Alpha+2 Global, Europe and Pacific Setup and NO charts - FINAL.

@nebnworb yea they get the bit in their mouth and they can run all over the place. Little annoying things that if they don’t react and you can support, can really be irritating. Of course they can kinda do the same thing, depending on USA strategy : )

@ 94 Canuck

I did some cross checking on the Charts player aid charts you made for your +3 version & they WILL work for the 2e & with the +3.9 set-up charts that “Sehxual Panda” made also.

So I guess with some research on my own, I figured it out &, they will all work together  :-D
So I’m stoked.  All good charts with no changes needed.  Thanx for your response & sorry for the confusion.

But now with 1914 coming out, you know your gonna have to get busy & make some more cool player’s aid charts for that too, don’t ya.  :-o

There has been another update yesterday:

11/17/11 US NO change: 5 IPCs for each turn that the US has at least one land unit in the territory “France”. Theme: Great Alliance collaboration

The few games I campaigned through China I used the jap aa gun to try and kill that ftr.  I remember it worked at least once.  a small stack against a chinese attack that is light on arty means China will have to bring the ftr to have the punch to clear the zone.  This can work great if you are cutting the Burma road every round.

I also did air raid it the first game I played Japan too.  I just don’t think that ftr is really worth gunning for.  Now if it could leave China or attack the sz’s on the coast it would be dead meat.

I’d rather kill that ftr when its attacking than having to go in and dig it out when its rolling 4’s.

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

@gamerman01:

@Dark_Destroyer:

China can ignore the Neutrality rules?  I know China is a special case but… that doesn’t seem very logical.  The rules say you can move into those 2 spots… but doesn’t say you can ignore neutrality.

UK is not neutral.  She is at war with Germany and Italy.

But United Kingdom and India are 2 different powers.  The only thing they share are Techs.  United Kingdom can actually declare war on Japan and India still be Neutral…. ?

Read it nevermind lol, Uk can’t do that.  Another Illogical thing to add :(

end note  UK split = Nonsensical, really needed to do a better job at seperating the two.  When UK falls, India can not pick up IPC from fighting in the Middle East.  Very unreasonable.

@RedHunter:

Wow that was too many pieces left on the board. Like holy crap. How much % does the Axis win without VC to aid them?

I do not know the answer to that. We may be the only ones on this forum who play without VCs.