too few resources to be effective against the Russians and it is never able to stand up to the Americans in the Med.

    As for the Russians, I would eliminate the Archangel bonus when at war… as it is, Russia is able to stand against Germany without US involvement.  I think that decreasing their bonuses while at war is in order.



  • It is so easy to negate the Russian Archangel NO. I have yet to see a game where Russia actually collected it.



  • I feel like all these changes might make it swing the other way.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @taschuler:

    It is so easy to negate the Russian Archangel NO. I have yet to see a game where Russia actually collected it.

    Really?  I generally have it for every round that I am at war except for just before America moves in to save me.



  • @JeffM:

    I think that the biggest thing that needs to be changed in Alpha 3 is to either strengthen Italy or weaken Russia.  Rather than reward the US with NO’s for its involvement in the Atlantic, I think that the starting placement needs to be adjusted so that Russia’s survival depends on the US opening a front in Western Europe.

    For the Italians, I would suggest either combining the Italian fleet into 1 sea zone or modify the Italian air force to give it more punch.  As it is, Italy has too few resources to be effective against the Russians and it is never able to stand up to the Americans in the Med.

    As for the Russians, I would eliminate the Archangel bonus when at war… as it is, Russia is able to stand against Germany without US involvement.  I think that decreasing their bonuses while at war is in order.

    I am very much in agreement with you about Italy.  I asked LH for Italy to get 1 Destroyer so that the half of their fleet with 2 transports would not be destroyed on UK’s first turn so easily and risk free.  I would be thrilled if he just did some combining of the fleet as you suggest or beefing up Italy’s Air Force.  That being said I don’t think he agrees with me about Italy so the best we may see is Italy swapping out one T. Bomber for one S. Bomber.  I don’t think just doing that will result in the balance we are looking for though…


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    He mentioned something about the possibility of relocating the fighter and tactical bomber to S. italy as well, so Germany didn’t have to do that job.


  • Customizer

    @Cmdr:

    He mentioned something about the possibility of relocating the fighter and tactical bomber to S. italy as well, so Germany didn’t have to do that job.

    I think that is one of the best ideas so far.  I never understood why 2/3 of Italy’s air force was in a territory that didn’t have the air base and wasn’t the capital.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Yes, I enjoy it as well.  The talk is relocate Fighter, TB to S. Italy, convert TB into SB.



  • @Cmdr:

    Yes, I enjoy it as well.  The talk is relocate Fighter, TB to S. Italy, convert TB into SB.

    I think it is cool to save some of the German Air Force and all but that means if UK does the fleet raid on it’s first turn Italy will lose most of it’s Air Force with most of it’s Navy.

    That is a large amount of real estate to lose before even taking their first turn…


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    That all depends.  You can still choose to move German fighters there and use those, or you can keep your fighters for Germany nad use the Italian ones.



  • @Cmdr:

    That all depends.  You can still choose to move German fighters there and use those, or you can keep your fighters for Germany nad use the Italian ones.

    That is true and I did not think of that.  That means when the UK takes it’s first turn I get to pick my poison at least 😞

    Any word if LH is going to do anything to give Japan a boost?  I would have preferred to see Italy stronger or Russia weaker but at this point I will be happy with anything the Axis get to give the game more Balance.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Not to my knowledge.  To my knowledge he’s only talking about reassigning equipment in the Atlantic and moving the Mexican NO to anywhere else.



  • @Cmdr:

    Not to my knowledge.  To my knowledge he’s only talking about reassigning equipment in the Atlantic and moving the Mexican NO to anywhere else.

    IMHO the Axis could use a little more help than that.

    It looks like I will have to go back to the drawing board to find a way to win as the Axis against my friends 😞  Operation Sea Lion here I come!


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I have just recommended (yesterday) that perhaps Germany/Italy should only need 7 Victory Cities to win, to offset this, Japan should have 7 Victory Cities to win.  This would allow America to choose which war s/he wants to focus on while punishing America for ignoring one side or the other. (Without America, Japan can easily get 7 VCs.  Without America, Germany/Italy can easily get 7 VCs.  With America, Japan or Germany/Italy might get 7 VCs, if they play strategy!)

    Larry is “considering it”



  • I still like the 6VCs on the Pacific side, 7VC on Euro side would definitely get America involved on Euro side- maybe 😐


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @questioneer:

    I still like the 6VCs on the Pacific side, 7VC on Euro side would definitely get America involved on Euro side- maybe 😐


    I want to test it.  I fear it might be too easy for Japan to get a win if America is dedicating 75% of it’s income to stop Germany…


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 4
  • 3
  • 149
  • 4
  • 203
  • 16
  • 31
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

64
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts