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

[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.

[Gharen]

Thats an interesting idea to possibly have the USA wait til the end of their turn 3, regardless of whats happened to get their wartime economy boost.  I have not had the chance to play OOB global yet, so I can’t make a true formal opinion on it.  I think Larry is spot on in making the Pacific theater more drawn out.  Sure there are the 18 inf from Russia to deal with and the USA money boost, but with OOB you could still do that dominate turn 1 attack and destroy lots of units and turn up the heat on the Allies.  Anyways, I like the reduction in air power and the increase in the boots on the ground.

What I am thinking about as to the USA income boost is what about having a tiered increase that started at 10 then ended at the full amount per turn 30.  Say if they were attacked turn 1, they get a bonus of 10 bucks at the end, attacked turn 2 then that would be 20 at the end, and if normal turn 3 attack happens, then they get the 30 at the end like normal.  Regardless of when the attack happens, in the end they get 30 bucks at the end of turn 3, but if it happens earlier, depending on the turn then it would be less.  The increase each turn to the cap of 30 would simulate the ramping up of war time production for the USA economy.

[ZehKaiser]

I am currently in the middle of my first game of Global using Alpha. It is going really well actually. We have played 6 games of global in our group (this alpha game is our 7th). Initially we certainly believed that there is a distinct allied advantage, and I still do. I believe that only very skilled players playing as the Axis have a chance of winning with them, and that is if they play against mistake prone allied players. If you have skilled allied players against equally or even more skilled Axis players, the Allies seem unbeatable barring extreme luck or blunders going in Axis favor.

We have 1 victory for the Axis, and that actually came down to our two best players who are much better than the rest of the group playing Axis, and the allies were made up of our third best player and two totally new players. America’s player was playing for the first time ever. And the Axis just barely won due to a 1/36 tech miracle and botched allied play (poor use of transports).

There were also 3 allied victories, and 2 games we called draws, but the allies would have won if we decided to play for weeks longer…

We are currently on J3 in our latest game with our first go at the Alpha setup. We also have the same two players as Axis, only this time switching powers. I have to admit that I think I like this setup better as Germany because our UK player is infamous for bringing the whole british empire into Egypt and holding Africa with overwhelming force while threatening Italy all game long. Less planes and ships and initial transports makes this harder for him and makes Italy more viable. Also we started with a G2 DoW on USSR. Things are going very well for them with the USSR’s hardware in dead zones, so by R4 they will be down to only Inf.

Japan is doing very well also in China and with the sizeable Manchurian land force nipping at the retreating Russian’s heels in Siberia. The lack of planes certainly is putting a cramp in Japan’s game play in the Pacific itself, and in its Caroline/Hawaiian posturing against the Angloish-Allies, but they are still in a solid position. I the new naval base in NSW is a very interesting double edged sword. It makes Australia very happy that they can move around a bit easier, and can claim DNG on ANZAC1, but they have to be careful because it no longer is a dead end for the IJN, which makes ANZAC a viable target for Japan.