US 30 IPC bonus question

Locke888

Some people like simple some like complex….some like logic some like regimented rules

I agree with you…some are now calling it a National objective…I read it as non aggression pact in a political situation and that action is AGGRESSION. What I do know is I am not wrong…nor are people who agree with this move…this rule is simply left to interpretation…that’s all there is to it

No coincidence that there are so many house rules…why are they there? Because it is a great game and it has flaws and mistakes and rules that are not clear. I bet you there is not a player who plays this game who has not sat there and looked at a rule to go from section to section to get a clarification for at least 10 minutes during a game.

As for logic…if you are playing strategists…throw that out of the window…if you are playing historical folks…you can get somewhere…and then there is the in between and there you negotiate

@taamvan:

Unternehmen Zee-Adler Angriff?

Adler =  raptor
Angriff = attack

I like it.

Was??
What do you mean?

@Celvus:

Thanks for the quick Answer Elrood! :-)

I Still find this Rule a little Strange. So the Allied Fraction just stands beside the Sea Fight watching the Battle and drinking some Beer?.  :|

Well, if that helps, imagine a vast seazone where the UK DD and Russian Sub are not in some battle group but actually far away from each other.  :-)

@Celvus:

Anyway since we play by the Rules we have to respect that. :-)

Good choice, there is nothing against house rules, but I would not mess with something integral like that. The befits of mixed fleets are already crazily good.

for example. UK / US fleets mass in SZ109 or 110. You think Berlin is save since you have a DD in SZ112 and few troops in Denmark, and have not many troops in Berlin (may be even none).
Then:
US fleet takes Denmark and after that UK goes into baltic sea and attacks Berlin, killing Germany most likely with that move. - Axis have no way to interact between US and UK moving… so its really nasty.

That happened to more than one inexperienced player, since it takes some time to “see” these possible scenarios.  :wink:
Just to let you see the possibilities

@IKE:

Another option in a 2v2 live game is to split the Allies up by theater, which we like to do.

Allies player 1: US (Atlantic), UK (London), Russia, France
Allies player 2: US (Pacific), UK (Calcutta), Anzac, China

Ofcourse this involves heavy coordination in strategy of spending US $.  It’s give and take.

We have done this in the past, and it is pretty cool. The 2 US players lobbying for income/units is kinda what happened historically (which theater gets a boost?). Does the Pac player allow the Siberians to march home? Dose India give up some air/fleet to Egypt? This gives the Euro and Pac allied players something to do throughout the game, and coordination is a must. Some of their powers are in the fight from the get go, some are dwindling, and others are ramping up.

On the Pac side, US controlling Anzac seems right because they need to work together once the US gets into the game. As China/India looses ground the US picks up steam so that player is involved throughout.

On the Euro side the UK gets a lot of action as do the French (turn one). The US/Russia comes into play slowly, and you don’t want someone to have only the US/Russia because of that.

In our group Russia is an inept power to play because it can be very boring unless there is a Sea lion. There is nothing good about playing the US/Russia, waiting for 3 rounds to go by, and the game is paused until the next day lol. Even when we split the allies up differently, Russia is a bit of a question. Sometimes we alternate Russia’s turn between both allied players.

Alpha 3 is an evolution of what originally started as a setup change to address imbalances in the Pac1940 game.

The original setup change addressed Pac 40 only, and was called Alpha, and was meant to be used in Pac alone as well as Global.  Imbalances noted in Global began to influence the alpha revisions, going from Alpha, Alpha +, Alpha + 2, etc.  As these changes were made to address global, there was still a desire to use these modifications for the theater specific games, but this was not a playtesting priority (most people has transitioned to Global only as their primary game - alpha began before Europe 1940 was released).  As the theater games became less of a playtesting priority, the national objectives were revised, and this is probably the primary driver of theater imbalances at this point (particularly US objectives in the pacific theater & Russian objectives in Europe theater).

I would recommend using the Alpha 3 setup and rule changes.  I would recommend using OOB national objectives until official objectives that apply to the theater games are released.  Alternatively, use national objectives from Alpha 3 for all countries but US (use OOB for those) in theater specific games.

The one hanging option that’s been noted many times for the Europe theater is that the Siberian reinforcements should be abandoned and instead Russia ALWAYS collects 9 additional IPCs each turn that represent the eastern provinces not shown in the Europe theater.

Yes, it can do that. Refer to page 20 of the P40 rulebook, under restrictions on placement:
“New Sea units can enter play even in a hostile sea zone. No combat occurs because the conduct combat phase is over.”

@Detuite:

Can paratroopers fly over occupied enemy tt’s and drop into a empty enemy tt.

Yes, as long as the territory being attacked is also being attacked by non-paratrooper land units.

@Detuite:

lets say you have 3 transports in a sea zone can 1 enemy fighter or 1 enemy surface ship destroy all of them on 1 attack

Yes.

Plus Germany has a little extra incentive to make sure they keep it with the new NO.  Taking Norway and building an IC there won’t be the sure thing it’s always been up to now, but yes, if the US can pull it off it would be a major shift in power.