@panther Oh, sorry I misunderstood you. It was just my error. I didn’t know about or see that category. Again, I’m sorry.
Larry's NEW ALPHA+1 SETUP
-
Played this through today.
Not too bad, UK a bit weak in defending london still, may or may not be an issue.
The American player felt that the japanese victory conditions were way to easy to achieve, so America went 100% pacific. This almost worked in his favour, but after the fall of london, and the failure of his big attack on Japan, it was game.
Africa was back and forth, Anzac was bad-a-s-s.
NEW SCRAMBLE RULES PWN ALL OTHER VERSIONS.
Exactly. Now, a Sealion will lead to a Russian advantage in the East.
-
Agree with the scramble rules. They are much better than previous.
This version doesn’t allow the US to just concentrate on one side or the other. You HAVE to play both sides. It makes the game much more true to life and more fun to play.
ANZAC does rule!! Skip first turn build with ANZAC. Turn 2 Cruiser and Destroyer. Turn 3 Carrier. Becomes a VERY formidable Navy if you keep them together for specific missions (Caroline Islands is my top priority with ANZAC).
-
can the australian fighter that now starts in UK scramble to adjacent SZ’s if only UK ships are being attacked and there are (obviously) no ANZAC ships present? Can it scramble in response to a German Amphibious assult? Can the ANZAC Fighter act as a fighter intercepter against a Strategic bombing raid by Germany against London? Or can it only act in defense of the territory in land combat?
-
can the australian fighter that now starts in UK scramble to adjacent SZ’s if only UK ships are being attacked and there are (obviously) no ANZAC ships present? Can it scramble in response to a German Amphibious assult? Can the ANZAC Fighter act as a fighter intercepter against a Strategic bombing raid by Germany against London? Or can it only act in defense of the territory in land combat?
It can do all of that.
-
I am tired of rules changes every time I log on here. Until something becomes offical I am going to play with the standard rules.
-
I can’t blame you- I’m fumbling through rules changes each time an ALPHA come out. Larry said the next one should be final though. ALPHA+1 is pretty darn close I think.
-
I am tired of rules changes every time I log on here. Until something becomes offical I am going to play with the standard rules.
That attitude is fair enough. But I for one am glad Larry is taking the approach he is. Allowing players at large into the process and making rapid adjustments based on their feedback should lead to a better playtested and balanced version faster than any method I can think of.
-
I enjoy this new setup the best. This should now be the official set-up.
-
I am tired of rules changes every time I log on here. Until something becomes offical I am going to play with the standard rules.
That attitude is fair enough. But I for one am glad Larry is taking the approach he is. Allowing players at large into the process and making rapid adjustments based on their feedback should lead to a better playtested and balanced version faster than any method I can think of.
The problem is that such process should be done before the game were released, and it’s duty of the seller’s playtesters, not duty of the gamers. If they want sell us a uncomplete game, they should sell it at, say, half of the price, or even not selling it in first place or at least noticing us that is not a complete game :-P . Probably Larry is doing this update just for fun (not paid), go figure (he could even release a AABattlemap module/new ruleset totally free if he wanted I guess, as he did in the past with Revised and AAP), and WOTC doesn’t care any about their costumers. WOTC are doing the same as videogame sellers (Paradox anyone?), and that’s a very bad thing (I’ll probably not buy the next A&A game unless is perfectly balanced and complete from start (in this case, a reprint), as I do now with Paradox games). At least they should stop complaining about TripleA, etc. Larry is doing right, but we should not forgive this WOTC marketing politics
Also, I’m not sure if such flux of semi-official rule changes almost daily is better for the very gameplay. I have yet serious doubts about OOB being needed of such drastic changes, specially in Europe’s board, and more important, with such unstable game enviroment, gamer’s mods cannot be released. Also, sometimes one is not sure about what game is really playing
-
The problem is that such process should be done before the game were released, and it’s duty of the seller’s playtesters, not duty of the gamers.
I mostly agree with you, but I’m willing to grant some leniency when it comes to the Global game because the scope is so massive. And maybe I didn’t play it enough to notice the problems, but I found the OOB game perfectly serviceable the four or five times I’ve played it.
Also, I’m not sure if such flux of semi-official rule changes almost daily is better for the very gameplay. I have yet serious doubts about OOB being needed of such drastic changes, specially in Europe’s board, and more important, with such unstable game enviroment, gamer’s mods cannot be released. Also, sometimes one is not sure about what game is really playing
Almost daily? I see Larry’s post on November 30, followed by edits (a couple of which were tiny) on December 1, 5, and 7, with no updates since then. And to me the game seems very solid now, so I can’t imagine any more major changes will be coming. A buddy and I started an Alpha+.1 game on Saturday, and it’s been going for around 10 hours now over a couple days and we still have at least a few hours left to resolve it.
And what’s stopping anyone from releasing mods? Isn’t the point of a mod to change things to how you think make the game play better? If the OOB has 2 infantry on a territory, and the Alpha+.1 has 4, and you think it should have 3, what’s the difference between adding one to the OOB setup or taking it away from the A+.1 setup? Just make your changes and test 'em out.
I’ve complained like hell about the 1940 games before (no paper money, AA guns, missing necessary charts, etc), but I am really appreciative that Harris is working hard to make Global 1940 the best game it can be.
-
Slacker is right, yeah its not what we all expected but its still a great game and you should be happy with Mr. Harris taking his time to help improve the game experience. yeah its a pain to check the updates but its not all that bad. i still like both the 1940 games and the way my gaming group plays, we don’t think the OOB is totally unbalanced. yeah it needed a little work but not that much. theirs my 2 cents
Suggested Topics
