OOB, Alpha 1, 2, 3

@Travelman:

… or is there surprise attack capability lost since they are not accompanied by destroyers?

Actually it is the attacker’s destroyer that cancels the defending sub’s surprise strike ability.
A defending destroyer would cancel the attacking sub’s surprise strike ability.

Yes, the territory IPC value limitations still apply.

I think there is still a consensus that the allies are in favor at the moment.  However I believe the current rules are so close that it is going to take a few back and forths of which power is ascendant before we settle on the true leader.  That being said, I think leaving many of the rules as is would be fine.  Perhaps a reworking of NO’s, but leaving them at the same value.  You appear to be saying that depriving US of that initial 30ipc’s in NO’s their first round of war might do the trick as well?  This is entirely possible, if going this route however I prefer the idea of making US pay to upgrade their IC’s.  This equals about the same amount and doesn’t mean the US is getting a ‘free’ upgrade.

I dont know if this is off on another subject but I wanted to post the results from this weekend……    the Axis have another victory!  Barbarossa on G3. They had better rolls at most of the key battles  A couple of different rolls at a few of the key battles and It would have been diff.    Especially in sea zone 6 for me, Oh well what can ya do. Next time It will be different

Thanks for the post, Frank.  Yep, you pretty much summed up a few of the many reasons why OOB is fatally flawed, and you have the 30-35 games to back it up.

I get the feeling from my few games of Alpha2 so far (not going too crazy playing it - just a couple games at a time because it will probably be changed anyway) that the Allies still have a significant advantage in Alpha2.  But I have to admit none of the games have lasted even more than a few rounds (with the Axis getting obliterated each time) so maybe those oil field NO’s could really come into play sometimes I suppose.

To me, Russia and USA have suffocating power (Russia is very deep, and as Larry himself acknowledged - he wondered if it was 1 territory too deep), and the UK can be very powerful as well.

USA effectively gets +31. albeit split on two sides. Japan and Germany can potentially make a bit more money. Especially with those two ICs to make haste and the mechanized infantry rule changes (which in practice usually benefits Japan).

The race is on! More action less turtling.

May have to minus one of the added ICs to japan.

Before you know it, every territory will have a Airbase / Minor / Navalbase,  There will be more political rules than ever, and victory conditions will be reduced to “play until someone else gives up.”
I couldnt agree with you more.

@13thguardsriflediv:

Planes were mostly used to attack sz 111, 112, Yugo and France. It is why sz 110 did not get hit. The other seazones west of England and east of Canada were hit by subs. No German fighters landed in southern Italy to help against Taranto which was an oversight.

UK would have thought twice if without the cruiser and facing three fighters. But maybe not, sometimes I like dicey battles (no risk no glory).

If the U.K. pulls that carrier out of the Med. then it can join the Indian fleet to help defend the Indies and if the U.S. is building enough navy in the Pacific the allies can put a lot of pressure on Japan. Japan cannot move south unless they bring a sizeable navy which will leave the home islands open to invasion by the U.S.