Do you use “ALPHA SENARIO” set-up for Global 1940? Or do you use just for Pacific 1940.
Thanks in advance.
My group just uses Standard rules. We only play a couple times a month, and until we get in dozens of games, I doubt we will try any “experimental” rules.
Plus enugh people that I would play this game with, would never consult a website for special updated rules before playing this game and making maor setup changes. We would have someone keep an eye out offical errata, but nothing more then that.
If after 6 months and a lot of games, and fi the alpha rules really get finalzed we “might” consider it, but it is doubtful.
No, and I don’t see the draw. Global 1940 OOB has vast uncharted opportunities and potential strategies. I am fascinated by it. And I don’t care what anybody says about balance yet. Often the side with the true advantage has a less prosaic optimal strategy. That is we might discover that the Axis, given very precise and specific play, can beat the Allies the majority of the time.
Also, I think the 28 strong Japanese air force is cool! They are powerful, but there are too many to use efficiently against Just China and Eastern Russia. They are a long flight from Europe, and you can’t attack India or America with them without accelerating the Allied war effort.
I hope Alpha is presented as an optional variant, not an errata replacing OOB.
Well Alpha was created by Larry to stop the J1 attack and J3 India crush that happened in every game of Pacific 40. Global is its own game to begin with, Russian involvement and a huge IPC boost for USA entering war has changed things in the Pacific theater. I have played a game with Alpha setup and it seems to slow the Pacific down to a more realistic WW2 feel. Japan can still attack any turn against the Allies but seem to fair better the longer they wait. China is beefed up a bit so they don’t die in 2 rounds of combat. Overall plane reduction for the entire theater forces all players to buy air planes to keep their fronts moving.
From what I have read and understand, each board separately gives the Axis a slight edge while combining them seems to net an Allied advantage, still everyone seems to think the game is overall balanced.
No, and I don’t see the draw. Global 1940 OOB has vast uncharted opportunities and potential strategies. I am fascinated by it. And I don’t care what anybody says about balance yet. Often the side with the true advantage has a less prosaic optimal strategy. That is we might discover that the Axis, given very precise and specific play, can beat the Allies the majority of the time.
Also, I think the 28 strong Japanese air force is cool! They are powerful, but there are too many to use efficiently against Just China and Eastern Russia. They are a long flight from Europe, and you can’t attack India or America with them without accelerating the Allied war effort.
I hope Alpha is presented as an optional variant, not an errata replacing OOB.
But do you use the Errata’d setup, which replaces the OOB setup and was officially released months ago to correct the setup errors that were made (ANZAC only has one minor factory, Philippines has a naval base and an airbase)?
No, we have not played enough games with the oob set-up to warrant any changes. We will follow a new set-up when, or if it is officially published.
If you are playing only Pacific 40, then the Alpha set up is recommended by Larry Harris himself to help balance that game out. The Alpha setup itself has no effect on the Europe half of the board for the time being. Larry has commented, I believe, on making some minor changes in the coming months if they are needed for Europe.
But do you use the Errata’d setup, which replaces the OOB setup and was officially released months ago to correct the setup errors that were made (ANZAC only has one minor factory, Philippines has a naval base and an airbase)?
Absolutely - I play with all official errata and FAQ. That’s why I want to see alpha as an option (like LHTR for revised) rather than a strict errata.
to be fair, the pacific errata fixes errors on WOTCs part which would be corrected in a reprint. You guys should check them out, dropping the anzac major to a minor etc.
can’t agree more w/the “alpha” setup. it’s not official until there’s a reprint or at least in a FAQ on the publisher’s website.
and to be fair, shouldn’t it be more of a 2.0 or 1.01 setup? Alpha/Beta terminology applies to something BEFORE it is released as final.
and to be fair, shouldn’t it be more of a 2.0 or 1.01 setup? Alpha/Beta terminology applies to something BEFORE it is released as final.
Well, it’s not final yet. Just as “beta” is used to mean a preliminary test, so alpha is used to mean a preliminary setup change that may or may not be tweaked
rhetorical.
sigh.
this is my major prob w/you kiddo. you post to post, to get that counter next to your name ticking away.
rhetorical.
sigh.
this is my major prob w/you kiddo. you post to post, to get that counter next to your name ticking away.
Well, you made an error that I’m pointing out.
Increasing my post count is useless since I’m already a heavy bomber, the highest possible rank
rhetorical.
sigh.
this is my major prob w/you kiddo. you post to post, to get that counter next to your name ticking away.
Didn’t sound rhetorical at all. And your response contributed even less. yay. Stop sniping. You asked a question (which didn’t sound rhetorical) and got an answer (even if it was from someone you insist on stoking a flame war with).
Larry has specifically stated that at this point it’s incumbant upon us, the public, to alpha-test the alpha setup (until the beta is released, upon which we beta-test). WOTC didn’t spring for much in-house or out of house playtesting. And to the people who keep whining about this taking so long, I offer you this: Starcraft 2.
As for Alpha, If you don’t want to play it, then don’t. But the idea is that if it works, it will be official and it will apply to both Pacific and Global, and that it should in fact make the game more fun (or at the least, not make it any less fun) by balancing the J1 (and balancing europe vs pacific air unit ratios). They clearly learned at least a little something from the Pac game when the setup for the Europe map is rather scant on aircraft.
If your group only plays by OOB, then no worries (although you should adjust for Errata errors, cause the OOB setup IS wrong). And if they only play by Official Errata rulings, then also no worries, just have fun. But if you play enough to find a way to break the game OOB like the J3 crush, then you SHOULD use the Alpha so can you help fix it.
Maher, why so resistent to Alpha when you spent so long complaining/championing the imbalance in Pac40 (and reminding us that you noticed it so early upon release)? If you know it’s going to be used for Global, why not help by testing it?
But if you play enough to find a way to break the game OOB like the J3 crush, then you SHOULD use the Alpha so can you help fix it.
I don’t believe J3 India crush does break Global 1940. I tend to play OOB plus FAQ, Errata, and various official optional rules. I never play house rules. I do play enough to find things like the J3 crush in Pacific 1940.
OOB I find Global 1940 the most dynamic and awesome A&A game ever. I understand wanting a second set-up for Pacific, but I’m not convinced Global is broken. I therefore don’t have a desire to fix it.
But if you play enough to find a way to break the game OOB like the J3 crush, then you SHOULD use the Alpha so can you help fix it.
I don’t believe J3 India crush does break Global 1940. I tend to play OOB plus FAQ, Errata, and various official optional rules. I never play house rules. I do play enough to find things like the J3 crush in Pacific 1940.
OOB I find Global 1940 the most dynamic and awesome A&A game ever. I understand wanting a second set-up for Pacific, but I’m not convinced Global is broken. I therefore don’t have a desire to fix it.
I did NOT say that a J3 india crush broke global or was even remotely possible. OOB it might be possible, but would not be worth it as the USA would be HUUUUUGE right away. I mentioned J3IC as an example of something that DOES break Pac40 and that a revised setup that is up to us to test needs to be tested in Global. That’s why I said “like the J3 crush”, using “like” meaning similar, and not like, like, I dunno, like whatever. :wink:
It’s important that Alpha is tested in Global because it IS NOT the intent to have two different setups for Pacific and Global. Larry Harris has stated that he would like the revised Pacific 40 setup to work in Global, and it is his hope that such a revised setup is made official (although it is up to WOTC, not Harris, to make that change, although he can seperately release it as a “creator endorsed rule”). If the Alpha setup weakens Japan so much that the Allies always win, that means it’s broken too.
I’m against the Alpha setup as I have read it because it weakens Japan for Pac40 setup, which to me makes an already allied favored g40 setup that much worse.
Calvin (or whoever) can you reply with the EXACT setup changes for Alpha, I’ve had 2 people pm me about not being able to wade through 340 pages on LH’s forums.
China
Szechwan 5 Infantry and one fighter(+1 inf)
Hunan 2 Infantry(+1 inf)
Yunnan 4 Infantry(+1 inf)
Kweichow 2 Infantry(+1 inf)
Shensi 1 Infantry
Suiyuyan 2 Infantry
ANZAC
Malaya 1 Infantry
New South Wales - 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.(+ 1 NB)
New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.(-2 ftrs)
Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63 – 1 Cruiser(+ 1 CC; - SS Z47)
United Kingdom (India)
Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship(-2 Tr)
Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport(+ 1 Tr)
Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base(-1 inf)
India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC(+2 inf, -2 ftr)
United States
Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC(-ftr, tac)
Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.(+ftr, -tac and bmr)
Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.(-bmr)
Midway - 1 Airbase
Wake Island - 1 Airbase
Guam - 1 Airbase
Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer(-1 Tr, +1 SS, 1 DD)
Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr(-SS, DD)
Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport
Japan
Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC(- 2 inf, 3 ftr, 2 tac, 1 bmr)
Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber(-1 ftr, +2 inf)
Palau Island - 1 Infantry
Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Formosa - 1 Fighter
Shantung - 2 Infantry(+ 1 inf)
Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
Siam - 2 Infantry
Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.(+ 1 inf, - 1 bmr)
Korea - 3 Infantry(+ 2 inf)
Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport(- 1 Tr)
Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer(-1 CC, + 1 BB)
Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.(-Tr, CC)
Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport(+ Tr, CC)
on a similar note, does anyone have a link to a post (i’m sure I saw it) with the corrected OOB setup for pac40? I want to be able to stop using the damn box tops, esp when they aren’t correct and typo’d!
much appreciated.
on a similar note, does anyone have a link to a post (i’m sure I saw it) with the corrected OOB setup for pac40? I want to be able to stop using the damn box tops, esp when they aren’t correct and typo’d!
much appreciated.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/A&A_Pacific_1940_513_FAQ.pdf
actually i meant a listing like what you posted for the alpha, but with the OOB setup. For G40.
