Alpha 2 set up pics???

@techroll42:

Got both for $70 each.

Well some of us get to school late via the shortbus :P

@strategic:

Bump

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

3.5 is just changes made to the original 3 setup. I was confused because I got cards from here saying that there was no italian destroyer and transport in 96 and I was just questioning if it had been removed. We have since marked those ships on our cards.

@Alsch91:

The interception/escorting dogfight stages occur before the bombers “split up” to strike their assigned targets.  Therefore those Tacs being used are actually able to take interceptor hits for Strategic bombers, even though they have different targets.

Huh, ya know, alright, you got me.  I personally haven’t ever done a split like that so I’d never thought about that/  Yea, ok, I’ll concede that point.  well played sir.  well played indeed.  I take it all back.  mea culpa, mea culpa.

I’ve deleted my flagrantly ill conceived rule interpretations, and will remember this the next time I consider SBRs…  boy, is my face red.

Yes to both.  Any enemy surface warship (not transport or sub) will make a sea zone hostile, assuming you are at war with the owning power.

I agree that 92 is probably better than 91.

@Battling:

When is this alpha nonsense going to be finalized. It’s making my head spin. Will this be the official setup for all 3 games ?

It will be done when it’s done.  It will either be the official setup or an alternate setup, for all three games.

I am currently in the middle of my first game of Global using Alpha. It is going really well actually. We have played 6 games of global in our group (this alpha game is our 7th). Initially we certainly believed that there is a distinct allied advantage, and I still do. I believe that only very skilled players playing as the Axis have a chance of winning with them, and that is if they play against mistake prone allied players. If you have skilled allied players against equally or even more skilled Axis players, the Allies seem unbeatable barring extreme luck or blunders going in Axis favor.

We have 1 victory for the Axis, and that actually came down to our two best players who are much better than the rest of the group playing Axis, and the allies were made up of our third best player and two totally new players. America’s player was playing for the first time ever. And the Axis just barely won due to a 1/36 tech miracle and botched allied play (poor use of transports).

There were also 3 allied victories, and 2 games we called draws, but the allies would have won if we decided to play for weeks longer…

We are currently on J3 in our latest game with our first go at the Alpha setup. We also have the same two players as Axis, only this time switching powers. I have to admit that I think I like this setup better as Germany because our UK player is infamous for bringing the whole british empire into Egypt and holding Africa with overwhelming force while threatening Italy all game long. Less planes and ships and initial transports makes this harder for him and makes Italy more viable. Also we started with a G2 DoW on USSR. Things are going very well for them with the USSR’s hardware in dead zones, so by R4 they will be down to only Inf.

Japan is doing very well also in China and with the sizeable Manchurian land force nipping at the retreating Russian’s heels in Siberia. The lack of planes certainly is putting a cramp in Japan’s game play in the Pacific itself, and in its Caroline/Hawaiian posturing against the Angloish-Allies, but they are still in a solid position. I the new naval base in NSW is a very interesting double edged sword. It makes Australia very happy that they can move around a bit easier, and can claim DNG on ANZAC1, but they have to be careful because it no longer is a dead end for the IJN, which makes ANZAC a viable target for Japan.