Do you use "ALPHA SENARIO" set-up for Global 1940?

[zooooma]

@kcdzim:

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.

[kcdzim]

@zooooma:

@kcdzim:

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.

[MaherC]

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.

[calvinhobbesliker]

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)

[MaherC]

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.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@MaherC:

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

[MaherC]

actually i meant a listing like what you posted for the alpha, but with the OOB setup.  For G40.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@MaherC:

actually i meant a listing like what you posted for the alpha, but with the OOB setup.  For G40.

Okay.
Add a naval and air base to Philippines.
Remove New Zealand’s minor IC
Reduce New South Wales’ IC to a minor

[MaherC]

I meant for every space on the g40 board.  I thought someone did that where we could print that off and use that rather than the box tops….

[calvinhobbesliker]

@MaherC:

I meant for every space on the g40 board.  I thought someone did that where we could print that off and use that rather than the box tops….

Oh. Try Bob Micleson’s charts. They’re on one of the stickies on the Global 1940 thread

[Daedelus]

Well I’m playing my second game of Global starting tomorrow.  I email Larry and he was kind enough to respond.  He suggested that I use the “Alpha Senario” set up.  I said I would do a Battle report and post it on his website and let him know how it went.

If the guy who created the game suggests that I use it, I will.  I’ll let you all know how it goes.

[Gharen]

Like I said before, it slows the pace down in the Atlantic and makes it worthwhile for all of the Axis to agree to hold off full out war with everyone a few turns.  If Japan decides to go all out J1 like in OOB then I think it just means that Europe could get steamrolled faster by the Allies.  Either way in either set up you still have all the choices in the world to decide when to go to war with people.  The Alpha setup does make Pac 40 by itself much more fun, at least I think.  So far I think Europe looks and feels pretty well balanced, unit placement and distribution wise.  I think I remember reading on his website about Larry saying that he was wanting to look at England for some tweaks to not make Sea Lion a dominant choice for Germany in the first few turns but lets face it, if Hitler was halfway smart back in the day he would have invaded and taken England if he devoted enough resources to it.

[MaherC]

The alpha setup should not be used for G40.    G40 obviously has more depth, hurdles and not to mention 18 Russian infantry staring at you.  Slowing down the Japs in G40 makes no sense.

I think it is going to have to be less about a unit balance, and more about a rules change to make G40 work, perhaps something where the US’s NO doesn’t trigger unless Japan directly attacks the US.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@MaherC:

The alpha setup should not be used for G40.    G40 obviously has more depth, hurdles and not to mention 18 Russian infantry staring at you.  Slowing down the Japs in G40 makes no sense.

I think it is going to have to be less about a unit balance, and more about a rules change to make G40 work, perhaps something where the US’s NO doesn’t trigger unless Japan directly attacks the US.

US making 52 the whole game? Axis win every time. And the 18 inf are useless against a Japan with 28 air units

[Canuck12]

@MaherC:

The alpha setup should not be used for G40.    G40 obviously has more depth, hurdles and not to mention 18 Russian infantry staring at you.  Slowing down the Japs in G40 makes no sense.

I didn’t find the Japs to be too slow in my Aplha game. Take all DEI J3. Push India J4. The reason Japan is slowed down in Global is because Germany wats them to wait untill J3 to attack so you dont have 80+ IPCs worth of equipment landing in Europe on US3 or 4.

Furthermore, the reductions are equal for each side ie: Allies lose as much equipment as Japan. This doesnt slow it down it just prevents Japan from wasting planes airbuzzing Chinese infantry and easily squashing the Indians and Australians in a very ahistorical manner.

Japan was hugely overpowered (if they attacked turn 1) in the original setup. A decent player found it impossible to lose as Japan after even a hap-hazard J1 attack. This change has made J1 more fair towrds the allies because both teams have lost equipment but only the team allowed to attack its first turn is affected by it. (because the others have 3 turns to build up anyway.

I enjoy the Alpha setup much more than the OOB.

[cressman8064]

My playgroup uses the Alpha set-up in Global because it is more enjoyable than the OOB pacific set-up. The games I have played as global with OOB were not as fun for the axis because Japan is encouraged not to attack early in global (no matter what set-up you are playing). So India has the extra turns to fly some planes into Africa and stall the Italians. 4 ANZAC fighters and the remaining India forces turn one of the DEI islands into a fortress, meanwhile Japan is still waiting to attack so America stays out of SZ 92.
In the Alpha games both sides are reduced in forces and need the first few at peace turns to catch-up.
*a side note is that we play with a non-aggression pact, Japan will not invade USSR as long as no allied units ever land in original USSR territory. USSR will not invade Japan until an axis capital falls. This has worked well for both sides as Japan doesn’t have to watch it back for American bombers in WUS doing long fly overs (landing in USSR) and USSR can truck those 18 INF towards the west turning Moscow into a fortress.

[Daedelus]

@MaherC:

The alpha setup should not be used for G40.    G40 obviously has more depth, hurdles and not to mention 18 Russian infantry staring at you.   Slowing down the Japs in G40 makes no sense.

I think it is going to have to be less about a unit balance, and more about a rules change to make G40 work, perhaps something where the US’s NO doesn’t trigger unless Japan directly attacks the US.

As I said in an earlier post Larry said we should use it.  Why don’t you try before you discard the idea.

[MaherC]

Perhaps I should have rephrased.   US makes 52 until it goes to war.  Turn 4.   Japan attacking UK/Anzac doesn’t trigger the +30.

[MaherC]

1)  I’ve played now 12 games of global.  This isn’t my 2nd game.

2)  Of course Larry suggested you use it, he wants people to test the alpha.

[MaherC]

again, play whatever you want.  our group doesn’t think that the alpha SCENARIO as-is fixes the game balance.

also, if you are playing a house rule where USSR/Japan doesn’t attack one another, then you can’t say the alpha setup is better for the normal ruleset.