Latest ALPHA+ setup

I reviewed your game Calvin. It does seem that with that Med change, it is pretty hard for the UK to fend off Sealion just as before. It doesn’t seem like a desirable change.

You did mop up Italy pretty well as I expected. If the Pacific hadn’t collapsed, you may have come out even. But is the game fun with Italy crippled and the UK wiped out, as could happen nearly every game? I don’t believe so.

This could perhaps be rectified by just giving the UK more infantry stationed to begin with. It’s not like they’d be doing much but defending, so I don’t think it would hurt Germany too much.

The new Med set up is nice because it gives UK different options and allows for an actual Taranto raid. That is, if fewer eggs were put into the SZ 97 basket. Pump up the forces a bit in Tobruk too and maybe this will work.

On the Pacific side, I think the mistake was abandoning Hawaii. Even with 3 production, I believe the US has enough to to set up a counter strike and basically end Japan if they are going for both Hawaii and Queensland simultaneously.

The reason I abandoned Hawaii was that Japan was threatening WUS. I knew that building 3 defending units wouldn’t help much, so I built a defending fleet.

So, you were thinking of a turn 3 attack on the US from Alaska? I suppose it’s actually doable, but I think there’s an easy fix.

Japan cannot enter sea zones around North America or Hawaii without declaring war. That would either let the US block with ships, or jump up to war time production.

I’m figuring out the odds for that attack and it’s pretty close assuming the US moves and builds correctly on turn 2. I’m not sure it’s a big problem other than the Axis player being obnoxious and trying it every game for a dicey victory.

The rule I suggested still seems to take care of it and would make sense. FDR would have no trouble declaring war seeing a Japanese armada parked outside Alaska.

@calvinhobbesliker:

Yeah, I could immediately retake Hawaii if Japan didn’t win immediately.

usa would not have been able to take it back if japan left pickets.

@calvinhobbesliker:

However, there’s still a problem if Germany does Sealion. japan’s moves prevent the US from saving the UK. The UK must choose between attacking Italy or giving Italy Africa and protecting itself.

the choice of uk effectively crippling italy or holding its capital should be a no brainer. uk should hold its capital.

@Kobu:

The UK is much harder to take with the new scramble rules. Germany just getting enough ships to ensure a landing makes things harder. Navy and air buys are much easier for the UK to do to counter instead of buying nothing but stacks of infantry.

the new scramble rules coupled with 2 added german air units makes sealion EASIER, not harder.

germany on rd1 does not need a carrier, instead it can buy 2 transports because of scramble rule.

uk being able to scramble does not help uk defend sealion at all.

2 new german planes makes uk navy even easier to sink

@WILD:

I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).

the problem with 7vc is that usa could go 100% resources in europe for the early and mid game. only coming back into the pacific once japan has 6vcs then just defend hawaii.

i am not sure that the victory condition of 6vcs in the pacific immediately wins the game needs to be changed. i still need to try more games. but if it does need to be changed i think that the victory condition of 6vcs held for a round would probably be better.

@WILD:

I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.

sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.

We’re keeping an eye on this, as it is a concern.  I’m looking forward to seeing your experiences with it.

apparently its slightly unbalanced to the axis now. some people have suggested ditch the split US NO or the minor to major rule or increase to 7 VCs. i think that 6 VCs, minor to major and split US NO is overkill. maybe if its only 2 out of 3 of those might make it more balanced such that US still needs to intervene in the pacific but can also help more in europe. for example keep split NO and minor to major but increase to 7 VCs or keep 6 VCs and split NO but ditch minor to major. something like that

@allweneedislove:

@WILD:

I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).

the problem with 7vc is that usa could go 100% resources in europe for the early and mid game. only coming back into the pacific once japan has 6vcs then just defend hawaii.

i am not sure that the victory condition of 6vcs in the pacific immediately wins the game needs to be changed. i still need to try more games. but if it does need to be changed i think that the victory condition of 6vcs held for a round would probably be better.

@WILD:

I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.

sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.

Try it with the approved setup. If all your opponent does is huddle, it’s probably easy. With good purchases and movement on the part of the UK, it’s very hard to set up. With the Med changes, Sealion becomes much easier.

@Kobu:

@allweneedislove:

@WILD:

I agree that this victory condition (for Pac side of global) should be looked at. Upping the Pac side to 7 VC should also be thrown in the mix (as I’ve seen you post before).

the problem with 7vc is that usa could go 100% resources in europe for the early and mid game. only coming back into the pacific once japan has 6vcs then just defend hawaii.

i am not sure that the victory condition of 6vcs in the pacific immediately wins the game needs to be changed. i still need to try more games. but if it does need to be changed i think that the victory condition of 6vcs held for a round would probably be better.

@WILD:

I would say that the UK does also have to make some tough choices, but that Sea Lion isn’t quite as easy to pull off now.

sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.

Try it with the approved setup. If all your opponent does is huddle, it’s probably easy. With good purchases and movement on the part of the UK, it’s very hard to set up. With the Med changes, Sealion becomes much easier.

I should say I had poor luck on my G1 attacks leaving destroyers sitting on the map and my subs at the bottom of the Atlantic. That plus the scramble rule made it very prohibitive to make the actual naval attack before the assault. The long way around could have been blocked by a single destroyer.

Regardless, it would be nice I think to have some extra starting inf on England so the UK has a few choices when they see that transport buy.

@allweneedislove:

sealion is easier to succeed. you need less resources as germany and win with more units left over to defend.

@Kobu:

Try it with the approved setup.

all the games i have been playing have been.

@Kobu:

If all your opponent does is huddle, it’s probably easy.

uk has to buy all ground units and huddle up to make it as hard and costly as possible for germany to execute sealion.

@Kobu:

With good purchases and movement on the part of the UK, it’s very hard to set up.

it is not that difficult to set up sealion. g2 buy all transports, g3 take uk.

@Kobu:

With the Med changes, Sealion becomes much easier.

with the carrier and destroyer in sz91 moving into the med, uk has less of a threat to the german navy that finishes in sz112. this allows germany to buy more transports on g1, for an easier g3 sealion or even a g2 sealion if uk is not careful.

I would say that that the axis victory conditions should be so that Japan needs six VC on and then 1 on the Europe board.  Then the Euroaxis need the 8 on euro board then 1 on pacific board

Given the recent changes forcing the US to adress the Pacifc, I’m happy to play the orignal 14 of 19 VCs.

I like it when the two boards have to work together.

the two separate victory conditions of 6vcs in pacific and 8vcs in europe is THE change that forces the usa to address the pacific.

this is what makes the two boards work together. with 14 of 19 vcs, usa could focus all resources in one theater in win the game everytime.this is why alpha+ was created.

I wasnt reading the discussion on Larrys Site… Frankly because its too long. But is there a reason for moving some of Britains S Atlantic Fleet to Egypt and moving some of Italys N African Infantry to Rome?

And also in regards to the Sealion…
If Germany goes all out on England the Russian Bear is too Big
If America Focuses on Europe The Rising Sun will cover The entire Pacific
If England Goes all Africa or Defends the incoming Germans with everything then the other side will falter.

This game is difficult and difficult to balance when the players need to balance their attacks and their buys as well.

Thats my take on it at least

@Canuck12:

Given the recent changes forcing the US to adress the Pacifc, I’m happy to play the orignal 14 of 19 VCs.

I like it when the two boards have to work together.

@allweneedislove:

the two separate victory conditions of 6vcs in pacific and 8vcs in europe is THE change that forces the usa to address the pacific.

this is what makes the two boards work together. with 14 of 19 vcs, usa could focus all resources in one theater in win the game everytime.this is why alpha+ was created.

Wow you talk about two completely different views. The funny part is that your both right!!!  :?

There is a lot of back-n-forth talk about keeping the US engaged on both sides, but mostly so they can’t over load Europe. Splitting up the US NO’s will also help with this. I’m not crazy about the new individual theater VC conditions. Japan (axis) getting to 6 VC on Pac ending the game just seems like its only half over.

I have heard someone say (sorry don’t remember who), how about keeping the 14/19 VC condition for global, but if the axis get to the 6 on the Pac side, or 8 on the Euro side that the US looses its base NO (which is now 15 ipc’s). It would stay that way until the allies right the ship. This would cause a problem though because say Jap got 6 vc’s, but on the UK or US turn one VC was pulled back to the allied side. So by time the US collect income phase came up Japan would no longer hold this VC condition, so it would result in no penalty.

It got me to thinking though, could you give Jap an NO bonus if it reaches the 6 VC. Say 15-20ipc’s. The game would continue and it would surly get the US’s attention. Something could be worked out for Germany at 8 vc’s (could maybe toss Italy a bone too).

One thing I would add is that this is a dice game. You may do every thing right, but the dice could screw you in a battle or two and boom game over Japan wins in the 4th turn w/6VC news at 11:00.

Like the new scrambling rules. Always wondered why a coastal territory did not qualify whereas an island did. That said, I do feel there has been an enormous amount of changes now and I never felt that many of them ever constituted a problem. My biggest disappointment is that all the printed set-ups on the country unit boxes can all be thrown out the window now. Although I understand the reasoning behind a rule that no longer negates the british 5 additional IPC as long as the Germans have no submarines on the Europe map with the exception of the BALTIC, I feel it’s already difficult enough for the Germans to keep up submarine warfare and the original rule also forced them to invest in subs rather than in tanks and ifantry for the eastern front. Well, I guess I’ll just have to see how much these changes actually improve gameplay. Pacific 4o was obviously broken, never found anything to be imbalanced on the Europe side of the map…

@allweneedislove:

@Kobu:

Try it with the approved setup.

all the games i have been playing have been.

You’ve clearly been playing with the proposed changes to the Med. Apples and oranges and I’ve addressed both.