Just think of what a rich country could do with all of the Tech.'s Rockets Heavy Bombers Paratroops Etc.
In the days when we used to play classic we would get bored and change things up, and one of the things we did was to make Tech.'s easier to obtain. One was to make it so at the end of your turn you would roll a six sided and what you rolled is what you got, each turn you would do that and on turn six you had every one. One of the other versions was to pay 5$ and roll and what you got was what you got, another variation was to have the free roll but you needed a six to break through to Technology
When certain counties got certain Tech.'s early then it was over fast, I think the new game is going to be no different with the results, it will just be slightly more complex
One of my favorites was to write on the backs of the territory markers the Tech like Rockets do that to 10 and then on another 10 put the next Tech. until each Tech. is represented 10 times. Put all those in a cup and at the end of your turn you draw one, when you get 3 like Tech.'s its yours. One other detail you can give one in exchange to your opponent once per turn. Pick yours that you want to get rid of and take one from any opponent, and you can trade freely with your side .
You cant share Tech.'s but you can make it easier for your side
Thats one I would like to see in the Books
Each country gets to draw once per turn
If ya want to change up the same old boring game try it
Larry's alpha plus setup
-
I am not arguing necessarily the historical accuracy of this victory condition, but rather how it changes the feel of the game. I would rather if the Allies felt serious consequences for throwing everything into one theatre, rather than losing to a mediocrely powerful and unopposed Japan. The changed NOs help this. Really, I think the US NOs should be changed to this, when at war:
1. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling the West Indies and Johnston Island.
2. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling 5 of the 7 following islands: Midway, Wake, Marinaras, Iwo Jima, Caroline, Solomon Islands and Guam.
3. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling the Philippines.
4. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.
5. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Mexico, Southeast Mexico, West Indies and Panama.
6. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Brazil and the Line Islands.
7. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Hawaii.So, if America goes all out Europe, they could lose every NO to Japan. If they go all out Japan, they could lose 15 IPCs in NOs to the Axis. If they do the balancing act they were supposed to they could get 35 IPCs from NOs.
Then take out the vc change.
-
Not sure I like the Global victory conditions for the Axis… seems like the Axis can make a cheap victory grab by blitzing Asia.
Anyone notice The airbase/fighter in Scicily now? While it won’t STOP Taranto, it may help make it more even. I like that the scramble rules are now limited. ( it also makes a Scicily/Sardinia Airbases combo very nice)
-
@ll:
Not sure I like the Global victory conditions for the Axis… seems like the Axis can make a cheap victory grab by blitzing Asia.
Anyone notice The airbase/fighter in Scicily now? While it won’t STOP Taranto, it may help make it more even. I like that the scramble rules are now limited. ( it also makes a Scicily/Sardinia Airbases combo very nice)
I think it will flat out stop it for most players, especially if Germany lands a couple of fighters in Northern Italy. The odds are pretty bad of getting through to the battleship and transport, and that’s really what you want as the UK.
-
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
-
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
-
Testing this out in a game tonight. My gut’s telling me the Axis will be much more competitive now.
-
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
-
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
Yes. Italians will rule Africa due to its 2 transports survviving
-
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
Yes. Italians will rule Africa due to its 2 transports survviving
I’m not so sure. UK is more likely to keep some ships, not do the Taranto raid, and then Germany is less likely to try Sealion. That would let UK purchase for South Africa. UK also has a lot of tricks they can pull maneuvering between the Middle East, India, and South Africa. I think the battle for Africa is going to be more exciting, but not slanted too much to either side.
-
Weldone Harry not introducing the rule that said UK government could be transfered to Canada. This rule made no sense.
Well done with scramble from territories that are not islands. I do not agree with the 3 limitation.
Bad done with not letting subs counter attack alone transports.
Some questions about ending the game immediatly instead of allowing a full round to try to recover.
-
Can someone point out the changes in a short list?
-
Its a new game.
I am interested in the UK/German naval outcomes.
sz 110 or sz109 coastal scramble with fig…? anyone. Hard to kill the entire navy if you do not know what your opponent will do.
-
@ll:
Not sure I like the Global victory conditions for the Axis… seems like the Axis can make a cheap victory grab by blitzing Asia.
Anyone notice The airbase/fighter in Scicily now? While it won’t STOP Taranto, it may help make it more even. I like that the scramble rules are now limited. ( it also makes a Scicily/Sardinia Airbases combo very nice)
I think it will flat out stop it for most players, especially if Germany lands a couple of fighters in Northern Italy. The odds are pretty bad of getting through to the battleship and transport, and that’s really what you want as the UK.
I Totally missed the change to Scramble! (Coastal territories) Yes, Italy is much more self-sustaining now- and that airbase in Morocco looks even more enticing- a way to control the Atlantic a bit.
-
@ll:
I Totally missed the change to Scramble! (Coastal territories) Yes, Italy is much more self-sustaining now- and that airbase in Morocco looks even more enticing- a way to control the Atlantic a bit.
AB in Morocco?
-
I do not see any details on the original page involving Amur vs other Soviet TT. Why would bypassing be different?
I saw this discussion and this quote on LH site, but I can not find the reason in his alpha plus rule changes
–---------------Larry, you do realize that Japan can bypass Amur when attacking Russia? And that Russia can attack Japan through China without attacking Korea/Manchuria?
Really? :wink:
-
-
@WILD:
@ll:
I Totally missed the change to Scramble! (Coastal territories) Yes, Italy is much more self-sustaining now- and that airbase in Morocco looks even more enticing- a way to control the Atlantic a bit.
AB in Morocco?
Originally I was thinking about the one in Gibraltar. But now that I look at the board… a 2nd in morocco might be a good strategy for Italy to help seal off the Med… I’ll need to test that. (6 planes scrambling any approaching US fleet is a nice deterrent… or a nice start of 1)
-
I do not see any details on the original page involving Amur vs other Soviet TT. Why would bypassing be different?
I saw this discussion and this quote on LH site, but I can not find the reason in his alpha plus rule changes
–---------------Larry, you do realize that Japan can bypass Amur when attacking Russia? And that Russia can attack Japan through China without attacking Korea/Manchuria?
Really? :wink:
Originally when Larry presented the NAP you only got the bonus if Japan attacked Amur, or Russia attacked Manch, or Korea (boarder clashes). He has now realized that you could by pass those tt and your opponent would not get the 10 ipc’s.
The rule now states that if you declare war first your opponent (Rus or Jap) gets the 10 ipc’s
Edit tidbit:
I read an interesting game report about the 10 ipc NAP (forget who posted it). He said that Germany was at the gates of Moscow ready to capture the capital (Russia was unable to stop it on its turn). Japan (on its turn) decided to declare war on Russia breaking the NAP (Soviets got the 10 ipc bonus). So when Germany Crushed Moscow it also got the extra 10 ipc’s. Now that’s ironic!! -
@UN:
Can someone point out the changes in a short list?
@UN:
Its a new game.
As in…?
I’m assuming you didn’t click on the link that calvinhobbesliker provided to start this topic that takes you to Larry’s site for the proposed changes “the list”
-
Edit tidbit:
I read an interesting game report about the 10 ipc NAP (forget who posted it). He said that Germany was at the gates of Moscow ready to capture the capital (Russia was unable to stop it on its turn). Japan (on its turn) decided to declare war on Russia breaking the NAP (Soviets got the 10 ipc bonus). So when Germany Crushed Moscow it also got the extra 10 ipc’s. Now that’s ironic!!That’s why the attacker should pay money to the bank instead of the defender receiving money
Suggested Topics
