Krieghund - Alpha final question


  • Customizer

    In Alpha final, can the Allies claim FIC for themselves in the same way they can take Dutch East Indies while NOT at war with Japan?  Or since it is French owned, it stays French?



  • @jim010:

    In Alpha final, can the Allies claim FIC for themselves in the same way they can take Dutch East Indies while NOT at war with Japan?  Or since it is French owned, it stays French?

    Stays french, acts french.  Can only be controlled by an Allied power if they capture it from an Axis power, and only so long as Paris is in Axis hands.



  • @kcdzim:

    @jim010:

    In Alpha final, can the Allies claim FIC for themselves in the same way they can take Dutch East Indies while NOT at war with Japan?  Or since it is French owned, it stays French?

    Stays french, acts french.  Can only be controlled by an Allied power if they capture it from an Axis power, and only so long as Paris is in Axis hands.

    I think Ho Chi Minh would have a problem with that… Haha, sorry, couldn’t resist that bad joke.  😄


  • Customizer

    Bump.



  • It’s no different than any other capital-less french territory.
    No reason to think otherwise.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Yea,

    But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?

    And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.

    It’s B.S.

    And it’s a good question for Jim to be asking.


  • Official Q&A

    Kcdzim is correct.

    @Gargantua:

    But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?

    It’s the same.

    @Gargantua:

    And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.

    Because it makes no difference.



  • @Krieghund:

    @Gargantua:

    But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?

    It’s the same.

    And in Pac only you assume that Paris is always occupied by Axis powers during the course of the game



  • @Gargantua:

    Yea,

    But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?

    And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.

    It’s B.S.

    And it’s a good question for Jim to be asking.

    Why the HELL does Russia get their 9? I mean, really. Why?

    Like, seriously, considering how long some games go the Allies could have a moon base giving 1 IPC.



  • @Krieghund:

    @Gargantua:

    And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.

    Because it makes no difference.

    Well to be fair, Germany could still use 70 IPCs as opposed to 68 on G2.


  • TripleA

    france starting income is 17 and not 19??? wut?



  • Only in the Europe-only game.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Because it makes no difference.

    I really DISAGREE with that.  Those 2 Ipc’s are CRUCIAL for a valid Sea-Lion.  And in the right circumstances making one less spread out battle, to achieve the 70 IPC’s required.



  • who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.



  • @Rhey:

    who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.

    It depends on what UK does. Germany has to at least threaten sealion in most games and force UK to at least guard against it.



  • @seththenewb:

    @Rhey:

    who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.

    It depends on what UK does. Germany has to at least threaten sealion in most games and force UK to at least guard against it.

    Still depends on the Axis’ Unified Strategy… I’ve ignored UK after G1 before and taken Moscow.



  • @Gargantua:

    Yea,

    But what if you play Pacific STAND ALONE?

    And why the HELL doesn’t France get the 2 IPC’s for the territory in Europe Stand Alone - whilst the Russians get their plus 9 or whatever.

    It’s B.S.

    And it’s a good question for Jim to be asking.

    I don’t read Russia getting +9 when playing Europe 40 on its own anywhere. Where does it say so??? I’m confused…



  • @Rhey:

    who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.

    Has anyone trieb SBRs with the two German bombers on turn 1 to not allow the Brits to place many units there or having to pay for repairs first? If the bombers are not shot down they should do an average of 5 IPC damage each, which is 10 IPC in total. (23 + 22 as per the 3.9 alpha rules. Of course the Brits can use their fighters as interceptors, so the German will also have to send along one or two fighters, but if the British do that, then they won’t be able to scramble into an adjacent sea zone that will undoubtedly also be under attack.



  • @Koningstiger:

    @Rhey:

    who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.

    Has anyone trieb SBRs with the two German bombers on turn 1 to not allow the Brits to place many units there or having to pay for repairs first? If the bombers are not shot down they should do an average of 5 IPC damage each, which is 10 IPC in total. (23 + 22 as per the 3.9 alpha rules. Of course the Brits can use their fighters as interceptors, so the German will also have to send along one or two fighters, but if the British do that, then they won’t be able to scramble into an adjacent sea zone that will undoubtedly also be under attack.

    Well, the fighters plus AA would probably knock down 1 bomber, so it’s not close to profitable.



  • @techroll42:

    @Koningstiger:

    @Rhey:

    who does sealion in alpha 3.9 anyways? it’s plain suicide against a moderate allied player.

    Has anyone trieb SBRs with the two German bombers on turn 1 to not allow the Brits to place many units there or having to pay for repairs first? If the bombers are not shot down they should do an average of 5 IPC damage each, which is 10 IPC in total. (23 + 22 as per the 3.9 alpha rules. Of course the Brits can use their fighters as interceptors, so the German will also have to send along one or two fighters, but if the British do that, then they won’t be able to scramble into an adjacent sea zone that will undoubtedly also be under attack.

    Well, the fighters plus AA would probably knock down 1 bomber, so it’s not close to profitable.

    Of course you’d have to send, say, 2 German fighters along as well. Losses can then be taken on the fighters. Then only the AA would fire two dice in total against the two bombers. Not such a high probability of losing them then. I do agree with you it’s a high risk strategy, but if one is really hell-bent on trying Sea Lion thebn it will certainly help to make placing units on the UK more costly and difficult.



  • 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.



  • @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.

    I actually SBR London more if I’m not going for Sealion. That, plus convoys, keeps the UK more than at bay. I want to see how bringing US fighters over works.



  • @techroll42:

    @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.

    I actually SBR London more if I’m not going for Sealion. That, plus convoys, keeps the UK more than at bay. I want to see how bringing US fighters over works.

    But that won’t happen until turn 4 (or weas it five?) since nations that are (still) neutral are not allowed to land units in non-owned territories.



  • @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!


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 39
  • 3
  • 19
  • 3
  • 7
  • 7
  • 5
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

36
Online

14.0k
Users

34.3k
Topics

1.4m
Posts