Pacific 40 W/ Alpha+1 rules?

@iandemel:

tell nutbar to play by alpha 2

Most people are playing 2nd edition rules, the Alpha rules are obsolete considering that 1st edition is out of print.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34418.0

These are really nice and easy to read.  Printing out and laminating them.

Thanks a bunch…

@nebnworb yea they get the bit in their mouth and they can run all over the place. Little annoying things that if they don’t react and you can support, can really be irritating. Of course they can kinda do the same thing, depending on USA strategy : )

Yea, I agree w/the new convoy rules. Not sure if I like Alpha 2 or Alpha 3 better yet, as I haven’t played Alpha 3. But, I do know that w/out bidding that Alpha 2 was broken. In my opinion favored toward the Allies. Not sure why they didn’t just give the Axis a few more units or the Allies a few less and just stick w/Alpha 2. I think giving the Axis 6 to 8 more IPC’s would balance the game.

Fighters that are damaged roughly lose around half their abilities @: attack: 2, defense: 2, Movement: 2, they also gain 5 damage points. The reason to this change, was so that players would feel more enthused to strategic bomb knowing they wouldn’t lose a fighter, instead, they could continue using the fighter just at a damaged level. The downgrade in its abilities would be a temporary result until the fighter is repaired at half the price (5 IPCs) of a new fighter.

Fighters that missed or didn’t get hit, are free to return to base like in the OoB rules.

One other thing i forgot to mention, bombers that are not accompanied with escorts are considered ‘locked on’ therefore are subject to interceptor fire @ 1d6 of damage per defending interceptor.

These rules make bombers and interceptors very powerful units. It encourages players to strategic bomb with 2d6 of damage, however there is also the risk of interceptor ‘lock on’ that would minimize the bombers full 2d6 damage potential.

I’ve got a more offensive posture to take if Japan masses in Carolines.  Move the fleet to z30, including the fighter from Philippines and 2 loaded transports.  Land 3 fighters, 1 tac and 1 bomber on Johnston Island and build an airbase there, with 2 more carriers in z10. Leave a destroyer in z25 and maybe z31 to block a landing on Hawaii. Now if Japan attacks anything J2 you can smoke that fleet off carolines and maybe even take the island if they don’t leave a blocker.  Planes that take off from Johnston island will land on the carriers from z10 when they NCM to z30.  ANZAC can help too.

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.

You can ignore the subs, but if Japan scrambles a fighter the subs can fight in the sea battle.