Alpha 3 question

True, I did not mean to say that one bad-luck battle increases your odds of a future good-luck battle. What I meant is that Global 1940 is a much bigger game than, say, Revised. Global has more units involved and more battles that matter. The effect of having more units and more battles is to soften the effect of any one unit missing or of any one battle going poorly. In other words, as you broaden your sample size, you get closer to achieving average results in the aggregate.

@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).

Yep. Global has issues.

I wish the allies had more NOs and japan too, but it would make things more complicated. Maybe just nix a germany or italy NO.

spendo is right.

@Uncrustable:

US can collect income on france tts ???

Where have i been lol ?

Yep, so can the UK, Anz, or Russia. They have to liberate them from the axis though. If the axis don’t take them from the French, then the allies can’t liberate them to collect while Paris is in axis hands.

BTW with alpha rules when Paris is liberated, the French also get to immediately drop 12 IPCs worth of units (it’s 4 inf w/OOB) on the tt of France (Paris). They only get to do this once, the first time Paris is liberated. So if the US liberates Paris, the French get to place these units immediately during the US turn right after the US wins the battle. If the UK is also ready to reinforce Paris with more units/air on their turn the allies may be able to hold it, depending on how prepared the Euro axis are.

@Young:

Also, scatter 1 infantry in each territory when pulling back as it prevents blitzing and forces them to earn every mile, confront his stack with yours to early, or leave most of your infantry where it can be reached.

Let me add that not every zone that the enemy can reach needs an INF as a blocker.
In certain places (in case there aren’t a LOT of german tanks), leaving certain territories open is ok, trying to single out some tanks and finishing them off with some INF + air force. Of course not every German will take the baitl.

By 1943 Russia had 2-5 times as many tanks as germany on every front. 2-10 times as many planes. 2-5 times as many artillery pieces, and 2-5 times as many infantry units. Remember Germany had to send 15-20 % against the allies in the west. Norway, france, Homeland Germany, Denmark, and other occupied states, while as Russia had nearly all of its forces Against Germany since Japan was NEVER going to attack russia after it had previous battles against Russia and saw it was hopeless as well as Japan had its hands full against the other Allies. This is just Russia VS. Germany. The allies (UK, Canada, and US) had 10 times as many tanks as Germany and 10 times as many aircraft. Japan was equally screwed. US built over 100 Carriers in WW2. Japan had a total in the 20’s, but never at one time due to battle losses. The US built over 1,300 warships. Japan could never have handled this. No matter what you say the Axis had about a 5% chance to win WW2. this only if Moscow would have gotten taken, but if you read military history you will see that this probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway seeing as how Russia moved its factories back into Siberal in the Ural mountains region. Germany never could have taken Russia due to Russia’s huge size as well as huge manpower advantage, industrial advantage, only one front to deal with, and the fact that their front lines were in Russia meaning tanks and airplanes could drive and fly strait into the battle off the assembly line. While as Germany’s front lines in 1942 were far from Germany’s industry. If the game was ever played to history allies would win 98 percent of the time with two equally skilled players IMO. This is why the game is made to recreate history sort of, while being playable so that both sides have an equal chance of winning.

It does appear more and more now that the British curiser in sz91 will survive to UK1, so the question becomes, if it is going to be there on UK1 how do you use it? Or more specifically how does it help the British naval position in the eastern Med?