They are all immediately upgraded to major when the US goes to war.
can you upgrade the minor complexes to major status paying the 20 IPCs while still neutral?
but how can germans kill british fleet now fighters can scramble?
and doesn’t that make my beloved sealion impossible?
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=4035
I’m not much of a computer person, but I’ve never seen an .aam extension, what program do I open that with?
@Frontovik:
but how can germans kill british fleet now fighters can scramble?
and doesn’t that make my beloved sealion impossible?
It makes it harder yes but presents UK with a tough choice. Say you go after the Channel fleet on G1- does the RAF scramble or do you hold them back to defend against a possible Sea Lion? Theres still a good chance the RAF forces will be destroyed scrambling to save the UK fleet, but holding them back means that Germany needs to devote some cash to armed escorts for her Sea Lion fleet… else its like shooting fish in a barrel.
I have a few thoughts. First, I LOVE the new scramble rules. I always thought it was silly that airbases that weren’t on islands couldn’t scramble. The limit of 3 ftrs or tacs is good too. No one should be allowed to scramble 10+ planes. The new rules for British territories is much better.
The new Axis victory conditions I’m not so sure about. I like that it does make the Allies deal with Japan and not just pour everything into Europe and ignore Japan. However, it seems odd to me that Germany and Italy could get smashed by the Allies yet Japan grabs 6 Victory Cities and it is an Axis victory. If you think about it, that’s not too big of a stretch for Japan. They start the game with two, then Manila, Hong Kong and Honolulu are within Japan’s grasp which would give them 5, although admittedly Honolulu would be somewhat tougher with the US fleet in the way. After that, they just need 1 more city to win. San Francisco is nearly impossible unless the USA player really screws up. However, Sydney and Calcutta are very possible, especially since by this time Japan should be making some major $$$. I still think they should have to hold it for 1 full round however.
One rule change I don’t understand is the AA guns being removed if that territory is captured. Why? I don’t understand the reasoning for this one.
Two things I definitely disagree with are the Major IC rule and the Submarine rule.
First, the Major ICs. I can understand not allowing players to build brand new Major ICs on foreign territories (eg. USA on Norway). My problem is not being able to upgrade a captured IC from minor to major. That part doesn’t make sense to me. Say Germany pulls off Sealion and captures UK. The UK IC gets downgraded to minor. Why wouldn’t Germany be able to upgrade that IC back to major. For one thing, Germany would still have to pay the 20 IPCs to do it, which would negate some of the plunder they got from capturing London. Also, if any country captured a major IC that wasn’t an enemy capital, like USA capturing Western Germany or Northern Italy, they wouldn’t even get any plunder IPCs but would still have to pay the 20 IPCs to upgrade. Secondly, it seems to me if you are holding such valuable enemy territory, you would be able to make use of it’s resources for your war effort and thus be able to upgrade the IC from minor to major.
As for the new Submarine rule, that makes even less sense to me. Say you are commanding a submarine and along comes some enemy transports loaded with troops and equipment all by themselves with no enemy warships guarding them. You aren’t going to take a shot at them? When there are no warships to harass you? COME ON! Troop transports should be escorted by at least one warship. The original rule forced players to commit escorts for their transports or suffer the consequences. Plus, there is no guarantee that the sub’s shot will hit any of your transports since they still only hit on 2 or less. I don’t think repealing this rule was a good idea.
Did you post that on Larry’s site?
can you upgrade the minor complexes to major status paying the 20 IPCs while still neutral?
No.
This needs to be stickied, or be prepared for a million requests for the Alpha+ setup.
I have a few thoughts. First, I LOVE the new scramble rules. I always thought it was silly that airbases that weren’t on islands couldn’t scramble. The limit of 3 ftrs or tacs is good too. No one should be allowed to scramble 10+ planes. The new rules for British territories is much better.
Agreed. :-)
The new Axis victory conditions I’m not so sure about. I like that it does make the Allies deal with Japan and not just pour everything into Europe and ignore Japan. However, it seems odd to me that Germany and Italy could get smashed by the Allies yet Japan grabs 6 Victory Cities and it is an Axis victory. If you think about it, that’s not too big of a stretch for Japan. They start the game with two, then Manila, Hong Kong and Honolulu are within Japan’s grasp which would give them 5, although admittedly Honolulu would be somewhat tougher with the US fleet in the way. After that, they just need 1 more city to win. San Francisco is nearly impossible unless the USA player really screws up. However, Sydney and Calcutta are very possible, especially since by this time Japan should be making some major $$$. I still think they should have to hold it for 1 full round however.
We’ll see how the new victory conditions pan out. At first glance, I like it. The global game should be just that, global. To iggy the Pacific and go KGF…well, why not just skip your game of global and just play the European side? Global means global, so I like what I’m seeing with that.
One rule change I don’t understand is the AA guns being removed if that territory is captured. Why? I don’t understand the reasoning for this one.
AA guns have gone from being a complex defense against strategic bombing raids to being an additional land game piece more representing AA defences for Army units. I don’t understand why they didn’t make this change long ago. I like it.
Two things I definitely disagree with are the Major IC rule and the Submarine rule.
First, the Major ICs. I can understand not allowing players to build brand new Major ICs on foreign territories (eg. USA on Norway). My problem is not being able to upgrade a captured IC from minor to major. That part doesn’t make sense to me. Say Germany pulls off Sealion and captures UK. The UK IC gets downgraded to minor. Why wouldn’t Germany be able to upgrade that IC back to major. For one thing, Germany would still have to pay the 20 IPCs to do it, which would negate some of the plunder they got from capturing London. Also, if any country captured a major IC that wasn’t an enemy capital, like USA capturing Western Germany or Northern Italy, they wouldn’t even get any plunder IPCs but would still have to pay the 20 IPCs to upgrade. Secondly, it seems to me if you are holding such valuable enemy territory, you would be able to make use of it’s resources for your war effort and thus be able to upgrade the IC from minor to major.
I agree completely with the new rule. Even if a country captured a valuable center for production from an enemy, they still produced all their major armaments in their own country. It is ridiculous for Japan to be able to produce major fleet units out of Singapore, and likewise for the US to do the same in Norway. As far as I’m concerned, allowing minor complexes is a stretch, so the new restriction on major complexes is completely justifiable. I like this new rule too.
As for the new Submarine rule, that makes even less sense to me. Say you are commanding a submarine and along comes some enemy transports loaded with troops and equipment all by themselves with no enemy warships guarding them. You aren’t going to take a shot at them? When there are no warships to harass you? COME ON! Troop transports should be escorted by at least one warship. The original rule forced players to commit escorts for their transports or suffer the consequences. Plus, there is no guarantee that the sub’s shot will hit any of your transports since they still only hit on 2 or less. I don’t think repealing this rule was a good idea.
I like this rule too. Submarines in WWII were not used, nor were they any good in defense. They were an attack weapon. Allowing the defense shot allowed players to use subs to defend land territories against amphibious invasion unrealistically. Submarines should be restricted to being used offensively in their own players turn. I agree with this change too. :-)
Hey kaufschtick, thanks for the input. Upon reflection, I understand the IC rule a little better now. It occurred to me that a major resource area for one country wouldn’t necessarily be the same for a conquering power. Sure they would have resources, but they wouldn’t be as efficient as they would be for the original owner. Also, the original power might sabotage or destroy things to make it harder on the invader. Maybe the reducing a major to a minor kind of represents that.
I still disagree with the submarine rule. For one thing, when you take the shot at unescorted transports you use the submarine’s attack value so the sub is not really defending. Also, it’s not so much that the subs are defending but more of a consequence for the attacker for sending transports around without any escorts. After all, just 1 warship of any type will keep the subs at bay.
@ll:
@Frontovik:
but how can germans kill british fleet now fighters can scramble?
and doesn’t that make my beloved sealion impossible?It makes it harder yes but presents UK with a tough choice. Say you go after the Channel fleet on G1- does the RAF scramble or do you hold them back to defend against a possible Sea Lion? Theres still a good chance the RAF forces will be destroyed scrambling to save the UK fleet, but holding them back means that Germany needs to devote some cash to armed escorts for her Sea Lion fleet… else its like shooting fish in a barrel.
but germany with less transports, cause they need to build war ships, and more units on england
doesn’t that make it almost impossible? it already was so close
It kills the game
if germany loses there, they’re crushed forever
if they won, they are still far from total victory
The scrambling brit fighters are a poison pill. England can kill all its airforce before even getting a turn. This makes sealion the easiesr thing.
Also it is pretty predictable where the brit fighters can go so Germany can plan.
After 2 games I say this is a better set up for the Axis. Will get back to you on that. I LOVE the US having to pay attention to both oceans and the new complex rules. Killed alot of cheeze there.
I’m finding heavy Jap spending on navy from turn 1 onwards is doing a great job of forcing the US to spend most if not all of its points in the Pacific in order to maintain naval parity. This puts the US in a dicey situation as if it tries to put anything significant into the Atlantic the Jap navy gets the upper hand in the Pacific and proceeds to go about laying waste to the US economy. A newly strengthened Germany makes great use of this stalling tactic by going ahead and wiping the floor with Russia while Italy takes and holds Cairo. Tough game for the Allies to win IMHO, but man it’s a heck of a lot more fun to play than OOB or original Alpha.
I’m finding heavy Jap spending on navy from turn 1 onwards is doing a great job of forcing the US to spend most if not all of its points in the Pacific in order to maintain naval parity. This puts the US in a dicey situation as if it tries to put anything significant into the Atlantic the Jap navy gets the upper hand in the Pacific and proceeds to go about laying waste to the US economy. A newly strengthened Germany makes great use of this stalling tactic by going ahead and wiping the floor with Russia while Italy takes and holds Cairo. Tough game for the Allies to win IMHO, but man it’s a heck of a lot more fun to play than OOB or original Alpha.
Chompers,
What type of naval builds are you using? Please describe.
Are you still buying transports too, or strictly warships. How are you managing to take the money islands and keep UK Pacific from growing while engaged in the stand off with the U.S?
Thanks.
J1 usually sees a 2 transport 2 sub purchase, j2’s 1 carrier 2 transport 1 sub, j3 and onwards is primarily sub purchases with carriers for whatever planes you don’t need on the front lines. You use whatever subs you can spare to convoy raid Australia, kill off china’s stack with your starting land forces backed up by spare planes, and grab the money islands as well as those new NO islands with your 7 transports. Ground troops can get pretty sparse so you might have to mix in a couple infantry on J2 or J3 in order to make sure you have enough to staff your transports. Pacific UK ends up being the biggest problem normally, but if you bring your remaining army out of China after killing them and sit it in Yunan you can generally ward them off for a bit, especially if they’ve been stacking infantry and have sent some of their planes to Africa. If not, you may have to screen SZ 6 from the US for a turn in order to run some of your navy south to help defend your transports as you go island hoping. However, only the US’s starting navy plus its US1 build/ US2 pacific build are in a position to attack Japan when you declare war, so you can generally afford to get away with splitting the navy for a turn or two.
It’s important to remember that even if things start to get out of hand in Asia, you’re only really trying to buy time. Turn 9 or 10 should see Germany finish off Russia, possibly 11 or 12 if they run their Siberian inf back early on.
Still, only played 3 games so far so I certainly expect to find ways around this as the Allies.
i do not agree with not allowing subs fighting back alone transports
In my games against chompers I have been the allies twice, and the axis once. I lost both games I played as the allies and won the game I played as axis.
I do believe the game is now very much in favor of the axis though I like it much better than the out of box set up. In out of box set up the allies pretty much always won. In the new set up I find it hard as the US to send anything to the Atlantic but if I don’t then I get beat in Europe. Japan can now hurt the US economy big time and force them to build land units if the Pacific is ignored. We have found that when playing Japan if you buy mostly Navy and some transports to take the money islands, combined with Japan’s huge starting Navy that it forces the US to spend just about all of it’s points in the pacific to stop Japan from getting out of hand.
I think the allies need a little something added to them now so they have a chance to achieve their victory conditions. While I understand almost no one plays until allies have taken over all three axis capitals there needs to be a way the allies can respond to the axis and still form a long term plan to capture at least one axis capital and hold it. This would give the allies a chance to achieve a victory.
I have a suggestion. One is to give the allies a special rule where once per game they could conduct a multinational attack. This would represent the allies getting together and planning something of the likes of D Day. Or it could represent an alternate history such as the Anzac, Pacific UK, and US joining up together to wage a battle for Tokyo. There would be some options. This would keep the game where it is the allies responding to the axis but would open a window for the allies to also play to win rather than just playing defense of the victory cities.
The rule for the multinational attack would allow the allies countries to all attack at once as one force in any allied turn against a single axis controlled territory but the allies could only manage to plan this once per game due to the complexity of planning and organizing such a major military operation.
Do anyone feel this is a good idea that would balance the game more? Maybe the rule could be tweaked to give the axis some ipcs to immediately place once the multinational attack is declared to represent them spying out the attack is coming and marshalling together extra forces. This way the special rule might not become too overpowering to be abused.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
I personally don’t agree with my buddy here as I find the idea could be very easily exploitable, especially with regards to a relatively early strike on SZ 6. Japan’s fleet would never be able to leave the home islands after the early game.
A slightly larger US starting fleet may be the way to go IMO.
