Worst Alpha Modifications



  • There is no way to take out 2 German fighters… Unless you are refering to attacking norway and Ukraine and west russia. This is known as a tripple strike. If you failed in the tripple strike (over 50% of the time you do) Germany easily takes out russia. I had some of the best players in the world try the kill america strategy. Didn’t work at all. There are counters to everything. The main problem with kill america strategy is that the allis can always outproduce the axis in fleet size. Also america can plop down 12-13 infantry a turn if it feels sufficently threatened. Then when america is protected russia is a juggernaught because you put all your eggs into one basket to take out america. I would give you a 5% chance to beat me only if you got extremly lucky with dice on R1.



  • Quote from Mantlefan… reposted due to deletion:

    "It is unreasonable to claim that the “official” definition [of military objective] (if we are to believe that one definiton is the the only possible acceptable one anyways, but let’s not even go there) of Military Objective has to the the exact defintion for National Objective for at least two reasons.

    1. “National” implies a broader context than “Military,” unless the totality of a Nation is 100% purely it’s military, which is practically impossible to achieve, and definitely does not describe any Nation involved in WWII. Please don’t waste time by trying to argue that every single aspect of life and organization in any country in WWII was 100% Military in nature. Please just concede that “National” is broader than “Military” so we can move on.

    It does not when limited to the confines of Axis and Allies which is a purely military game, and I made such delineation at the time.

    2. Larry has obviously not tied the definition National Objective entirely to Military Objective, so if your interpretation is that they are identical, you have not looked at the facts. We don’t have MOs. We have NOs. To look at Military Objective and say that is what NO’s are ignores the fact that Larry obviously disagrees. Please don’t impose your definitions upon other people, especially when two different things are being defined! You saying that MO must apply totally to what an NO is is like me saying that the defintion of a cheetah is what must be used to define a leopard."

    Really?  Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Cairo, Calcutta, London, Sydney, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Washington DC are not military objectives?  They’re ALL military objectives, it’s just a matter of degree!

    Larry does not obviously disagree.  It’s pretty obvious that the original intention of National Objectives was to spread game play around the board.  I believe he said as much when Anniversary came out, but I cannot point you to a direct post, so let’s count it as hearsay.  Anyway, the only NO that does not do this is the Continental US NO, all the rest do.  So, as they say in Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other!  One of these things just does not belong!”

    Now, if he was to reconstrue the objectives and allow for things like Japan to shuffle 10 IPC to the United States on the condition they did not attack Japan or put X number of ships in the Pacific, you’d actually have a leg to stand on when making this argument.  Further, if the United States of America was allowed to declare war on England and join the Axis, then we’d have a game in which diplomacy was part of the game and thus, it would no longer be a PURELY military campaign game.  Then one could make the argument that a national objective was a political objective, not a military one.

    These are the glaring, huge, Grand Canyon sized holes in this argument.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    That is NOT the reason or the post. The reason is something Mantlefan can never repost because it is too obvious to anybody that it was insulting to certain members here.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @theROCmonster:

    There is no way to take out 2 German fighters… Unless you are refering to attacking norway and Ukraine and west russia. This is known as a tripple strike. If you failed in the tripple strike (over 50% of the time you do) Germany easily takes out russia. I had some of the best players in the world try the kill america strategy. Didn’t work at all. There are counters to everything. The main problem with kill america strategy is that the allis can always outproduce the axis in fleet size. Also america can plop down 12-13 infantry a turn if it feels sufficently threatened. Then when america is protected russia is a juggernaught because you put all your eggs into one basket to take out america. I would give you a 5% chance to beat me only if you got extremly lucky with dice on R1.

    I dont have my notecard anymore to remind me what units attack what.  It may have been Norway, Ukraine and E. Europe leaving W. Russia for cleanup duty and I think that’s correct.  There was 75% or better odds of all three succeeding.  I bet Darth could tell you better, I think it was his plan, originally, and it worked AWESOMELY!  But yes, it was an all or nothing move for Russia.  Either they won at least 2 of the 3 (the ones iwth fighters!) or they lost the game for the allies.



  • @Imperious:

    That is NOT the reason or the post. The reason is something Mantlefan can never repost because it is too obvious to anybody that it was insulting to certain members here.

    Ah. Well then I really can’t judge b/c I can’t see the post. However, it seems this post was also deleted. So I have reposted it as a protest against heavy-handed censorship.

    EDIT: lol at red comments. Feeling Larry-like, are we?

    Yup!  It’s a good idea!  Besides, it makes me feel like I run Psicorps, you know, Psicorps is Mother, Psicorps is Father…(ie evil big brother.)


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @The:

    @Imperious:

    That is NOT the reason or the post. The reason is something Mantlefan can never repost because it is too obvious to anybody that it was insulting to certain members here.

    Ah. Well then I really can’t judge b/c I can’t see the post. However, it seems this post was also deleted. So I have reposted it as a protest against heavy-handed censorship.

    Just to be perfectly clear, ban’s happen when the following rules are not adhered too.

    Site rules from the general discussion forum.

    I.4:  Stay on topic.   Mantlefan never stays on topic and seems to go out of his way on a consistent basis to get off topic.

    II.4:  Respect the moderators.   I think it’s pretty clear Mantlefan never follows this rule either.  There is a way to respectively disagree with someone.  IL and I don’t always agree, even when he was a Moderator and I was a User.  Even though we argued and disagreed it never resulted in banning because it was always respectful.

    IV.1: A flame is considered a blatant and ill-intentioned attack on a fellow forum member for a particular post or viewpoint posted by that forum member.  Mantlefan has repeatedly engaged in such behavior.

    V.1:  Photos should be limited to game related photos and WWII related photos.  Anything else is not appropriate for this forum.  Mantlefan has routinely doctored photos of screenshots of this site and posted them as flaming attacks.  One might even call it baiting.

    And for the record, Article II also states that all actions and decisions by the moderators are final, no “ifs, ands or buts.”

    Further, we’ve an agreement between some of the moderators that it’s better to just delete any post with questionable material than try to edit it.  We’ve been taking a lot of heat for editing out things like swear words or out right attacks and trying to keep any constructive material that might be in a post, so we feel it’s better to delete the whole post.

    Now, Fire Knight, your reposting is not an actual quote.  There was a whole other paragraph that contained just out right flames and attacks that was not included in your repost, hence why it was not deleted.

    Is it heavy handed?  I guess some might think so.  Is it better than the alternative?  For our mailboxes it is!


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Also, we just remove posts where people insult others. Their is a huge difference in making a point and telling other people they are dumb, thoughtless, and inferior. That must stop and it will.



  • :roll: Well, Mantlefan obviously did not give me the full quote then, which would indicate that you weren’t being heavy-handed… however I wil be watching  😉


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    He gave you the wrong quote. Deliberately. The many posts that got removed wont be saved by him or reprinted. If they did, he might have to confront his worst fears.

    Here is an example of a past insulting post:

    Great. We are back to what is technically possible. I just hope Larry doesn’t listen to what you’re spouting. I give up. It’s like trying to pull a plow with a cow that doesn’t just pull the other way (away from progressive discussion) but sabotages the plow while she’s at it.

    Russia is weaker. Deluding yourself into thinking it’s stronger makes it real only for you. Your focus determines your reality. But that doesn’t mean your reality is sane, objective, or progressive.
    How wonderful would the world be if everyone used jen’s Manipulate, Exasperate, Ignore Relevance, and Win! debate strategy.

    Who needs progress for the game? All that matters is that Jen looks right.  rolleyes

    You see? He is not making any point at all and just attacking people. He does this with other members and then posts his dirty laundry on other sites. It’s ridiculous how he totally ignores how he behaves and it won’t be tolerated.



  • Back on track, Jenn seems certain the change to the aa gun is a good thing.  Others have even voiced a similar sentiment!  :mrgreen: Both sides of the argument seem to point to individual aa guns and their pro’s and cons vs a sealion or what have you.  Have we scanned the entire board to find the other glaring weaknesses or bonuses of this unit?  What about in out of the way areas?

    I have got to think the change has made ANZAC and India weaker to a concerted Jap attack, China cannot stand up to the Japanese Juggernaut if they go full bore because 1 aa gun is not going to dissuade the 15 aircraft they are bringing to the battle.  I also see vast implications if a Russian player is caught sleeping and cannot retreat all his aa guns to the capital, but most players will make it back.

    I personally don’t like the change to the aa gun and the addition of one in Paris.  If Sealion needed a boost 1 French Inf would have sufficed. Jenn herself has told me she does a UK crush as the Axis and hits India, I would assume this change to the aa gun has facilitated that.  Is that the kind of balance we want?



  • I’m so glad that I was gaming all day rather than listening to this. Anyways, 6 player game, Alpha+3.5, no tech, great fun, and after 10 hours, we had to stop and record the board due to extreme balance. Very tiered now…… zzzzzzz


  • Customizer

    I think the new AA Guns rule is a good thing.  Limiting their fire to just 3 shots maximum I think is more realistic than having a single AA Gun marker getting a shot at every single plane in an attack.  Now at least the attacker finally has a chance at not risking AA fire for at least some of his planes, if he/she attacks with enough of them that is.  If the defender wants more AA coverage, he/she can always buy more AA Guns as there is now no limit to how many you have protecting your territory and they are only 5 IPCs each.
    Also, once the AA guns have taken their shot, being able to use them to soak up hits is a great bonus for the defender.  I have already seen a couple of close battles that were actually decided by those extra hits.  In other words, the defender  KEPT the territory because their AA guns took hits that would have been applied to the last couple of units that survived under the old rules.
    One other thing, I just like using more of the little AA Gun pieces.  I don’t use the cardboard counters.  I like seeing 4 of them stacked up on London and 3 of them stacked up on Berlin.  Kind of surprised that E US and W US only got 2 each.



  • @knp7765:

    I think the new AA Guns rule is a good thing.  Limiting their fire to just 3 shots maximum I think is more realistic than having a single AA Gun marker getting a shot at every single plane in an attack.  Now at least the attacker finally has a chance at not risking AA fire for at least some of his planes, if he/she attacks with enough of them that is.  If the defender wants more AA coverage, he/she can always buy more AA Guns as there is now no limit to how many you have protecting your territory and they are only 5 IPCs each.
    Also, once the AA guns have taken their shot, being able to use them to soak up hits is a great bonus for the defender.  I have already seen a couple of close battles that were actually decided by those extra hits.  In other words, the defender  KEPT the territory because their AA guns took hits that would have been applied to the last couple of units that survived under the old rules.
    One other thing, I just like using more of the little AA Gun pieces.  I don’t use the cardboard counters.  I like seeing 4 of them stacked up on London and 3 of them stacked up on Berlin.  Kind of surprised that E US and W US only got 2 each.

    The true value of the aa gun unit is that it is the only unit that fires at expensive air and not at lowly infantry.  Generally the person taking the casualties doesn’t even get to choose, if the aa gun hits a bmb then you have to lose a bmb and not a ftr.  If you want to hit the enemies air without having to cut through that infantry mega-stack, then aa guns are the only way that can be done.  So why are we making them less valuable in their ability to shoot aircraft down by giving them only 3 shots?  If the reason is because 1 aa gun couldn’t possibly shoot at that many aircraft then please remember that these units are an abstract value and do not represent actual aa guns but rather an air superiority network including radar/interceptors/flak towers/etc.

    I’m more interested in playability than history.



  • I believe the new AA guns might be a little weaker, but don’t underestimate the ability to take a free hit. They are almost like roaming battleships. Able to absorb a hit with the aa guns and keep firing with your other units. This has made russia stronger not weaker. In total they have 6 aa guns. That is 6 extra free hits.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @JimmyHat:

    Back on track, Jenn seems certain the change to the aa gun is a good thing.  Others have even voiced a similar sentiment!  :mrgreen: Both sides of the argument seem to point to individual aa guns and their pro’s and cons vs a sealion or what have you.  Have we scanned the entire board to find the other glaring weaknesses or bonuses of this unit?  What about in out of the way areas?

    Well, first off, I am no longer certain they prevent or delay Sea Lion at all.

    Secondly, I do look at the over all ability of the guns.

    A)  They act as units you can take to prolong a war, allowing, for instance, a Fighter to live an extra round and do more damage - just for example.
    B)  They still cost a pretty penny if you think about it.  5 IPC and it might not do anything before it dies.
    C)  They cannot attack, so it’s up to your enemy to decide if the gun is used at all.
    E)  With more guns on the battlefield, Germany is WAY more inclined to use them on the front with Russia putting the Russian player in a quandry:  Do I risk 33% of my airforce that I cannot afford to replace, or send a tank which will certainly be lost on counter attack?  Given how ridiculous the new Russian NO is, that’s certainly a good thing!
    F)  Nearly all the Allied guns are unaffected by this rule.  How many times do you see the American or Australian guns attacked?  What about the Japanese ones?  Outside of Carolines, I’d daresay never.  Perhaps if one was brought to N. Africa it would be attacked, but even then, odds are it won’t be brought since it’s better to bring a tank.

    I have got to think the change has made ANZAC and India weaker to a concerted Jap attack, China cannot stand up to the Japanese Juggernaut if they go full bore because 1 aa gun is not going to dissuade the 15 aircraft they are bringing to the battle.  I also see vast implications if a Russian player is caught sleeping and cannot retreat all his aa guns to the capital, but most players will make it back.

    Hellz yes it did!  15 Japanese aircraft vs 1 AA Gun resulted in 2 losses in OOB, 15 Japanese aircraft vs 2 AA Guns results in 1 loss in Alpha 3.  Not to mention the risk of 4 or 5 losses to AA Guns in OOB was significantly higher due to unlimited AA Gun shots (1 per plane up to infinite planes.)

    I personally don’t like the change to the aa gun and the addition of one in Paris.  If Sealion needed a boost 1 French Inf would have sufficed. Jenn herself has told me she does a UK crush as the Axis and hits India, I would assume this change to the aa gun has facilitated that.  Is that the kind of balance we want?

    Given all the British units plain deleted from France, I’d like to see 2 or 3 AA Guns in France now!  Or better still, I’ll consider removing the French Gun (which has - to my knowledge - never done serious harm to Germany since last changes) if you add 1 armor to France instead.  Hell, the French even lost an armor in the setup!  Seriously, Germany has the firepower to hit SZ 106, 109, 111, 112, W. France, S. France, France and Yugoslavia in Round 1 with units left over.  We don’t need to weaken France, we need to buff France!


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @JimmyHat:

    @knp7765:

    I think the new AA Guns rule is a good thing.  Limiting their fire to just 3 shots maximum I think is more realistic than having a single AA Gun marker getting a shot at every single plane in an attack.  Now at least the attacker finally has a chance at not risking AA fire for at least some of his planes, if he/she attacks with enough of them that is.  If the defender wants more AA coverage, he/she can always buy more AA Guns as there is now no limit to how many you have protecting your territory and they are only 5 IPCs each.
    Also, once the AA guns have taken their shot, being able to use them to soak up hits is a great bonus for the defender.  I have already seen a couple of close battles that were actually decided by those extra hits.  In other words, the defender  KEPT the territory because their AA guns took hits that would have been applied to the last couple of units that survived under the old rules.
    One other thing, I just like using more of the little AA Gun pieces.  I don’t use the cardboard counters.  I like seeing 4 of them stacked up on London and 3 of them stacked up on Berlin.  Kind of surprised that E US and W US only got 2 each.

    The true value of the aa gun unit is that it is the only unit that fires at expensive air and not at lowly infantry.  Generally the person taking the casualties doesn’t even get to choose, if the aa gun hits a bmb then you have to lose a bmb and not a ftr.  If you want to hit the enemies air without having to cut through that infantry mega-stack, then aa guns are the only way that can be done.  So why are we making them less valuable in their ability to shoot aircraft down by giving them only 3 shots?  If the reason is because 1 aa gun couldn’t possibly shoot at that many aircraft then please remember that these units are an abstract value and do not represent actual aa guns but rather an air superiority network including radar/interceptors/flak towers/etc.

    I’m more interested in playability than history.

    Wait, are you sure this is how they work still?  I think it was changed to the AA Gun fires based on number of aircraft attacking, not at specific aircraft types like in Anniversary.  So theoretically, you could come in with 5 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 2 strategic bombers on a bombing run, lose fighters to the interceptors and soak all AA Gun hits on Tactical Bombers before risking Strategic Bombers.



  • I wasn’t looking at SBR’s ,they have their own rules and i"m fine with that.

    Please stop hurting my head by saying since they removed UK from france they need more units there.  No they dont, they need the UK units back.  UK still had troops in France after Dunkrik….and not just a couple of guys and a bren carrier.

    You like to replace one error with another!  Pick a direction and drive towards it please.

    To recap, you like the aa gun changes because 1 aa gun shouldn’t be able to fire at infinite aircraft, even though you realize 1 aa gun does not represent 1 aa gun but rather that territories anti aircraft abilities.  You admit the change to the aa gun has made large changes to the odds of Sealion and India crush but are fine with that?  Anzac is under the same blade BTW.  So you prefer a game where if the Axis are willing to take chances they have an easy chance at winning the game?  That board game doesn’t sound fun to me, I’d rather both sides had a similar chance at winning.

    Please, jenn and others convince me the new aa guns are remotely worthwhile.



  • How about instead of adding units to france on defense that will surely die, we add 2 extra infantry to UK. Uk lost 2 inf in france why not put them in the capital instead. Won’t this really help in preventing sea lion?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    The new AA Guns are worthwhile because Germany and Russia can use them on the front lines now without “losing” anything. (Because they gained guns, they have guns to spare.)  
    The new AA Guns are worthwhile because they are no attack units that can be used as damage sponges for major campaigns.
    The new AA Guns are worthwhile because they are more realistic, they cannot shoot down 15 planes with 1 gun, they need at least 5 to do that now, meaning - among other things - that some targets will be more heavily defended than others.

    France:  I’m, good with restoring France to Alpha 3 initial setup.  However, that’s +20 IPC worth of British units and +2 IPC in French units (Artillery restored to Armor.) That’s a 22 IPC increase (minus the 5 for the AA Gun, which really SHOULD be there…France was not without any airdefense forces you know.)  I’d gladely restore the units, as it would make Sea Lion risky again (even if we leave the airbases off.)

    However, if we are keeping the 20 IPC worth of British units off France, then France really needs more units for it’s defense.  Germany shouldnt be able to get France, W. France and S. France with units to spare and wondering what they can do for fun.

    That said, the argument I was using is based on the new setup.  Given the severely diminished defense forces for France, then we should add more defenses to make up the difference between what was lost and what they have.  Hell, i’d go so far as to replace the British guys with French guys if people were adamant about not putting more British units on the board (not that any of them but the Fighter could do anything usually - off chance of the infantry taking Holland.)


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @theROCmonster:

    How about instead of adding units to france on defense that will surely die, we add 2 extra infantry to UK. Uk lost 2 inf in france why not put them in the capital instead. Won’t this really help in preventing sea lion?

    The problem with adding infantry is that infantry can be used to attack.  That’s why I like AA Guns.  You add defense without adding anything to a nation’s ability to attack and win.

    +2 Infantry means I almost have enough extra money for another destroyer to add defense to my British fleet and make it just that much harder for Germany to sink my fleet while not sacrificing any of my infantry fodder.



  • But wouldn’t it make sealion much harder and much less worth it? those 2 infantry in UK wouldn’t do much for a while. I don’t see UK building up a fleet and using them for at least 3 turns. Since UK lost 2 airbases 2 infanftry and a fighter why not add 2 infantry to UK to stop sea lion?



  • @Cmdr:

    The new AA Guns are worthwhile because Germany and Russia can use them on the front lines now without “losing” anything. (Because they gained guns, they have guns to spare.)  
    But they did that in A2.  As Germany I always kept my aa guns at the front and tried to snipe Russian air with them.  Russia did the same, moving the aa guns with their stacks.  These aa guns cannot be used to attack, only defend.  Like before I see them as valuable to covering your vanguard as before.

    The new AA Guns are worthwhile because they are no attack units that can be used as damage sponges for major campaigns.
    meh, not really an issue because we kept our aa guns with the stack in A2.  Their purpose was to fire at aircraft, not take hits from ground units.

    The new AA Guns are worthwhile because they are more realistic, they cannot shoot down 15 planes with 1 gun, they need at least 5 to do that now, meaning - among other things - that some targets will be more heavily defended than others.  
    They are still unrealistic.  My 20 mm aa gun cannot shoot down 3 B24s.  Realism is not a reason because due to the scale of the game it doesn’t make sense.  The aa gun represents anti aircraft capabilites, not guns pointed in the air, people.  Think lookouts, interceptors, radar, direction finding beams, flak towers, spotlights……

    All you’re ‘points’ didn’t have an effect on the aa gun changes.  They were around in A2 and are around in A3, fulfilling the same basic function of protecting your army from air attack.  Now they just do it much worse and also provide a meat shield to your army after they fire.  Anyone have any better thought out reasons??



  • @JimmyHat:

    All you’re ‘points’ didn’t have an effect on the aa gun changes.  They were around in A2 and are around in A3, fulfilling the same basic function of protecting your army from air attack.  Now they just do it much worse and also provide a meat shield to your army after they fire.  Anyone have any better thought out reasons??

    They fit the chips perfectly?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    I don’t think AA Guns fire at each attacking plane individually at all in Alpha 3 (nor Alpha 2 and I am relatively sure not in OOB but I don’t have that rule book right now, so I won’t say definitively.)

    If you attack Burma in Alpha 2 with an AA Gun with 14 fighters, 12 tactical bombers and 4 strategic bombers, the defender rolls 30 AA Shots and the attacker chooses what is lost so it’s not a strategic bomber, it’s a fighter.

    Same in Alpha 3.  Each gun fires up to 3 shots and in exchange for not being able to shoot down all attacking aircraft all the time, you can elect to take it as a casualty and keep a unit you decide is more important to you.  As in all games, except Anniversary, AA Gun hits are designated by the attacker who selects what casualities he or she wants.


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    Confirmation from Krieghund:

    You fire all your AA Gun shots and the attacker decides what gets hit so odds are, you will NEVER shoot down a Strategic Bomber and this was true for all versions of Global.  So yea, the guns are no different than they were originally, except they are limited in scope on how many shots they can take, in exchange for less shots, you get to take them as a casualty.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

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

42
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts