Oh shoot, sorry, you’re right, I read it wrong.
Alpha+ 1
-
An optional rule that Switzerland is impassable would be better.
-
Colonial troops.
Allow Askaris to be recruited in originally owned African tts. However, including UK units placed in India, limit colonial spending to 6 IPCs per turn per power.
-
Damaged Battleships fight @ 2 and move @ 1 until repaired.
-
No Askaris, India OK, Battleship fix too.
-
Restrict placement of new units (other than colonials) to the following:
Any home tt contiguous by land with the capital, subject to these limits:
Capital - 3 units
Controlled home tt - 2 units
Contested home tt - 1 unit
This is inclusive of naval builds.
-
Ships can retreat after calling off a naval attack, rather than remaining in a contested SZ like a bunch of sitting ducks. However the defender can then choose to pursue them and continue the battle.
-
Why don’t we wait until like March 24th to start this thread. That way most players will have a test play completed. The game may be balanced. Nobody has played the game. Im sure the Russian Revolution rule needs to be fixed.
-
Surrender
An army which begins a turn out of supply, that is surrounded by the enemy and unable to trace a line by land or sea to a friendly capital through at least contested tts, has this one turn to break out or it must surrender.
A surrendering army must turn all its mechanical units over to the enemy (exchange colour), and its surviving infantry are taken as POWs.
If a nation has a revolution, or loses its capital, it must return all POWs to the original owner.
-
Flash you are going beyond alpha (modifying existing rules)
Into adding new rules that arent in the game.These Alpha suggestions are to fix what we feel are EXPLOITS
USA getting to Europe too soon
Russian controlled territories uncaptureable after Armistice
German sneak attack through Swiss alps (with elephants)
Battleships unable to repair at friendly ports.
UK overwhelming the ottomans with industrial units (artillery, fighters, tanks) from India -
These Alpha suggestions are to fix what we feel are EXPLOITS
USA getting to Europe too soon
Russian controlled territories uncaptureable after Armistice
German sneak attack through Swiss alps (with elephants)
Battleships unable to repair at friendly ports.
UK overwhelming the ottomans with industrial units (artillery, fighters, tanks) from IndiaThis has not been established in all instances, wait to play the game a few times first.
Points 2 and 4 do look like problems, but still need to wait to declare this. -
Valid point IL, without having some games under our belts, we cant be sure yet.
HOWEVER, simply that these historical glitches are possible should make us wary of the implications in the game.Getting together a half dozen of my friends on the weekend ought not be spoiled by a German sneak attack into the Alps. Or the US having boots in Europe in 1915, unprovoked by the central powers.
We must be on the lookout for these hiccups in the game’s mechanics. Why have some of these been allowed. Will they be addressed in a formal FAQ. Will the game require an Alpha ruleset and reprint, or can these 5 simple rules be addressed in the FAQ by Krieg?
-
The only issues that have to do with realism are items 2, and 4. The other three are declarations of game play by playing. Possibly the Swiss issue can be a problem.
-
#1 is a violation of historical accuracy.
Nothing commanded by the Federal Government of the United States left the western hemisphere until we were provoked.
To allow US forces to do so flies in the face of history.#5 is a violation of logistics.
according to the rules the UK can place 10 infantry in India, each turn if it so desires, and can afford to.
Or it can place 5 tanks, or 5 fighters. The colonial forces of India, Australia, or New Zealand hardly had the ability to manufacture anything like this.
This is the one I am least sure about, but strictly from a balance perspective, the UK able to spend IPCs that are being generated in london to mysteriously produce units in india is a little odd, considering no other power can do it.1,2,3, and 4 for me all seem very reasonable.
Playtesting of course before any decision is final, but be alert for how these 5 things effect the game. -
#1 is a violation of historical accuracy.
Nothing commanded by the Federal Government of the United States left the western hemisphere until we were provoked.
To allow US forces to do so flies in the face of history.USA getting to Europe too soon
I am just saying this conclusion is unknown, the rules may not allow this for some unforeseen issue.
#5 is a violation of logistics.
according to the rules the UK can place 10 infantry in India, each turn if it so desires, and can afford to.
Or it can place 5 tanks, or 5 fighters. The colonial forces of India, Australia, or New Zealand hardly had the ability to manufacture anything like this.
This is the one I am least sure about, but strictly from a balance perspective, the UK able to spend IPCs that are being generated in london to mysteriously produce units in india is a little odd, considering no other power can do it.UK overwhelming the ottomans with industrial units (artillery, fighters, tanks) from India
I think this would have been messing up the playtest reports if it got out of hand, perhaps UK needs this to not lose Africa, if they don’t place units in UK, that gets invaded. UK must focus on France so im not thinking the rule will bust the game.
So what im saying is go ahead and build 12 units in India and watch how soon UK falls once France falls because they didn’t support her ally. Possibly Larry wanted India to be important to capture. The kaiser did want to capture India in the Great War, so perhaps Larry wanted to make it important in the game?
-
A 10 infantry build in India would be stupid and unrealistic.
Just because it’s stupid to do doesn’t mean the rules should allow such a gross historical inaccuracy.Just like sending US units to europe on turn 3 may be foolish, it shouldn’t even be possible considering how historically inaccurate that is.
-
@Imperious:
So what im saying is go ahead and build 12 units in India and watch how soon UK falls once France falls because they didn’t support her ally.
This. Many of these issues that are popping up are 9 times out of 10 not going to happen, and if they do, the player is an idiot. If Russia is cavorting around in Western Europe while three or more of their home tt’s are captured, then they deserve to be overthrown.
-
A 10 infantry build in India would be stupid and unrealistic.
Just because it’s stupid to do doesn’t mean the rules should allow such a gross historical inaccuracy.Game balance trumps historical accuracy, especially in a game like this. Perhaps it can be assumed that UK can bring that many troops to India, rather than what your thinking which is building them…
Perhaps it can be a fact that UK could deploy that size of a force from UK in what is given as a turn.
If we go with what is historical, Ottomans cant build any planes or tanks, or even artillery and ships.
So what are we to do? screw up a game that has not been played or just make all these adjustments and ruin balance?
I do agree that the India thing might be a problem, but i trust the playtesting especially after the other games did playtesting at Chucky Cheese with plenty of beer…
They have to have got it right this time. Keep hope alive!
-
Something that’s been bothering me- tanks seem extremely underwhelming. Attack 2, defend 1 for 6 bucks? Absorb a hit only on attack? Should be a 3/2 for that price, or drop the cost to 5.
I understand it has to do with balance, buy AA42’s tanks are 3/3, move 2 for 610 IPCs, and even THAT seems barely worth it.
-
India is probably considered a safety valve for a UK that has lost its home navy. Â It can stay active rather than just build up home defences.
I’d prefer to have a limit, and allow some Africa build AKA Askaris.
-
See the thread below about tanks.
In WWI they were a breakthrough weapon, practically useless in defence. Its generous giving them a defensive roll at all.
As I’ve suggested, an adjustment giving artillery the ability to support an infantry AND a tank would solve the tank weakness and encourage combined arms building.
Something that’s been bothering me- tanks seem extremely underwhelming. Attack 2, defend 1 for 6 bucks? Absorb a hit only on attack? Should be a 3/2 for that price, or drop the cost to 5.
I understand it has to do with balance, buy AA42’s tanks are 3/3, move 2 for 610 IPCs, and even THAT seems barely worth it.
Suggested Topics
