Minor Threat's Alpha+3.9 (Global 1940) COMPLETE! Setup Charts

@Saber25 said in 1940 Global: Can you place a minor production facility in a territory the same turn you capture it?:

The US has captured Norway, and then the next turn placed a factory. Is it legal for the US to deploy ships into seazone 113, which is inside of the Danish straight? Clearly they could not pass through without holding Denmark itself, but it seems to me that there is no reason that the US could not deploy to that zone for additional pressure on Germany!

You are correct. Since the ship is being built it does not have to pass through any strait. A minor factory in Norway may build up to 3 ships per Turn in either SZ126, SZ125, SZ112 or SZ113 or any combination thereof.

My group usually uses control markers for 10, especially in stacks that won’t be splitting up anytime soon (like in Moscow)

@strategic:

Bump

Again, the link posted above is valid and is the primary source of the Alpha 3 rules.

Alpha 3 is an evolution of what originally started as a setup change to address imbalances in the Pac1940 game.

The original setup change addressed Pac 40 only, and was called Alpha, and was meant to be used in Pac alone as well as Global.  Imbalances noted in Global began to influence the alpha revisions, going from Alpha, Alpha +, Alpha + 2, etc.  As these changes were made to address global, there was still a desire to use these modifications for the theater specific games, but this was not a playtesting priority (most people has transitioned to Global only as their primary game - alpha began before Europe 1940 was released).  As the theater games became less of a playtesting priority, the national objectives were revised, and this is probably the primary driver of theater imbalances at this point (particularly US objectives in the pacific theater & Russian objectives in Europe theater).

I would recommend using the Alpha 3 setup and rule changes.  I would recommend using OOB national objectives until official objectives that apply to the theater games are released.  Alternatively, use national objectives from Alpha 3 for all countries but US (use OOB for those) in theater specific games.

The one hanging option that’s been noted many times for the Europe theater is that the Siberian reinforcements should be abandoned and instead Russia ALWAYS collects 9 additional IPCs each turn that represent the eastern provinces not shown in the Europe theater.

@Cmdr:

Spend 6 IPC to take out the Russian NO, Wrath.  A submarine in SZ 125 takes away the objective as well as a destroyer does.  It also requires the allies to send a destroyer to go kill it, instead of using only planes.

A submarine isnt a war ship according to our definition of the rules but I wont argue about that. The price of 8 ipc is still worth it.

Russia was buffed in Alpha 2 because many Axis players blew their strength on England, dedicating all of their power to taking it out and thus, not having enough to hit Russia with.  Now that England is no longer a prized posession, but more of a “well, I need one more VC to win, and it is underdefended” move, Russia is getting really easy to take out.

Dont care if russia is buffed, Germany is so much more buffed with their extra planes and units, thats why I find that theather a bit balanced.

Looking ONLY at the game board for the first 3 rounds (bringing you to Germany Round 4, Purchase New Units) one can see that the Axis are more than double Russia’s strength with more than double their income.  That means England and India need to be focused on sending reinforcements to Russia to prevent them from falling (and thus, negating the need to block SZ 125).  With the NonAggression arrangement being virtually nullified, there is no reason not to invade early and heavy with Japan and more reason TOO do it, to remove even more IPC from the Russians. 
So yes, Wrath, I agree, Barbarossa is probably the better avenue and makes Victory more assured, not assured, but more than attempting Sea Lion.    I don’t see Russia ever getting their Objectives (any of them).

If you go after russia on round 4 as germany you are to late imho, you are better off attacking round 2 (with a fake attack on yugoslavia) or on r3.

Gargantua was kidding…

Allowing a brief digression, if we were to compare AA50 to AA42, we find AA50 adds:

More board spaces

[liA nicer looking larger board[/li]

An additional power Better rules for China Cool new factors such as NOs and technology

AA50 is a better game with more bells and whistles, but some might prefer the relative speed and simplicity AA42 has to offer.

Back to the topic at hand,  if we were to compare AA50 to AAG40, we find AAG40 adds:

More board spaces

A nicer looking larger board

Additional powers

Much better rules for China

Cool new factors such as Politics, bases, neutrals, and convoy disruption

Tactical bombers and mechanised infantry

New rules for ICs

expanded rules for 2 hit warships

AAG40 has more features above and beyond AA50 than AA50 has over AA42.  Some people still might prefer the relative speed and simplicity of AA50, but you have to decide if you think you’ll be one of them.

Me, I think AAG40 is the best A&A game ever!  It obsoletes AA50 more than AA50 obsoletes AA42 (though all three are highly playable solid games).

One more thing, although AAG40 is new and optimal strategies are nowhere near having been refined, it looks like AAG40 has more viable strategic options than previous versions of the game.

Yeah, I don’t know about Global, but I love it in Pacific. It removes the extreme Japanese advantage from a J1 attack (although I havn’t actually tried that, but seems pretty obvious).

A J3 attack should go Japan’s way if you don’t make any errors and dice are even, but only just. This setup was way more enjoyable than any original setup game I have played.