NO Chart for Alpha+.2

@knp7765:

The only issue I had was with the giant ANZAC infantry units. They are a head taller than all other nations’ infantry and really look weird on the board.

Also, their round base has a larger diameter than the standard A&A infantry base, so they don’t fit in the central depression of standard A&A mini poker chips, which is a bit annoying.

@BigBadBruce:

You mean you typed a set of rules with OOB rules and this link?
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167

My group and I never play the Europe or Pacific games on their own, just together as Global. We became constantly frustrated when reffering to 2 different manuals for a rule clarification, not to mention a print out of the latest Alpha modifications. So, I began a cut and paste project that combined both manuals, while adding and deleteing changes made after Alpha+2. Even though I am giving away copies of my document, I can’t post it here due to copy right issues.

It is an interesting idea, but your explanation points to why your solution may not work.

Here is the jist of your suggestion, I think.

The USA has lots of CVs and BBs because they can afford it.  They are using them to soak hits because they have so many, so lets add a modest repair cost to stop that.

Here are my thoughts:

The problem is that the USA is the only power in the game (most of the time) that will shrug off the repair costs.  So you may actually make things worse for Japan in particular who would be much more affected by paying those costs.

Also your suggestion that a 1 IPC will deter a player from willingly taking hits from their capital ships right away is a bit confusing.  The next cheapest option is to lose a 6 IPC sub.  So a 1 IPC cost isn’t really going to change things.  But as was pointed out earlier, Naval bases are quite pricey as is and the need to pull back a damaged fleet is still a bit of a deterrent.  I think I’m OK with the rules as is.

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

Thoughts: If the US conquer Caroline Island, they can’t land with planes on it. Perhaps they will be supported by British / Anzac ships. But the whole Japanese fleet can attack them in Sz33. And note: Some of the planes from Kiangsi can reach Sz33 and land on AC, because the planes from Sz35 can land in Palau Island or Marianas. If they move to Sz6, please. The Japanese whole fleet with ALL of their planes will destroy them at J4!

Just wanted to point out an error in logic in this step.  Primarily, the United States of America does not need to land planes on the Carolines, Australia has 3 fighters and I highly recommend using those planes.  That way you instantly get 3 scrambles if you are ever attacked.

yeah and I am going to cross out that (not including dutch) like so and pretend I didn’t read that.  Also I am going to pretend japan’s puppet state started with a minor IC as well.

In bold are the suggestions i made. The rest of the text is from LHarris

And keep in mind that alpha is not the final setup. Larry has expressed doubts that something is wrong with alpha and is waiting for someone to “break” the alpha setup. Hopefully, at the end of all this, we will get a setup that is as balanced as possible