On the UK Fleet:
When they go for the kill, southern italy is normally reinforced by the a couple German fighters, which can scramble. If the UK actually wins the battle, they have so little left that they just get destroyed on I1.
If they flee, well the italians simply take control of nothern africa and the Mediterranean on turn 1, as described above.
Fight or flee is basically a lose-lose situation for the UK….
Gents,
I’ve now played 2 games of global with alpha2, and both times the Italians were virtually industrutible.
They would basically do the following every time:
-Shred the UK/French fleets to bits.
-Use all their barges to unload in Egypt.
-Battle off with the UK in the middle east and Africa for a bit, ultimately winning quite decisively.
-Annihilate the french resistance in North Africa.
Basically by turn 3 they would control all the following territories: Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Morocco, Gibraltar, Algeria, Tunisia, Greece, Southern France. They would therefore make 37 IPC.
With that they would march onto the middle east, and caucasus, making an additional 15 IPC.
To a grand total of 52IPC/Turn by turn 5/6
The only power that could fight them off is the UK but only one minor factory in south africa, and possibly in the middle east, and clearly not enough IPCs, they ultimately get shattered.
My whole point is that the italian National Objectives are just far too easy to reach, making it a major power quite early on in the game.
What are your thoughts on this?
well, the various units are the same, as far as I can tell.
however the dice are a bit crappier and and the markers do seems slightly thinner.
Overall it is barely noticeable, I’d say.
If conquered by the British, do those territories’ income go to the pacific or the european economy?
AA guns have never been as usefull as in AAP40!
I would say that their main advantage is that they prevent the so called “Japanese Airforce Overkill Strategy”, which would consist in using only 2-3 barges and a sh*t load of planes to attack steadily defended territories, hoping to destroy the enemy resistance in one turn and to suffer few enough casualties to only have to eliminate insignificant ground troops.
With AA guns, the Japanese player fears loosing too many planes, in the overkill, and therefore will send fewer, giving the defender a chance to survive a couple rounds, hence having a chance at inflicting enough casualties forcing the attacker to have to eliminate planes to take the territory.
In all honesty, Pacific 1940, just by itself, is not as brilliant of a game as Europe 1940. However, it is a very very good game, especially ounce you’ve played about 20 ames of AAE40, and are getting quite fed up with it.
Plus, of course, it allows you to play global, if you have about 16 hours to spare, which is fantastic.
I bought mine form Amazon.co.uk, it cost me £65, and everything in was in the box, no misprints. Although, it is true that the materials are of inferior quality to AEE40’s.
Just use French units. It’s not as if they EVER will need their bomber, anyways.
I do, however, agree that the box is terribly lacking in pieces, especially grey and red troop counters…. I finally got back my Old AA, that I had left at my parents’ years ago, and it really changed my life, not having to use coins, to put under the units…
Hi Zcion,
I posted the exact same question a little while ago, and received the following responsde from krieghund:
“The attacker assigns his/her units before the defender decides whether or not to scramble.”
HOWEVER, me and my friends have decided to ignore that rule, and have the defender say if he scrambles first. Indeed, we felt that if the attacker decides first, the defender is simply never going to scramble (as it is assumed the attacker will systematically leave enough ships/planes fighting in the sea battle to shatter the air resistance), forcing the attacker to “waste” planes on an already won sea battle.
The rationale that we used, although that might seem a bit of a stretch, is that any planes fighting in the sea battle would realise that they are not faced with any air defence, and would therefore proceeds to fight in the ground fight.
Please be reminded that this is OUR HOUSE RULE, and not the official rule; although I frankly believe that it makes considerably more sense.
I hope that helps.
YAAARRR!!
Playing AAE40, with Alpha +2.
The French had, most obviously lost France in the first turn, however it was lost with only ONE german tank remaining.
Throughout the game they managed to do the following:
-Sink the Bismarck (original German Battleship) and it’s escort cruiser.
-Sink 8 barges.
-Sink 2 italian destroyers and a sub in the mediterranean.
-Invade Tobruk, Alexandria and liberate Alexandria, Killing 2 infantries and an Artillery in the process.
-Liberate Kenya, Congo and Sudan, Killing two Italian infantries in the procees.
-Defend Syria, Killing 1 infantry and 1 artillery.
I had never seen the French forces being so useful…
VIVE LA RESISTANCE!!
I will admit something: I apparently do not understand anything about the scrambling rules….
A couple more questions:
-Can planes scramble if there only are barge coming to unload? (I think not)
-In the case of an amphibious assault, when does the attacking player decide which planes/boats participate in the sea battle and which participate in the ground battle? Basically, does the defending player announce his intention to scramble first, or does the attacking player split his units first. My point is that, if the attacking player needs to go first, the defending player won’t scramble anything, knowing the sea battle lost, therefore forcing that attacker to not use considerably more planes then necessary in the sea battle.
Well I am discussing alpha+2. Are you implying planes to attack barges alone?
plus, I usually “like” it when the allies use their planes to attack the ships as they tend to loose a couple, therefore weakening their London defences.
My call is G1: 2 strategic and 1 tank.
G2: 8 barges+ tactical (if I managed to take Bordeaux, France, Finland and Yugoslavia, in G1).
Which allow me to send the following (assuming a few fighters are lost sinking the fleet, which I do over 2 turns):
9 tanks
9 infantries
3 strategic bombers
2 fighters
which gives me, if the Enlgish player has 20 infantries and 5 fighters, about 90% chance of winning.
Well these ships cannot cross the danish straight, and would be sunk, by the planes regardless. The carrier has no attack value, why not replace it by some strategic bombers?
I don’t understand the point of building a carrier, if your barges are set in 113 (not reachable by british planes) and the English fleet has been sunk. Can someone please explain?
Hi Guys,
I see in the changes listed above that the USSR gets +9 IPC. I have reviewed the alpha+2 rules, as posted by Larry, and I haven’t been able to see that anywhere. I presume it is my mistake.
Is it a one of +9IPC in the begining of the game, or are some territories just worth more, or might it be a mistake in this post?
OK, thanks Krieghund.
One last question about this: can planes from allied powers stationed on a territory also scramble (to a maximum of 3 planes I take it).
For example: can the French plane in London scramble, or can it only fight if the UK is invaded.
Cheers and many thanks for the clarification.
If I understand well, in Alpha +2, planes can scramble from anywhere, even if the territory isn’t an island.
For example, italians might want to scarmble their planes in Southern Italy, to defend their ships?
Again, I know that must have been asked many times, but I really can’t seem to find an asnwer.
In OOB, can planes scramble in sea zones 109 and 110, if they are posted in London?
What about in alpha+2?
Many thanks.
In most games I have played it appears that the US always end up landing in Norway, build an IC there and then either power through russia into Berlin, or build barges and conjointly strike back with the Russians.
How would you go about countering that with the Axis?
Hi guys. I’ve been following most threads for a little while and, even though I guess this question has been vastly discussed, I have not found an answer to it.
My question is the following: do you ever invade strictly neutral territories. Indeed, it is my understanding that in so doing, one would allow their enemies to seize all the remain ones as if they were pro-their faction.
The only one that I feel would have any strategic value might Turkey, as it would allow direct passage from mainland europe to asia and stalingrad.
I would love to hear your point of views on that!