Larry's alpha plus setup

J1 usually sees a 2 transport 2 sub purchase, j2’s 1 carrier 2 transport 1 sub, j3 and onwards is primarily sub purchases with carriers for whatever planes you don’t need on the front lines.  You use whatever subs you can spare to convoy raid Australia, kill off china’s stack with your starting land forces backed up by spare planes, and grab the money islands as well as those new NO islands with your 7 transports.  Ground troops can get pretty sparse so you might have to mix in a couple infantry on J2 or J3 in order to make sure you have enough to staff your transports.  Pacific UK ends up being the biggest problem normally, but if you bring your remaining army out of China after killing them and sit it in Yunan you can generally ward them off for a bit, especially if they’ve been stacking infantry and have sent some of their planes to Africa.  If not, you may have to screen SZ 6 from the US for a turn in order to run some of your navy south to help defend your transports as you go island hoping.  However, only the US’s starting navy plus its US1 build/ US2 pacific build are in a position to attack Japan when you declare war, so you can generally afford to get away with splitting the navy for a turn or two.

It’s important to remember that even if things start to get out of hand in Asia, you’re only really trying to buy time.  Turn 9 or 10 should see Germany finish off Russia, possibly 11 or 12 if they run their Siberian inf back early on.

Still, only played 3 games so far so I certainly expect to find ways around this as the Allies.

i do not agree with not allowing subs fighting back alone transports

In my games against chompers I have been the allies twice, and the axis once.  I lost both games I played as the allies and won the game I played as axis.

I do believe the game is now very much in favor of the axis though I like it much better than the out of box set up.  In out of box set up the allies pretty much always won.  In the new set up I find it hard as the US to send anything to the Atlantic but if I don’t then I get beat in Europe.  Japan can now hurt the US economy big time and force them to build land units if the Pacific is ignored.  We have found that when playing Japan if you buy mostly Navy and some transports to take the money islands, combined with Japan’s huge starting Navy that it forces the US to spend just about all of it’s points in the pacific to stop Japan from getting out of hand.

I think the allies need a little something added to them now so they have a chance to achieve their victory conditions.  While I understand almost no one plays until allies have taken over all three axis capitals there needs to be a way the allies can respond to the axis and still form a long term plan to capture at least one axis capital and hold it.  This would give the allies a chance to achieve a victory.

I have a suggestion.  One is to give the allies a special rule where once per game they could conduct a multinational attack.  This would represent the allies getting together and planning something of the likes of D Day.  Or it could represent an alternate history such as the Anzac, Pacific UK, and US joining up together to wage a battle for Tokyo.  There would be some options.  This would keep the game where it is the allies responding to the axis but would open a window for the allies to also play to win rather than just playing defense of the victory cities.

The rule for the multinational attack would allow the allies countries to all attack at once as one force in any allied turn against a single axis controlled territory but the allies could only manage to plan this once per game due to the complexity of planning and organizing such a major military operation.

Do anyone feel this is a good idea that would balance the game more?  Maybe the rule could be tweaked to give the axis some ipcs to immediately place once the multinational attack is declared to represent them spying out the attack is coming and marshalling together extra forces. This way the special rule might not become too overpowering to be abused.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

I personally don’t agree with my buddy here as I find the idea could be very easily exploitable, especially with regards to a relatively early strike on SZ 6.  Japan’s fleet would never be able to leave the home islands after the early game.

A slightly larger US starting fleet may be the way to go IMO.

Mulitnational attacks would be nice, but I think It would need to be limited to just the US and ANZAC in that pacific.

I honestly think we are pretty close here.  Perhaps as little as 5IPC here or there or a couple more Russian tanks from the get go. (btw, I’m a T-34 junkie)  The latter would encourage the Italians to push something east.  Usually a blessing but sometimes a curse for the Axis.

In my group I am the one with the game.  The last OOTB game we played I won as the Axis.  Then I was part of the loosing team in an Alpha+ and think I’m doing ok as the Allies in a two player Alpha ++ (11/23 or so).

My favorite games were playing OOTB as Axis and this new 11/23 Alpha game my opponent is really giving me the run around.  Very positional game, Japan’s battles with China and Russia have been the bloodiest.  Why do I have an American force preparing to land in South Africa?!?!?

Long ago, with the Classic game, they had a rule called “Commander In Chief” where you could make multinational attacks.  Basically, two or three countries would group some forces together (for example, US and British forces building up on United Kingdom) and at the end of the non-combat move phase of one of the nations, let’s say US, the players would decide to designate the US player “Commander In Chief” and stack 3 US control markers there.  On UK’s next turn, they can still move any units in that grouping, but then those units are no longer part of the combined force.  Then, on US’s turn, they can move all of the US pieces plus any British pieces that DID NOT move on UK’s turn in a huge combined force attack.

I think when the 2nd edition of the Classic rules came out, they eliminated the “Commander In Chief” rule and I haven’t seen it in any of Avalon Hill’s versions.  I always thought it was kind of a cool rule and don’t understand why they did away with it.  Maybe they figured out like chompers said that it would be too easy to exploit and give too much advantage to the Allies.  After all, in Classic they didn’t have Italy and it was very rare that Germany and Japan could actually help each other.

That rule was removed because it gave the Allies a huge advantage.

@Krieghund:

That rule was removed because it gave the Allies a huge advantage.

Yes too huge of an advantage. But now its unblanced the other way a bit. But the allies still have a much greater IPC count the then axis they just need to figure out a way to stall for time.

A&A 2nd edition is still a huge advantage for the allies.  Bids in PBEM clubs are on average at about 23 ipc’s in axis units. 6inf 1arm usually in Afr, Ukr, or split.

8. All 3 Minor ICs in the continental US automatically are immediately converted to Major ICs when the US is at war. They can be upgraded at any time for 20 IPCs.

Does USA have to pay 20 ipcs to upgrade when they go to war?

No.

@Krieghund:

@leddux:

can you upgrade the minor complexes to major status paying the 20 IPCs while still neutral?

No.

That was in the last version.

@Krieghund:

That was in the last version.

When is this alpha nonsense going to be finalized. It’s making my head spin. Will this be the official setup for all 3 games ?

@Battling:

When is this alpha nonsense going to be finalized. It’s making my head spin. Will this be the official setup for all 3 games ?

It will be done when it’s done.  It will either be the official setup or an alternate setup, for all three games.