AAG40 Setup Pictures(Larry's Alpha Setup)

@barnee that’s what I do :>>>>

The point of the Germany build was that it didn’t give you a clear indication of their plan. Full artillery does: that they’re (probably) going east. Full mech/tank does: that they’re (almost definitely) going east.

Yes, the most effective UK full defensive buy is all infantry, but the fighter is useful for the rest of the game, and that buy is still a very, very strong sea lion deterrent. It’s more common than all inf.

You can find these outdated rules here:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149

@Vance:

I always SBR London if I am planning or pretending sea lion.  That turn 1 SBR is a critical piece of sea lion and the threat is not serious without it.  Two Bombers target the IC and two tacticals target the airbase.  They do not intercept because a) the fighters scramble in z110 or z109, or b) if they are taking the sea lion threat seriously they do not want to risk losing a fighter.  About half the time I lose a plane to AA, but its worth it because the sea lion threat forces UK to spend its entire first turn income on repairs and infantry, leaving the med and Africa open for Italy.  Italy’s NO income soon pays for any losses you may have had (unless you get diced and lose 3 or 4 of them).  If both sides have normal losses (i.e. germany loses 1 plane or none; the airbase is inoperable and the IC has something like 10 damage), and they spend in South Africa or Egypt, do a Taranto raid, etc., well then sea lion is on.

Yeah, I didn’t even think of bombing the airbases too. Of course that means that they won’t scramble into an adjacent sea zone, but then they can still intercept the strategic and tactical bombers attacking the IC and airbase, right? If I know that that’s what my opponent intends to do, then I’d use all my fighters exactly for that as they won’t be of any use in an adjacent sz. But yes, you have a point too that if Germany really wants to go for sea lio, the UK will need all the fighters it can get!

Well, I got my FMG Italian units and tried setting up for a game of ALpha+3.  Unfortunately, I’m afraid that I like the FMG pieces a little too well.

Alpha 3 setup Europe 3.JPG
Alpha 3 setup Pacific 3.JPG

You know, I’m kind of surprised that Larry didn’t include US Submarines in costing 3 IPCs for convoy raiding.  Historically, the US submarine force did the same thing to Japanese merchant shipping that German U-boats did to Allied shipping in the Atlantic.  In fact, the US submarines were actually successful at it whereas through convoying and ASW improvements, the U-boat threat in the Atlantic was gradually reduced.  US subs were so successful that in 1944 the US Navy had to cut back on submarine production because they already had too many and were running out of targets since they had so crippled the Japanese importing.

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

I just had to print a few things:

The new setup (I just copied and pasted it into notepad from the HGD thread).

The new rule changes (same as above - notepad).

The new National Objective charts (I made mine in excel, uploaded them here).

That’s it. The battleboard hasn’t changed, and I use the IPC tracker that came with the Europe game. Things aren’t finalized yet but from what I understand the end is getting closer.