Just finished my first game with the alpha rules. Was fun. Axis were beaten pretty bad. Whether this was a consequence of poor luck or the new changes is unknown. Most likely a combination of both. Axis failed at sea lion in both round 3 and 4 with nothing to show for the axis. Dice were awful. Japan was forced away from India via the ocean due to a US factory in Alaska. The new Alpha changes however regarding IC’s is poorly thought through.
The logic behind banning the construction of major’s in non original territory was to prevent USA Norway Majors, etc. Japan however does not get the luxury of building on original territory. By banning anything but a Korea Major, which is highly ill advised, Japan’s only way of getting men to Asia is via the sea. All the USA has to do is force Japan back to tokyo. No competent allies player will sit by idle as Japan sets up a shuttle system uncontested or blocked. A major for shanghai is very reasonable, and even just a minor would go a long way if Japan could purchase them.
I think the IC Alpha rules should be less broad sweeping in approach. The axis despite an easier victory condition are more disadvantaged in achieving it. Allies already had a debatable advantage. Also Italy not being able to construct a minor for egypt makes taking africa a snail paced headache of an attack for a few 1ipc areas. So my argument is that the IC changes hurt the axis far more than the allies.
@Blitz:
Just finished my first game with the alpha rules. Was fun. Axis were beaten pretty bad. Whether this was a consequence of poor luck or the new changes is unknown. Most likely a combination of both. Axis failed at sea lion in both round 3 and 4 with nothing to show for the axis. Dice were awful. Japan was forced away from India via the ocean due to a US factory in Alaska. The new Alpha changes however regarding IC’s is poorly thought through.
The logic behind banning the construction of major’s in non original territory was to prevent USA Norway Majors, etc. Japan however does not get the luxury of building on original territory. By banning anything but a Korea Major, which is highly ill advised, Japan’s only way of getting men to Asia is via the sea. All the USA has to do is force Japan back to tokyo. No competent allies player will sit by idle as Japan sets up a shuttle system uncontested or blocked. A major for shanghai is very reasonable, and even just a minor would go a long way if Japan could purchase them.
I think the IC Alpha rules should be less broad sweeping in approach. The axis despite an easier victory condition are more disadvantaged in achieving it. Allies already had a debatable advantage. Also Italy not being able to construct a minor for egypt makes taking africa a snail paced headache of an attack for a few 1ipc areas. So my argument is that the IC changes hurt the axis far more than the allies.
Huh? You’re allowed to build minors on foreign soil, but not majors.
@Blitz:
Just finished my first game with the alpha rules. Was fun. Axis were beaten pretty bad. Whether this was a consequence of poor luck or the new changes is unknown. Most likely a combination of both. Axis failed at sea lion in both round 3 and 4 with nothing to show for the axis. Dice were awful. Japan was forced away from India via the ocean due to a US factory in Alaska. The new Alpha changes however regarding IC’s is poorly thought through.
The logic behind banning the construction of major’s in non original territory was to prevent USA Norway Majors, etc. Japan however does not get the luxury of building on original territory. By banning anything but a Korea Major, which is highly ill advised, Japan’s only way of getting men to Asia is via the sea. All the USA has to do is force Japan back to tokyo. No competent allies player will sit by idle as Japan sets up a shuttle system uncontested or blocked. A major for shanghai is very reasonable, and even just a minor would go a long way if Japan could purchase them.
I think the IC Alpha rules should be less broad sweeping in approach. The axis despite an easier victory condition are more disadvantaged in achieving it. Allies already had a debatable advantage. Also Italy not being able to construct a minor for egypt makes taking africa a snail paced headache of an attack for a few 1ipc areas. So my argument is that the IC changes hurt the axis far more than the allies.
Huh? You’re allowed to build minors on foreign soil, but not majors.
This would have been useful info earlier……
My group was under the impression that you can’t build minors in areas you conquer. Also our group claimed you can’t place an IC in the original japan territory except korea. Wtf kinda logic is that?
@Blitz:
@Blitz:
Just finished my first game with the alpha rules. Was fun. Axis were beaten pretty bad. Whether this was a consequence of poor luck or the new changes is unknown. Most likely a combination of both. Axis failed at sea lion in both round 3 and 4 with nothing to show for the axis. Dice were awful. Japan was forced away from India via the ocean due to a US factory in Alaska. The new Alpha changes however regarding IC’s is poorly thought through.
The logic behind banning the construction of major’s in non original territory was to prevent USA Norway Majors, etc. Japan however does not get the luxury of building on original territory. By banning anything but a Korea Major, which is highly ill advised, Japan’s only way of getting men to Asia is via the sea. All the USA has to do is force Japan back to tokyo. No competent allies player will sit by idle as Japan sets up a shuttle system uncontested or blocked. A major for shanghai is very reasonable, and even just a minor would go a long way if Japan could purchase them.
I think the IC Alpha rules should be less broad sweeping in approach. The axis despite an easier victory condition are more disadvantaged in achieving it. Allies already had a debatable advantage. Also Italy not being able to construct a minor for egypt makes taking africa a snail paced headache of an attack for a few 1ipc areas. So my argument is that the IC changes hurt the axis far more than the allies.
Huh? You’re allowed to build minors on foreign soil, but not majors.
This would have been useful info earlier……
My group was under the impression that you can’t build minors in areas you conquer. Also our group claimed you can’t place an IC in the original japan territory except korea. Wtf kinda logic is that?
Japan can only build a major in Korea. However, 2 minors is more than enough. It more than makes up for the fact that the US can’t build in Norway
We will have to delete this thread then. Interesting, we will have to read more carefully.
I think that japan should be able to build a major in china because it is a starting territory but they marked them Chinese so we know where the ACME walls are
