Alpha 3 help

@ozimek1:

I realize that the AA guns are more effective when definding in the west against Allied “liberation” attempts. The big question is whether the tempo gain of bringing them east is worth it, and ultimately more efficient.

What I mean is: Yes, an AA-gun is better at defending a stationary stack than advancing with the aim of possibly taking some very random pot-shots at enemy planes. That is pretty obvious. � BUT they happen to start on the board in round one, and they typically won’t be needed in the west for the first several rounds. Bringing them east from the beginning will add some momentum to Barbarossa, but at the cost of a less attractive puchase mix during the mid-game if they are to be replaced by newly purchased AA-guns or their equivalent in infantry. Is the boost worth that downside?

There’s no yes or no answer to that.  Even on G1, where I move the aa guns depends on what went down on G1.  I’ll still be making those choices on G2-G3, depending on how the game is playing out.  The aa guns in the East have limited utility because they have no attack value–their utility is to lessen Russia’s odds of a successful counter-attack.  Whether Germany needs them out there depends on what Germany and Russia are doing.

I would avoid buying new aa guns mid-game as Germany.  With that in mind, I’d keep half the aa guns back, barring exceptional circumstances.  There’s the possibility of moving east until G3, and then turning back, in time to protect Berlin.

@Ohmss:

If a new territory is taken during combat phase can AA move to it during noncombat phase of that same turn?

(1940 alpha rules please)

Thanks in advance.

yes, and this is valid for OOB or really all versions previous.  The only exception would be if the AA gun was on a transport that was used for an amphibious assault that turn (can’t use a transport during both combat and noncombat and AA guns can only move during noncombat).  In previous versions AA guns that had been used for rocket attacks would prevent movement during noncombat, but as Airbases have taken that tech niche, I can’t think of any other way an AA gun would not be allowed to move during noncombat.

The only units that cannot end their noncom move in a newly captured space are aircraft.

revised > v4. For that map transport defending themselves makes perfect sense.

also tripa has other games, like big world, nwo, napoleonic wars, etc etc etc etc.

anyway, rules in pdf form, would be really nice.

@Vance:

I always SBR London if I am planning or pretending sea lion.  That turn 1 SBR is a critical piece of sea lion and the threat is not serious without it.  Two Bombers target the IC and two tacticals target the airbase.  They do not intercept because a) the fighters scramble in z110 or z109, or b) if they are taking the sea lion threat seriously they do not want to risk losing a fighter.  About half the time I lose a plane to AA, but its worth it because the sea lion threat forces UK to spend its entire first turn income on repairs and infantry, leaving the med and Africa open for Italy.  Italy’s NO income soon pays for any losses you may have had (unless you get diced and lose 3 or 4 of them).  If both sides have normal losses (i.e. germany loses 1 plane or none; the airbase is inoperable and the IC has something like 10 damage), and they spend in South Africa or Egypt, do a Taranto raid, etc., well then sea lion is on.

Yeah, I didn’t even think of bombing the airbases too. Of course that means that they won’t scramble into an adjacent sea zone, but then they can still intercept the strategic and tactical bombers attacking the IC and airbase, right? If I know that that’s what my opponent intends to do, then I’d use all my fighters exactly for that as they won’t be of any use in an adjacent sz. But yes, you have a point too that if Germany really wants to go for sea lio, the UK will need all the fighters it can get!

Does cause Japan to not collect their 10 ipc NO if memory serves. At least in the current version of alpha 3.

By 1943 Russia had 2-5 times as many tanks as germany on every front. 2-10 times as many planes. 2-5 times as many artillery pieces, and 2-5 times as many infantry units. Remember Germany had to send 15-20 % against the allies in the west. Norway, france, Homeland Germany, Denmark, and other occupied states, while as Russia had nearly all of its forces Against Germany since Japan was NEVER going to attack russia after it had previous battles against Russia and saw it was hopeless as well as Japan had its hands full against the other Allies. This is just Russia VS. Germany. The allies (UK, Canada, and US) had 10 times as many tanks as Germany and 10 times as many aircraft. Japan was equally screwed. US built over 100 Carriers in WW2. Japan had a total in the 20’s, but never at one time due to battle losses. The US built over 1,300 warships. Japan could never have handled this. No matter what you say the Axis had about a 5% chance to win WW2. this only if Moscow would have gotten taken, but if you read military history you will see that this probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway seeing as how Russia moved its factories back into Siberal in the Ural mountains region. Germany never could have taken Russia due to Russia’s huge size as well as huge manpower advantage, industrial advantage, only one front to deal with, and the fact that their front lines were in Russia meaning tanks and airplanes could drive and fly strait into the battle off the assembly line. While as Germany’s front lines in 1942 were far from Germany’s industry. If the game was ever played to history allies would win 98 percent of the time with two equally skilled players IMO. This is why the game is made to recreate history sort of, while being playable so that both sides have an equal chance of winning.

@Cmdr:

But you wont get Washington.

For one, there’s already units in the US, all of which can be in DC if need be.  There’s the British in Canada.  British ships to block the way, American ships to prevent the landing from ever happening too. (6 Aircraft already on hand, what’s it cost to put 3 carriers in the water to add all those fighters too?  48 IPC?  Leaving what, 22 IPC?  Another 2 fighters for scrambing!)

You will have the effect of pulling all the Americans out of the Pacific for a round, however.  If that is your goal.

True, it could be prevented, bringing your turn 4 fleet to sz 89 (G.O.Mexico) which puts it 2 turns from Hawaii, or the W. Coast, with those carriers in the East coast, I just prevented a build in the west coast. Those carriers will be 2 turns from Hawaii if they go that way. Seems like it would be a major disruption for a planned USA Pacific first approach, buy Japan 2 additional worry free turns, and even permit the sacking of Either India or Australia before the US could thwart them.

All this by simply sliding a few boats already in the water to another spot in the water. True, It would buy Russia 2 turns as well as my transports would be out of position…but given that Pacific first is your favored approach, taking your attention from the Pacific seems warranted.