Ok Jimmy! I’m looking through.
G1 - think about switching a Mech Infantry with a regular in Normandy. Since you should win with 1 Infantry, it could be a Mech instead and save you a mobile unit. If you know the ones in France will die - why not let regular Infantry take a beating instead?
***I think you’re right, this is a better idea and a reason to not put only inf in NormandyI don’t think any aircraft need to be used in Yugoslavia - they can both make it to naval battles and/or France. I use the Fighter from Hungary in SZ112, and the Tac from Poland in France. I openly defy the AA in France - it’s only a 1 in 6 chance, and it teams with Armor to give you an extra 4 for three rounds… which means you should keep an extra Armor and possibly an Artillery, by my math. That offer is too good for me to pass up, even with the threat of the Tac getting shot down. And with the land units you’re bringing, the Yugo battle is a two-rounder and should result in two lost German Infantry regardless.
***the aircraft in Yugo were really superfluous, they just wound up there because there were few other options for them to fly to. The one in Poland originally went to 112, I think you’re right and sending it there is wiser than Yugo in order to further safeguard the fleet. I’m not sold on a 1 in 6 chance of hitting a plane over Paris, I certainly wouldn’t count on that aircraft making it. I’d rather keep the aircraft from hitting Paris in order to guarantee their usage in G2 and G3.SZ112 just added the Fighter from Hungary, which gives you 12 pips or two hits, meaning a better chance to keep your Sub.
SZs 110 and 106 look good. It would be a bad idea for Britain to scramble.
That’s why I would consider hitting 91 with 2 subs and just air on 110. This would be in the hope that UK scrambles. If they do, the first 2 casualties will be BB hit and CA, after that it’s aircraft and someone might be unwise enough to save the BB over a ftr.Noncom - I would have used the Armor in Poland in Yugo - it can get back next round in time for Sealion.
This was my original intention, the armor went to WGerm because I knew no armor would survive on the French coast and leaving it in Wgerm means it can be shipped out G2. However you’re probably right, and Germany can still load up 3 inf 3 art for G2 naval threats.UK1 - I’d take out the Italian Destroyer/Transport combo with a Brit Destroyer/Fighter/Tac Bomber. Then you have the flexibility to park your fleet elsewhere.
that dd is needed to block for the British fleet off Gibraltar however.Even though I commented earlier on a different UK purchase, 9 Infantry is smart.
Noncoms look reasonable to me.
ITA1 - yes, I would also kill off the British as you did, but if I were the British I wouldn’t have given you the targets. And are you saving S France for G2? I’d let Italy have it, personally, and collect on it the first turn, and get closer to your NO.
Are you saying to forgo the blocker in sz94? Can the UK fleet survive without it? If so then I agree and UK should have moved that dd with the fleet. I forgot SFrance, it wasn’t crucial to my plans so I skipped it on my board.OK! It was cool to go through your moves and think about them. I also know it’s good to get some feedback.
Thx for the feedback, I;ll go back through and edit my moves so they are smoother, I’ll make sure to update the stats too, but it’ll prolly take a day.
We played Alpha yesterday.
-
http://dicetruction.blogspot.com/2012/03/our-first-shot-at-alpha-39.html
The link is to my blogpost of our game with the newest Alpha rules. We only got three and a half rounds in and will continue it in two weeks. Germany made some poor choices and it looks like the Allies will make a quick game of it but time will tell.
-
Allies will win.
One thing: You should NOT have an Atlantic US and Pacific US player. I don’t care if you go against the rules for splitup of powers, but 1 country has GOT to be 1 player or there will be chaos.
-
I disagree, for Global at any rate, USA has so much money, and each theatre has so little to do with each other that splitting them between two players works.
-
Fair enough but if Pac wants 2 carriers and 3 subs and eur wants 7 destroyers that don’t work.
-
That will hurt the Allies’ chances, I think. The united states needs to be able to focus most of it’s income on one theater, and defeat one power before turning to the other, which is what happened in the actual war. I think the US would have had very slow going if the Axis had not had such bad strategy and rolls.
-
Fair enough but if Pac wants 2 carriers and 3 subs and eur wants 7 destroyers that don’t work.
True but the actual argument is more likely to happen between the UK player and the US player than between two US players. It would be UK demanding the help on the Atlantic or Pacific side and the US player would be accommodating himself on each side respectively as the UK is also split with each player dealing with one board each. In a three player game only the Axis and the Soviets should be dealing with each board.
In our game yesterday First round I gave Mugsy all the US money and Second round I took it. Whether you need 7 destroyers or not you’re going to have to decide if you get them by weighing your options and I feel that this decision process works better with two minds rather than one. -
I don’t see anything inherently wrong with splitting the US command into theaters. However, addressing the resource designation could be troublesome.
It may be of utmost importance to spend the US income in the Atlantic due to Sea Lion, but at the same time you don’t want to be predictable to the Axis by alternating who gets to spend the income each round.
-
What I also think would be…problematic…is the possibility that the US players aren’t “on the same page,” meaning that there is a divide between their plans, and that the execution and split of resources is rough around the edges.
Also, cross-map planning is impossible, and I like to try to get the US transports in the Pacific away to Europe. With separate players, that would be hard.I understand your point about the 2 different opinions, but that could happen with a UK/US player.
-
Wouldn’t it just be simpler to split the UK between two players since they actually have two economies?
-
I don’t want to come off as mean, but splitting USA into west/east is the most retarded idea ever. Not only does it remove the strategic flexibility of the USA to commit most of its materials to one board or the another, it goes completely against game balance and game design. Something tells me your group didn’t think long and hard about the ramifications of such a decision.
-
whatever happened to letting people play how they want to?
Hey, I played a game where russia can choose to activate russian winter at the end of russia’s turn…. In Russian winter infantry defend at 3.
-
@Blitz:
I don’t want to come off as mean, but splitting USA into west/east is the most retarded idea ever. Not only does it remove the strategic flexibility of the USA to commit most of its materials to one board or the another, it goes completely against game balance and game design. Something tells me your group didn’t think long and hard about the ramifications of such a decision.
Ramifications? What the hell are you talking about? This is a board game dude. The ramifications are thus: 2 people make decisions and the results are either we win or we lose. No more or less than that. As far as thinking long and hard. The decision process goes like this. Hey, I don’t feel like walking 6 feet that way and shoving you out of the way so I can get to the Atlantic. Since we’re working towards the same goal why don’t you take this money and get what you need for that side. Oh, you’d like a little more? Sure here you go, I can make my side work with one less unit.
-
@Blitz:
I don’t want to come off as mean, but splitting USA into west/east is the most retarded idea ever. Not only does it remove the strategic flexibility of the USA to commit most of its materials to one board or the another, it goes completely against game balance and game design. Something tells me your group didn’t think long and hard about the ramifications of such a decision.
This is a pretty arrogant post. Let people play their own games. It’s all in the name of fun. Something tells me you’re one of those players that never shuts up and voices unwanted opinions during every players turn. Then wonders why nobody invites you back for another game.
-
As long as he’s got beer money I’d invite him back. I love beating guys like that. We had a guy like that that won 10 games in a row once. He never shut up about his streak. When one of us beat him it was awesome (even the guy on his team was happy). But alas he never had beer money. Nothing worse than a cocky player who drinks everyone else’s beer.
-
Most Holy - I just took a look at your blog where the pics of your game are. The board itself is incredible. Did you actually paint all those pieces yourself? Very, very nice!
Play the game how you want - it looks like you are having fun.
-
Thanks. Sometimes I think I enjoy enhancing the game more than playing. I just finished the Germans and now I have to go back and touch up the Japanese as they’re starting to wear out and since they were the first ones I ever did I’m a little better at it now and I think I can improve them.
-
Your board is definitely enhanced. Do you mind telling me where you got your markers for the air and naval bases?
-
http://dicetruction.blogspot.com/2012/01/painting-accessories.html?m=0
The above link is to my blog post about these two pieces and there are links to where you can find them on eBay. The prices are very reasonable.
-
Thanks a lot. Never would have guessed you made accessories out of a clothes pin!
-
@Most:
Fair enough but if Pac wants 2 carriers and 3 subs and eur wants 7 destroyers that don’t work.
True but the actual argument is more likely to happen between the UK player and the US player than between two US players. It would be UK demanding the help on the Atlantic or Pacific side and the US player would be accommodating himself on each side respectively as the UK is also split with each player dealing with one board each. In a three player game only the Axis and the Soviets should be dealing with each board. .
In our game yesterday First round I gave Mugsy all the US money and Second round I took it. Whether you need 7 destroyers or not you’re going to have to decide if you get them by weighing your options and I feel that this decision process works better with two minds rather than one.I play a lot of my Global games with a split USA.
Suggested Topics
