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

@Bravehart:

So….

If the ukP land units claim the pro allies territory like Persia, the 2 ipc value goes towards… UK E cos its on the European side? The standing army would go towards UK P?

BH

There’s no such thing as a UKP unit; there are only UK units. The acquired pro-Allies units would become UK units.

The Persia income would go to UKE because it’s on the European side.

I think, that’s the way to go.
11 or less victory cities is too easy for the axis.
12 victory cities for less experienced axis players (7VC on europe and 5 on the pacific side seems like the allies are loosing on both sides. Only 1 victory city to go for eiter a european or pacific win).
13 victory cities for experienced axis players (Win on one side of the board but don’t loose the other)
14 victory cities seems to be too difficult, but if you want a challenge as the axis, or if you really, really want to play the axis

Keep it global, even for the axis. (My personal opinion.)

Guest said in Minor Threat's Alpha+3.9 (Global 1940) COMPLETE! Setup Charts:

Wow, these are super, muchos gracias :-D

And now KICKS SELF FOR NITPICKING
-United States card: NOs #1 and #4 the word ‘Sovereignty’ spelled wrong (extra ‘i’)
-UK card: UK (London) operations: the phrase ‘exclusively only’ seems redundant, just ‘exclusively’ would do (same on India card)
-UK card: the word ‘Canadian’ spelled wrong (extra ‘n’)
-Japan card: NO #1 the word ‘resource’ spelled wrong (second ‘s’ instead of a ‘c’)
-ANZAC card: wording of NO #2 seems weird ‘Strategic cornerstone - to far East British Empire’. Does this miss the words ‘Malaya considered’?

KICKS SELF AGAIN

Beside these little wording mistakes, they are still great and stick to the latest updates and rules!

While I checked my stuff again I found something but I am not quite sure if there is a benefit when you will change it:

It is not necessary but you could add the (2) for all anti-aircraft gun at DEFENSE… they only occur when Radar is researched…
Fighter Attack (4) when Jet Fighters
Submarines --> Super Submarines (3)
Heavy Bombers Roll 2 Dice (but not easy to show this while not causing confusion)
Etc…

and maybe on the turn sequence to add the polictics move “to declare war”

Just suggestions, no need! As said above, maybe you should leave it like it is… The player should use a Research Board, so that they can see which technology they got… hopefully they do not forget it during the game ;)

Japan needs 6 VCs in the Pacific to win, all the allies need to do is Protect Honalulu and Sydney while building more than the Japs.

Question answered thanks!

Thanks guys. Fast and accurate answers. This helps a lot.

Cheers! :-)

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I want to clarify.
The rules say that an “allied” destroyer in the same sea zone that you attack will not cancel the abilities of enemy subs since any force attacks alone, Allied forces can only defend together.  I assume this applies to scrambling as well.  Here’s my situation:
The US has a large fleet occupying SZ 6.  Japan has fighters on it’s airbase.  ANZAC wants to amphibiously assault Korea.  If the Japanese fighters scramble, will they only be fighting the ANZAC ships?
Even though the US and ANZAC are Allies, since ANZAC is on the attack, the US ships are basically idle during this action, is that correct?

SHARED THIS ON LARRY’S SITE ALREADY, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THOUGHTS HERE ALSO:

Ok Larry,

Me and an official playtester of yours here in Michigan (his name is mentioned in the rulebook for Europe 40) played Global with the new setup given with all the aircraft taken away and such. Here was a short summary of what happened:

On the Europe side:

Germany played pretty predictably, sinking most of the UK navy, taking France and the Eastern European pro-allied and pro-axis neutrals with Italy. They continued to build on their air force to keep the UK from building ships right away. Began to stack some ground units as well. Italy expanded into Africa and shored the Middle East slowly controlling the Med.

UK responded by NOT attcking the Italian navy and pulling back the rest of the navy it had left until it could come back to England with a strong navy that included the US. UK took the Pro-allied Brazil and shucked the troops to Africa to help the SAfrican force which slowly pushed the Italians back up to Egypt turning the tide in Africa.

Russia stedily built a force consisting of infantry spiced with some tanks, artillery, tacs and mechs. Stacking behind some dead zones and waiting for the declaration of war.

US spent about 70-80% of its cash in the Pacific since it could not even approach Africa/Europe before a state of war.

Now for the Pacific side:

India with little cash built mostly infantry and stacked. Combined navy near India and activated the Persian troops to bring back and help defend India. In Global, India has a little more help from some extra troops west and a few ships, including one French destroyer to help defend. Also, it can fall back with its stack to West India if needed.

ANZAC naval base is much needed and I am glad it is there- balances nicely.

China was stonger, but does what it normally does and stacks at Yunnan to wait to wear down Japs. China units are really used as a delaying tactic for the India crush.

Japan didn’t see an advantage to the India crush in J1 but felt that the initiative came to them in J2. They didn’t want to wait until J3 because they felt the Allies would have established a long-term defense of India. So with that the Japs declared war on J2 taking back the Dutch East Indies and unleashing the fury. Japan built transports J1 and J2 and built more planes to replace the ones missing from the new setup in J2.

Now even though both Japs and Allies have the same amount of planes removed, Japan can build them faster and move them closer to the action (India). US could also build their planes back but it takes them longer to get them to the battle scene (India). Brit India and ANZAC can’t build much of an airforce because of the typhoon of Jap units coming fast, so India stacks and ANZAC tries to distract and/or try to send some units.

Japan can make the US wait longer to send ships and planes down to ANZAC by using its navy as a shield. I as Allies, I made tactical blunder ruining my chance to meet the Jap onslaught of India from behind through Australia. However, if not for this the setup seems very balanced and gave some options to both sides.

A hot topic question will be “what to do with the Russian inf on the Pacific side??”
It is very frustrating for the Russians, if you attack immediately, Japan will bring the heat to wipe them out with now China and Russia give large concessions to Japan $$$. If you stack and sit. Japan has to garrison Manchu with a small force but continues to spearhead to India. I figure as the Russians, you have to attack with the 18 inf at some point. The hard part is when. Timing is everything in this decision.

With US entering the war at turn 2, the US began to throw a good amount of cash to the European side, mainly because of the blunder in the Pacific- India would not last long now- 2-3 more rounds. I recovered nicely putting pressure on the French coast quickly until I made another tactical error involving Gibraltar- arrggh!!!- new rules and new map takes a little while getting used to.  :-(

Besides these 2 blunders, I thought the Global game was pretty fair and balanced with a slight edge to the Allies. I definitely think the Allies are a little easier to play because that sides is spilt into 6 sub parts (countries) that are easy to prepare while you are waiting for the Axis to finish. The Axis with so many more units in the beginning, take longer and you have to be very efficient both in the short-term and the long-term planning.

Anyway that was are anaylsis so I hope it helps.  :-)