The most recent modifications should always be used, that’s just my opinion.
I agree I completly forgot about Alpha +3.9
My gaming group always plays the most recent version; however, I have not had a chance to play the Alpha “3.9” version. I will be trying out the new game next weekend :-D
oob… :D
1. sake of my friends who are not all familiar with the latest rules and we don´t play very often.
2. sake of me, because since the rules are not officially set i won´t change anything knowing that alpha 2+ etc. are really well made and did change the game a lot…
rock on!
I want to CHANGE my vote!
So far I’ve mainly been an OOB player.
OOB of course. Down with the DLCs! :x
Are you peeing on that rock wall in your avatar photo?
@rock`n:
oob… :D
1. sake of my friends who are not all familiar with the latest rules and we don�t play very often.
2. sake of me, because since the rules are not officially set i won�t change anything knowing that alpha 2+ etc. are really well made and did change the game a lot…rock on!
TY at least im not the only OOB player i find as the rules are revised its gets more cofusing,
EX: Wait why is that troop not there?
Were playing Alpha +2
Oh Yeah, Dur
Alpha 2 is the one I’ve been using. Not used alpha 3 yet.
How about oztea’s '42 setup? It’s posted in Harris Game Design forums, the setup is very interesting and essentially skips the first two rounds of combat. There are few other interesting things, the Germans in Africa and a fairly larger Japanese navy.
I use Alpha+3.9 too because I just prefer to use the most up-to-date version possible. Of course, that has been rather frustrating with new versions coming out every month or so.
By the way, there WAS an Alpha+1. There were even Alpha and Alpha+.
munchie19,
That 1942 setup sounds pretty interesting. I would like to check it out myself. Is it only available on the Larry Harris site?
I used out of box, but we are about to do a game using Alpha 3
I’ve seen the 1942 setup (and there’s a 1941 setup as well). However, I don’t play either–the 1940 setup means flexibility for the Axis whereas the others limit the Axis’ options.
OOB
It was about a year of the +2 and then a few of the different +3 versions and the last 2 are the 3.99, when is the 4.0 thread gonna start
Knp7765, it’s a '41 setup. I apologize my original post was incorrect, I’m in the middle of my second game of the alternate setup, here’s the link for the setup: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6834
+2 so far and has been pretty balanced but am looking forward to trying 3.9.
Knp7765, it’s a '41 setup. I apologize my original post was incorrect, I’m in the middle of my second game of the alternate setup, here’s the link for the setup: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6834
Hey, I just checked it out. That’s really cool looking. Can’t wait to try a game with that setup very soon. A couple of cool things I noticed were the UK Major IC starting out with 5 points of damage – obvoiusly representing the German “Blitz” on England and the Italian Port with 5 Points of damage – probably representing the Taranto raid.
One thing that kind of bugged me was the Minor IC on New Zealand. I know that it’s worth 2 IPCs but isn’t New Zealand also considered an island and therefore incapable of having an IC? (By the way, Yes I know that Japan is also technically an island but it is also a Capital and the only exception to this rule) I’m just wondering if that IC should be on Queensland instead.
Anyway, thanks for the link. I’m going to try this one out soon.
Another thing I noticed about the setup is that some of the starting incomes aren’t correct. For example, Japan starts out with 31 (which is correct according to the setup), but they are not at war with any of the Allies, except for China, so they should receive that NO.
I really don’t think this setup limits the Axis options.
