Under Construction (Please don't post)

Regarding SZ 110, I got hosed one time on a UK scramble. Usually as Germany, I send 3 fighters, 3 Stukas, 1 bombers and sometimes 1 sub to SZ 110. Our UK player had gotten in the habit of not scrambling in order to save the RAF for future action.
Well, this one game I made the mistake of just assuming UK would not scramble. I sent 2 fighters, 2 Stukas and 1 bomber to SZ 110. The other fighter and Stuka I sent to kill the French fleet in SZ 93. Well, UK taught me a lesson. They scrambled and wiped out my planes. I didn’t even kill all the ships in the channel.
Never made that mistake again.

I have to say I like the idea of giving all nations more money.  Perhaps each nation collects their normal income + national objective income and then adds 2d6 bonus economy to add in randomness?

That should only average an extra 6 IPC per nation (6.090909… really) but would be flexible enough to give only +2 or as much as +12 both of which could add some flair and randomness to the game.

So, is thing balanced or does it favor one side or the other?

Also, how does it play?  Fast?  Slow?  Confused?

Looking forward to some reviews!

Thanks

Karl

:mrgreen:

3-5 bombers flying to london can be the difference between sea lion success and sea lion fail. It changes the odds drastically. Because Germany has to roll 3 more hits to win… which means more 2s to roll for the defender which means more 4s to roll as the battle drags on.

So yes sometimes Japan postpones war because of bomber purchases by USA.

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 ;)

@Maddog77:

My sons and I will play a round or two an evening. Sometimes it take almost a month to complete a game, but we don’t get burned out on it that way. It helps having a room I can leave the game up in too. We have been connecting up w/ others through these forums and playing 12-14 hours games! That works too!

This is a good idea.  I could leave it set up for a while and play by forum.

How would I go about doing that?  Could anyone direct me to the correct area?

Cheers.

If you read the last couple of posts, you might conclude that it was finished.

And as was explained the entire discussion is about a unit that does not exist, a 2-2-2-4 mech that can blitz alone. To play online with this new idea would require some programming?

I ask because i never play online.

@Frank:

But I have to say I like the Alpha set up much better.

It is incredible how much better it makes the game from both sides.