The ground troops and planes you start with on the mainland are enough to keep China very busy for about 5 turns. 1-2 ICs on the coast will take over after that. Transporting from Japan to China is fairly unnecessary, as long as you don’t throw away those troops you start with through some accident.
Yes, Plus going after australia turn one eliminates that pest, and also gives you quite a few IPC’s if you take the whole Island, which you should be able to. I always shift the units in manchuria south, because the Player who plays russia with when I play doesn’t like to use them.
you realize you cannot get any units to Australia round 1 in Alpha 2, right?
@Cmdr:
you realize you cannot get any units to Australia round 1 in Alpha 2, right?
I think he meant, going after on turn 1 as planning an Australia first campaign from turn 1.
The only thing that can reach Australia turn 1, is your carrier and dd fleet if you were to noncombat there while neutral (alpha2).
I don’t play Alpha +2 because A: I just heard of it, and B: I have no idea what the rules/setup are. I play oob rules which has 1 inf in carolinas, along with a DD, BB, and a Carrier with fighter and tac bomb, and transport. That is enough to take australia round 1 then move whats in Japan to the carolinas so you can either reinforce it or retake it if they take sydney back.
I don’t play Alpha +2 because A: I just heard of it, and B: I have no idea what the rules/setup are. I play oob rules which has 1 inf in carolinas, along with a DD, BB, and a Carrier with fighter and tac bomb, and transport. That is enough to take australia round 1 then move whats in Japan to the carolinas so you can either reinforce it or retake it if they take sydney back.
Alpha 2 is the most recent attempt to balance the game.
OOB you do have a transport in SZ 33, Alpha 2 you do not. Alpha 2 also has a naval base in Queensland.
In that case, I’m starting to not like alpha +2. Does the U.S. still get that big bonus as in OOB
You don’t like Alpha because you can’t immediately take Australia? That’s funny. Alpha 2 is a lot more balanced and makes the gameplay more interesting. Frankly, taking Australia before Anzac even gets to go is a little ridiculous. And yes, America get a significant income boost when it’s at war.
I never said I don’t like it over all, I just don’t like that aspect. Plus it all depends on the dice rolls, and its good to try and get the extra IPC’s as japan.
In that case, I’m starting to not like alpha +2. Does the U.S. still get that big bonus as in OOB
Yes and no. Remember, Alpha is for global only. There are more warships and units for the axis, but some have been moved to less advantagous areas.
You can still crush India, Australia or America however.
Ok, so where can i find these rules?
I never said I don’t like it over all, I just don’t like that aspect. Plus it all depends on the dice rolls, and its good to try and get the extra IPC’s as japan.
The biggest thing I disliked about Alpha was the change of the scramble rule. It takes away Japan’s largest advantage and It helped UK a lot on G1.
Here is the link to Larry Harris’ (creator of Axis and Allies) website and the alpha 2 rules:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167
Oh, and taking Australia turn 1 is a bit of a long shot rolls wise. Landing 1 infantry to attack 1 defending infantry.
The easiest way to balance the game is by moving one American IPC bonus from US to Philippines for every Allied win and withdraw one IPC bonus from the Philippines back to US.
Our group of players balanced the game with 7-9 moved American bonuses on the Philippines.
Later…
Alpha+ (about 6-8 months ago) was really broken, when Germany hade about 85%+ chance to take London in turn 3. We gave up Alpha+ and plays today with original setup and Alpha+ modified bonuses.
Extra German bonus in France. 5 IPC.
Reduced Japan bonus not declaring war. 5 IPC, meaning Japan loose 3 ICP if they take France Indochina. All depends on the Japanese strategy if they take FI or not.
Oh, and taking Australia turn 1 is a bit of a long shot rolls wise. Landing 1 infantry to attack 1 defending infantry.
Not if you have supporting aircraft.
Oh, and taking Australia turn 1 is a bit of a long shot rolls wise. Landing 1 infantry to attack 1 defending infantry.
Not if you have supporting aircraft.
Supporting aircraft?
No aircraft can support that, as it takes 4 movement points to get from SZ 33 to New South Wales. They cannot land from there.
Question about winning the game for the Axis. Is it both. That is, does it mean that you need 6 of 8 in the Pacific AND 8 of 11 in Europe. Or, is it one or the other.
It is just one. If the Axis achieves one of the two, it wins.
No aircraft can support that, as it takes 4 movement points to get from SZ 33 to New South Wales. They cannot land from there.
I have a house rule that aircraft on carriers can launch after the carrier makes its movement, cause in real life, if there were carriers in Japan with planes, the planes didn’t take off and attack midway from there, they took off once the carriers got to midway. Thats just one of my house rules.
No aircraft can support that, as it takes 4 movement points to get from SZ 33 to New South Wales. They cannot land from there.
I have a house rule that aircraft on carriers can launch after the carrier makes its movement, cause in real life, if there were carriers in Japan with planes, the planes didn’t take off and attack midway from there, they took off once the carriers got to midway. Thats just one of my house rules.
How exactly can you discuss balance and strategy when you change the rules?
I have a house rule, when I play the US, I get the Nimitz in 1941. Now let me argue that the OOB setup is not imbalanced in favor of Japan. :?
