NO Chart Alpha +2 (redone) plus other charts

@theROCmonster:

I recommend playing the newest alpha. The new alpha rules allow scrambling from not island airbases as well, which I believe is huge. The entire flavor of the game is changed with the new alpha rules VS out of box. Also out of Box I think UK just falls to sea lion everytime…

theROCmonster, he is playing the G40 2nd edition (recently released). The OOB rules include the the newest Alpha (nicknamed Alpha 3.9) with the couple changes Port Hardcore mentioned. I guess you could call OOB 2nd edition Alpha+4, or the final Alpha.

I would go OOB 2nd edition instead of Alpha+3.9, like kcdzim said. The changes between the two were minor compared to the changes that took place through the Alpha project (like the scramble rules from Alpha+1 allowing all airbases to scramble, but only 3 units). 1 UK inf missing in Egypt surprised many ppl thinking the game is axis bias, but like he said it probably balances the Med which is a battle with-in the war. Adding Korea to the Nap just makes sense.

What I would do is play OOB 2nd ED a few times, and decide for yourself which side has an edge (every group is different), keeping in mind that the allies have a longer learning curve and it normally takes a few games for them to figure things out. If in the first game you lose Moscow in turn 6-7, then figure out what the allies need to do to save/delay that in the next game. I would also plan for a two day game the first time LOL (2-10 hour sessions).

Thanks for posting the inventory file.

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 ;)

@The:

@Cmdr:

@94Canuck:

For whatever reason my Alpha 3 thread hasn’t been sticky’d yet, so search for that instead of using the Alpha 2 if you want.  It is on the 2nd or 3rd page of threads.

Just a thought, but if you PM me the link to your new one it might help you get it stickied.  Just spit ballin here. wink

Yea, cause then we would only need like 5 more until this whole page is stickied. And that’s what we want.

Time to retire a few.

It is an interesting idea, but your explanation points to why your solution may not work.

Here is the jist of your suggestion, I think.

The USA has lots of CVs and BBs because they can afford it.  They are using them to soak hits because they have so many, so lets add a modest repair cost to stop that.

Here are my thoughts:

The problem is that the USA is the only power in the game (most of the time) that will shrug off the repair costs.  So you may actually make things worse for Japan in particular who would be much more affected by paying those costs.

Also your suggestion that a 1 IPC will deter a player from willingly taking hits from their capital ships right away is a bit confusing.  The next cheapest option is to lose a 6 IPC sub.  So a 1 IPC cost isn’t really going to change things.  But as was pointed out earlier, Naval bases are quite pricey as is and the need to pull back a damaged fleet is still a bit of a deterrent.  I think I’m OK with the rules as is.

Question answered thanks!

With the relative ease of taking London and Calcutta (in opposition to Sydney and Muskva) it seems better to go after England

But beyond that, if you take London, you negate all of England’s income, even if you cannot take the territories!  Worse yet, Calcutta can take stuff and can liberate stuff on the Atlantic map, but can never collect for it, so you’ve effectively, permanently ended England.

Just my current thoughts, I reserve the right to change my mind with little to no notice and for whatever reason I so choose. (Woman’s perogative.)

@kcdzim:

Tragically, there are not enough japanese roundels to do this (later in the game).

What’s even more tragic (or fortunate depending on how you look at it) is that I have 10 differe A&A’s so a lack of control markers for the big 5 is never an issue. A lack of ANZAC markers on the other hand…