Our house rule, at least the past two or three months, has been that everyone collects income after America’s turn. Seemed logical to put it there since that is also when you check Victory Cities held by each side to determine who wins if anyone.
Any advantages that the allies might get by America going last are usually curtailed by Russia going first (and thus getting the least amount of income possible).
In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.
Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:
World War III!!!
Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!! :-D :mrgreen:
(Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw :-P….)
That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
(What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)
In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.
Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:
World War III!!!
Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!! :-D :mrgreen:
(Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw :-P….)
That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
(What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)
Who would be the major players?
US, UK, Germany, Isreal VS. Russia, China, N. Korea
Plus you would have neutral states. Oh and maybe this could be a three way war. So it would be: US, UK, Germany, Isreal, India VS. Russia, China, N. Korea VS. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.
That would be awesome.
@LT04:
In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.
Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:
World War III!!!
Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!! :-D :mrgreen:
(Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw :-P….)
That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
(What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)Who would be the major players?
US, UK, Germany, Isreal VS. Russia, China, N. Korea
Plus you would have neutral states. Oh and maybe this could be a three way war. So it would be: US, UK, Germany, Isreal, India VS. Russia, China, N. Korea VS. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.
That would be awesome.
US, UK, Israel, E. European Block States (you know like Romania, etc) and Turkey against Canada, W. European Block States (like Germany, France, etc), China, Middle Eastern States (like Iran, Syria) and North Korea. Just as a guideline I’d think.
Some are questionable, of course. Like would Iraq side with America or would Mexico side with America? Also, would Germany side with England or with Russia? Would Russia even play? or would Russia sit it out in hopes of killing off the victors afterwards?
I think having three teams would make this WWIII scenario very interesting.
@Cmdr:
@LT04:
In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.
Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:
World War III!!!
Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!! :-D :mrgreen:
(Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw :-P….)
That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
(What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)Who would be the major players?
US, UK, Germany, Isreal VS. Russia, China, N. Korea
Plus you would have neutral states. Oh and maybe this could be a three way war. So it would be: US, UK, Germany, Isreal, India VS. Russia, China, N. Korea VS. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.
That would be awesome.
US, UK, Israel, E. European Block States (you know like Romania, etc) and Turkey against Canada, W. European Block States (like Germany, France, etc), China, Middle Eastern States (like Iran, Syria) and North Korea. Just as a guideline I’d think.
Some are questionable, of course. Like would Iraq side with America or would Mexico side with America? Also, would Germany side with England or with Russia? Would Russia even play? or would Russia sit it out in hopes of killing off the victors afterwards?
If we are going for realism, Russia would definitely be on whatever side China and Iran are. Russia promised Iran that it would help defend against American or Israeli aggression, plus as Georgia shows, Russia has no problem pumping out military to fight. China and Russia have friendly ties on the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” basis (America/israel being that enemy). I think your team vs. team scenario is most realistic, adding Russia to China’s team. Iraq would most likely be a coin toss… they could go either way depending on if the resistance to US is large enough. Mexico would side with America. No way would they dare oppose the US, unless they desire to be crushed :wink: Of course, it is more likely they would avoid war…
@Rakeman:
@Cmdr:
@LT04:
In this case, a single territory contributes to the world economy three times of its product capability.
Hey, now that we are heading towards a world recession, here’s a solution:
World War III!!!
Let’s just all conquer each other , and see our economies prosper again!!! :-D :mrgreen:
(Isn’t this a Karl Marx theory btw :-P….)
That is awesome… now the real question is who wins WWIII? I’m betting on the US winning.
(What if they made a board game of WW3? Would’nt that be interesting?)Who would be the major players?
US, UK, Germany, Isreal VS. Russia, China, N. Korea
Plus you would have neutral states. Oh and maybe this could be a three way war. So it would be: US, UK, Germany, Isreal, India VS. Russia, China, N. Korea VS. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq.
That would be awesome.
US, UK, Israel, E. European Block States (you know like Romania, etc) and Turkey against Canada, W. European Block States (like Germany, France, etc), China, Middle Eastern States (like Iran, Syria) and North Korea. Just as a guideline I’d think.
Some are questionable, of course. Like would Iraq side with America or would Mexico side with America? Also, would Germany side with England or with Russia? Would Russia even play? or would Russia sit it out in hopes of killing off the victors afterwards?
If we are going for realism, Russia would definitely be on whatever side China and Iran are. Russia promised Iran that it would help defend against American or Israeli aggression, plus as Georgia shows, Russia has no problem pumping out military to fight. China and Russia have friendly ties on the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” basis (America/israel being that enemy). I think your team vs. team scenario is most realistic, adding Russia to China’s team. Iraq would most likely be a coin toss… they could go either way depending on if the resistance to US is large enough. Mexico would side with America. No way would they dare oppose the US, unless they desire to be crushed :wink: Of course, it is more likely they would avoid war…
Where would the UN fit in all of this?
Where would the UN fit into all of this? (Not like I care about the UN…)
Where would the UN fit into all of this? (Not like I care about the UN…)
They could send some peacekeeping forces to stop the violence. Attack 0, Defense 0, movement 5. They can be deployed virtually anywhere, but wont particularly do anything useful. :-P
Good point Rakeman!
Make it so that where ever a UN peace keeper is, in order to emphasise diplomatic negotiations, the attacking player can reconsider his attack after having rolled his dice, haha.
Defenders could use UN forces present in the area to ‘absorb’ a hit. :-D
I believe this game exists. It’s called East & West.
