post on the tripleA forums any questions you have, Kev is pretty good about replying.

@Rorschach:

I’m fairly certain that the tech roll is for the UK as a whole, not the independant sides as the tech is then applied to the entire UK empire.  It’s just unit purchases that are limited to either side of the board.

Correct.

No

@kcdzim:

@Rorschach:

Consider it that the fighter escorts would have peeled away before they get to the actual facility (lack of range and/or their job of defending the bombers against interceptors is already acomplished so no need to risk going down from AA gun fire as well).

Thinking of it like that makes sense to me.  Interceptors would be intercepting as far AWAY from the facility as they possibly can, while the AA gun is fixed AT the facility.

Not to mention that AA flak is rather indiscriminate.  If it were firing on the escort, it would be firing on the interceptors as well, and the dogfight would be occuring in the thick of the flak.  And that’s not what the defender would want to do (and it would suck in the game cause the defender might lose more than the attacker due to friendly fire).  Especially since it’s the escorts duty to peel the interceptors away from the bombers and NOT keep the dogfight in the same area.

Yes, I was going to go into a much more detailed explanation including all this but time was a restraint (I was at work when I made that reply).

Really, it just makes sense if you think about it.  :)

If your (fixed position) AA guns are firing into the skies, it’s too late to scramble interceptors as this means the bombers are already over their targets AND you’d hit your own interceptors just as often as you’d  hit the enemy bombers.  Escorting fighters would have turned back before entering AA gun range so as to mitigate losses (once the bombers are over their target, no need to risk losing extra fighters that aren’t going to help out in the raid)!  AND, once the bombers are dropping their payload, what’s the point of intercepting them anyway as the damage is already done!

It’s flexible.  You want to protect Wake and Guam enough that Japan has no realistic chance at taking them. Even falling back to Wake if needed.  If you start this out on J1 because Japan allows it and then they turn and go 100% against you, then yea, you probably would need to buy a destroyer and all aircraft for their scramble ability.  If they ignore you for a time and go to India, then you could do it for less.  Basically, I see them spending 38-41 ipc/round in the Pacific on the cheap side.  Some rounds they may spend more if the player sees it fit to do so.  The good thing about this is that once the war bonus kicks in, it may give you a chance to split your income almost 50/50 so that you aren’t totally ignoring either theater.

@Gargantua:

If my capital falls, I know I have to miss my Purchase/Repair units phase.  And therefore cannot repair tipped ships.

No Problem.

But what happens when London Falls? And I still have a tipped aircraft carrier in the atlantic?

Can I go to EUS and repair it because I still have India? Or do I literally have to sail it onto the Pacific board for it to get repaired?

Plz help thx.

Like mentioned above the UK won’t miss its Repair/Purchase phase since it still possesses 1 capital (Calcutta) thus it will be able to repair ships.

Hi,
I can’t find the old thread where people used tiny magnets to secure planes to carriers. So i got the magnets, and plan on a board on my wall with units with magnets on the bottom. What to use as the metal behind the board? Suggestions?  I know they said in the thread something about sheet metel. Any other ideas?
thanks,
-qwertyuiop

If anyone is good at Java, feel free to step up and help.  C# is worthless to me in this.

“Facilities” Have fire as per the rules of an AA gun if they are strategicly bombed, they fire at bombers only.

As exciting as this seems.

I am putting this in the “Bad Ideas” category unfortunately.

Now if True Neutrals only were continent specific in regards to how they change over… or Mongolia was Pro Comintern/Allies… I would foam at the mouth.

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.

Hmm, do you know if they sell those pieces seperately?

@marechallannes:

Q1: A battleship enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. The sub submerges.

Following the rules, the sub emerges after the combat (that doesn’t take place)

Who controlls the seazone after the battleship owners turn?

Is the sub able to raid the convoy zone in that seazone, or is it impossible, cause the battleship owner “won” the battle and controls the sea zone?

Q2: Does the sub emerges before the collect income phase of the battleship owner and is it able to raid the sea-zone of the battleship-owner?

Q3: A submarine enters a seazone with a hostile submarine. Both sub submerges before any round of combat.

Are both submarines are able to make convoy raids? (For example a UK-sub and a Jap-sub in SZ 37)

1:  No power can “control” a seazone.  That’s why you don’t mark it.  The sub is able to raid, because it remains in the seazone during the collect income phase.  Powers occupy a seazone, and a seazone can be hostile, but it’s never really “controlled”.  A power can still place units in a seazone adjacent to its factory, regardless of how many enemy units might remain in that seazone (that may even be disrupting a convoy).
2:  Yes.
3: Yes,  assuming each is present during their respective enemy’s collect income phase (when the disruption occurs).

“Submerging” is simply a term for the option to retreat but remain in the same seazone.  It serves no other function, and it does not have any impact on any other phases of a turn.  After combat, all subs are effectively no longer submerged.

@tytyboogie:

my question is lets say russia takes a german territory on there turn(2) and has there land units in that territory…on the U.K 's turn (4) in that same round…can U.K.  planes safely land there in that russia territory that they took over from germany. so basically do u have to wait for the entire round to be over before any friendly planes can land in a territory.

Any territory that starts the turn friendly to a player (in this case, the territory that russia captured) has no restrictions for movement, repair, etc.  Naval bases, factorys, airfields would all be operational, and you would be allowed to noncombat land planes there.

This is also why it’s better, if it’s possible, to liberate Russian factories with another power than to wait for Russia to liberate them, as russia would start its turn with the factory able to produce units that turn (as opposed to russia liberating it, and being forced to wait a full round).

@Frank:

You can go that route if you want but don’t be surprised if it just helps you smash the axis even more.  Russia is already hard enough to crack if a smart allied player is in control of it.  If you give it five more points a turn for just declaring war on Japan it just stacks the odds more in favor of the allies.

Or, you could look at it as the Japanese player has to take at least 5 far eastern tt from the soviets to balance things out, because the Soviets may be a tough nut to crack with a smart player, but a smart Axis player should be able to find way around it  :-)

@Pelanderfunk:

I like the early attacks against the US, but it looks like Russia was becoming a problem.

The attacks against America were half baked - I was still at the drawing board but jumped in anyway.

A bigger problem than Russia is UK in Africa, the Mediterranean, and South East Europe.  If Italy were an asset to Europe and not a liability, I think I could deal with the Russians.  In fact, if I could lock UK out of the Med (without extra effort from Japan or Germany) I would combine the Japanese North American campaign with Sea Lion and be sitting pretty.

What to do about that pesky Med…

Bombing Moscow seems like a good idea but it can be easily countered. It only takes a few fighters and the bombers will have a hard time getting to the target. The Russians start with a few fighters that can intercept and the Brits can send a few over from India to cover the Russian capital.

My two cents….

@Dark_Destroyer:

The Russian player needs a destroyer to lift you from the convoy zone because you have a sub there.  Submerged sub in a convoy zone works.

“Submerging” is a term that can occur only in a battle as an option for Submarines to “retreat” while remaining in place.  After the battle is over, they are no longer considered “submerged”.  “Submerging” has no bearing at all in any other turn phase.

In addition, if you have any warship in a convoy zone during the collect income phase of the enemy’s turn (that controls territories adjacent to the convoy zone) they deduct their income REGARDLESS of whether they, or ANY another ally, have ships in that zone.  Japan could, for example, mobilize as many ships as they wanted in seazone 6 but it would NOT prevent convoy interdiction if an Allied power had ships in that space.

Get more Axis ships into the open waters of the Atlantic to at least stall the Americans.  Tighten the noose on England and hope that Japan is threatening the USA enough that they can’t afford tons of units for the Europe half.  Italy has always been the weak point to the Axis, hence why we took them out first in the real war.

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