The Chinese have strange rules but the exceptions they get makes them exceptional. The ability to raise new units in a newly captured territory is overwhelmingly powerful. Even though they can only raise INF and ART, the ability to have one main stack and move it anywhere while building, instead of having to defend a particular territory, would be gamebreaking if China wasn’t restricted to Chinese territories and Burma and given a fairly low number of starting units.
We played Alpha yesterday.
-
http://dicetruction.blogspot.com/2012/03/our-first-shot-at-alpha-39.html
The link is to my blogpost of our game with the newest Alpha rules. We only got three and a half rounds in and will continue it in two weeks. Germany made some poor choices and it looks like the Allies will make a quick game of it but time will tell.
-
Allies will win.
One thing: You should NOT have an Atlantic US and Pacific US player. I don’t care if you go against the rules for splitup of powers, but 1 country has GOT to be 1 player or there will be chaos.
-
I disagree, for Global at any rate, USA has so much money, and each theatre has so little to do with each other that splitting them between two players works.
-
Fair enough but if Pac wants 2 carriers and 3 subs and eur wants 7 destroyers that don’t work.
-
That will hurt the Allies’ chances, I think. The united states needs to be able to focus most of it’s income on one theater, and defeat one power before turning to the other, which is what happened in the actual war. I think the US would have had very slow going if the Axis had not had such bad strategy and rolls.
-
Fair enough but if Pac wants 2 carriers and 3 subs and eur wants 7 destroyers that don’t work.
True but the actual argument is more likely to happen between the UK player and the US player than between two US players. It would be UK demanding the help on the Atlantic or Pacific side and the US player would be accommodating himself on each side respectively as the UK is also split with each player dealing with one board each. In a three player game only the Axis and the Soviets should be dealing with each board.
In our game yesterday First round I gave Mugsy all the US money and Second round I took it. Whether you need 7 destroyers or not you’re going to have to decide if you get them by weighing your options and I feel that this decision process works better with two minds rather than one. -
I don’t see anything inherently wrong with splitting the US command into theaters. However, addressing the resource designation could be troublesome.
It may be of utmost importance to spend the US income in the Atlantic due to Sea Lion, but at the same time you don’t want to be predictable to the Axis by alternating who gets to spend the income each round.
-
What I also think would be…problematic…is the possibility that the US players aren’t “on the same page,” meaning that there is a divide between their plans, and that the execution and split of resources is rough around the edges.
Also, cross-map planning is impossible, and I like to try to get the US transports in the Pacific away to Europe. With separate players, that would be hard.I understand your point about the 2 different opinions, but that could happen with a UK/US player.
-
Wouldn’t it just be simpler to split the UK between two players since they actually have two economies?
-
I don’t want to come off as mean, but splitting USA into west/east is the most retarded idea ever. Not only does it remove the strategic flexibility of the USA to commit most of its materials to one board or the another, it goes completely against game balance and game design. Something tells me your group didn’t think long and hard about the ramifications of such a decision.
-
whatever happened to letting people play how they want to?
Hey, I played a game where russia can choose to activate russian winter at the end of russia’s turn…. In Russian winter infantry defend at 3.
-
@Blitz:
I don’t want to come off as mean, but splitting USA into west/east is the most retarded idea ever. Not only does it remove the strategic flexibility of the USA to commit most of its materials to one board or the another, it goes completely against game balance and game design. Something tells me your group didn’t think long and hard about the ramifications of such a decision.
Ramifications? What the hell are you talking about? This is a board game dude. The ramifications are thus: 2 people make decisions and the results are either we win or we lose. No more or less than that. As far as thinking long and hard. The decision process goes like this. Hey, I don’t feel like walking 6 feet that way and shoving you out of the way so I can get to the Atlantic. Since we’re working towards the same goal why don’t you take this money and get what you need for that side. Oh, you’d like a little more? Sure here you go, I can make my side work with one less unit.
-
@Blitz:
I don’t want to come off as mean, but splitting USA into west/east is the most retarded idea ever. Not only does it remove the strategic flexibility of the USA to commit most of its materials to one board or the another, it goes completely against game balance and game design. Something tells me your group didn’t think long and hard about the ramifications of such a decision.
This is a pretty arrogant post. Let people play their own games. It’s all in the name of fun. Something tells me you’re one of those players that never shuts up and voices unwanted opinions during every players turn. Then wonders why nobody invites you back for another game.
-
As long as he’s got beer money I’d invite him back. I love beating guys like that. We had a guy like that that won 10 games in a row once. He never shut up about his streak. When one of us beat him it was awesome (even the guy on his team was happy). But alas he never had beer money. Nothing worse than a cocky player who drinks everyone else’s beer.
-
Most Holy - I just took a look at your blog where the pics of your game are. The board itself is incredible. Did you actually paint all those pieces yourself? Very, very nice!
Play the game how you want - it looks like you are having fun.
-
Thanks. Sometimes I think I enjoy enhancing the game more than playing. I just finished the Germans and now I have to go back and touch up the Japanese as they’re starting to wear out and since they were the first ones I ever did I’m a little better at it now and I think I can improve them.
-
Your board is definitely enhanced. Do you mind telling me where you got your markers for the air and naval bases?
-
http://dicetruction.blogspot.com/2012/01/painting-accessories.html?m=0
The above link is to my blog post about these two pieces and there are links to where you can find them on eBay. The prices are very reasonable.
-
Thanks a lot. Never would have guessed you made accessories out of a clothes pin!
-
@Most:
Fair enough but if Pac wants 2 carriers and 3 subs and eur wants 7 destroyers that don’t work.
True but the actual argument is more likely to happen between the UK player and the US player than between two US players. It would be UK demanding the help on the Atlantic or Pacific side and the US player would be accommodating himself on each side respectively as the UK is also split with each player dealing with one board each. In a three player game only the Axis and the Soviets should be dealing with each board. .
In our game yesterday First round I gave Mugsy all the US money and Second round I took it. Whether you need 7 destroyers or not you’re going to have to decide if you get them by weighing your options and I feel that this decision process works better with two minds rather than one.I play a lot of my Global games with a split USA.
Suggested Topics
