Alpha + 2 > Alpha - 3


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Who’s with me?

    Hell, is OOB > than A-3?



  • @Gargantua:

    Who’s with me?

    Hell, is OOB > than A-3?

    Alpha +2 better than OOB, and the jury is still out on Alpha +3. I like what has been done for the allies, AA Guns and even SBR are a little easier, but what has been done to make the Axis lives easier, I haven’t seen anything significant enough to equal the allies new benefits. For example: One thing I really like is the new Mongolia NAP benefiting the Soviet Union, but one thing I don’t like is that nothing was changed in order for Japan to deal with it. The greatest change I absolutely detest is the fact that Germany’s NO for London is gone. In the true definition of a “National Objective” how does this happen? How is taking the Capital of a power you begin the game at war with…. NOT an NO?



  • The only motivation Russia has to not attack Japan is hoping to get Mongolia.  Therefore I see most people trying to bait Japan into attacking, but I don’t know the particulars yet because I haven’t set up.

    One of the major issues I have is this clunky DOW system, one had hoped clarity would be achieved with Alpha3 instead of murkier waters.  Why not have Mongolia join the side that doesn’t attack.  Perhaps its too simple?



  • @JimmyHat:

    The only motivation Russia has to not attack Japan is hoping to get Mongolia.  Therefore I see most people trying to bait Japan into attacking, but I don’t know the particulars yet because I haven’t set up.

    One of the major issues I have is this clunky DOW system, one had hoped clarity would be achieved with Alpha3 instead of murkier waters.  Why not have Mongolia join the side that doesn’t attack.  Perhaps its too simple?

    Yeah, I don’t see why Mongolia doesn’t simply get activated for the other side on certain conditions.  :?



  • @JimmyHat:

    Why not have Mongolia join the side that doesn’t attack.  Perhaps its too simple?

    You’re right, it’s simple and easy.  But it just doesn’t make much sense.  Mongolia really never would have aligned itself with Japan, given their recent history.



  • @Alsch91:

    @JimmyHat:

    Why not have Mongolia join the side that doesn’t attack.  Perhaps its too simple?

    You’re right, it’s simple and easy.  But it just doesn’t make much sense.  Mongolia really never would have aligned itself with Japan, given their recent history.

    And Stalin would never have cared enough about England, to attack Germany when London falls.



  • @Young:

    @Alsch91:

    @JimmyHat:

    Why not have Mongolia join the side that doesn’t attack.  Perhaps its too simple?

    You’re right, it’s simple and easy.  But it just doesn’t make much sense.  Mongolia really never would have aligned itself with Japan, given their recent history.

    And Stalin would never have cared enough about England, to attack Germany when London falls.

    Well, according to one speech Stalin gave to the politburo, the reason he agreed to the NAP with Germany was to let the two sides fight it out and then dominate in the aftermath.  In the event of an early Sea Lion Germany probably is in a relatively bad position against Russia so it could make sense historically for it to attack then.

    Mongolia is different, though.  It would never have sided with Japan then.



  • (NEWMAN)



  • @Young:

    And Stalin would never have cared enough about England, to attack Germany when London falls.

    Actually this rule, as annoying as it is for gameplay, makes historical sense.
    Ruanek already pointed most of this out, but Stalin had no intention of living up to the NAP permanently.  He knew war with Germany was inevitable, but wanted to wait until Russia’s position was prime.  If Germany succeeded in Sealion, their forces would be very out of position and weakened temporarily.  
    Stalin probably would have ordered the Red Army to advance at that point.  In fact a big part of the Red Army’s failures in the early part of Barbarossa was that it was more prepared for an offensive war into East Europe, rather than the desperate defense against Germany’s blitzkrieg.



  • (NEWMAN)


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Gargantua:

    Who’s with me?

    Hell, is OOB > than A-3?

    Alpha 3 has been out what, a week, and you are condemning it already?

    I am intrigued by the changes to AA Guns and looking forward to seeing how they play out.  Other than that, there are very minor changes. (An American NO was moved to France, the British submarine NO was moved to France, German interdiction was made permanent some extra AA guns were tossed up to make things like Sea Lion harder, but not impossible.)



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


  • 2018 2017 2016 '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.



  • 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.



  • @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.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts