Modified turn sequence?

@Eric-Poppleton well I tried it by myself some and it sorta worked. My goal was to get my buddies into the game and try it with them but we’re still in the learning phase-figured it’s only a valid test if they have developed strategies in the normal game

I find it funny.

Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.

Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up.  Then asks “how many do you know who do that”

As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.

I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session.  Usually we schedule a weekend.  And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.

Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!

For a neutral Italy rule (which would then allow AH a mine free move) putting UK SZ19 forces at risk, one of the following 3 should be done…

change UK setup to move 1 CA from SZ29 to SZ19; move UK CA/TR from SZ19 to SZ28; create new SZ31 by splitting SZ17 in half at a point on border between SZ16 and SZ17 below Sicily and extending to point where Albania borders Greece.

I have found that some people are frustrated with the split UK income, and also of course, the Allies’ victory conditions, you never really see them occur in real life. So I propose the following changes.

SINGLE UNITED KINGDOM: The United Kingdom will now be a single income power, starting with 45 IPCs, they will still have two capitals, one in Calcutta, the other being London. In a scenario in which a capital is captured, the United Kingdom’s income is rewarded to the Axis power that has taken the capital, however as long as they have the other capital, the United Kingdom may still produce income. The national objectives for the UK will be the same ones from the separate economies design, they are just simply awarded to the now singular UK entity.

SETUP CHANGES IN RESPONSE: Remove the Major Factories in India and United Kingdom, replace them with Minor Factories. This is to prevent the UK from over-stacking London and making Sea Lion a pipe dream, and to also to prevent the balance of power in Southeast Asia from getting out of control.

NEW VICTORY CONDITIONS FOR THE ALLIES:
Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; 2 of Calcutta, Sydney, and Hong Kong still under Allies Control. This must be done for a full round of play following the objectives being achieved.
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; 2 of Moscow, London, and Cairo still under Allies Control. This must be done for a full round of play following the objectives being achieved.

do you think tanks need a change? i havent considered that so far, tanks seemed to me rather balanced.

@knp7765:

I understand where you are coming from.  Capital ships take 2 hits to sink, so they take 2 turns to build, right?  I do see the logic but I have to disagree with this idea.  Aside from Major ICs (30), Battleships (20) and Carriers (16) are already the most expensive units in the game.  Plus, if you add the planes for the carrier, 2 fighters (20), that brings Carriers up to 36, making them the most expensive units in the game.  Yeah, I know I’m talking about 3 units, but really what good is a carrier without some planes on it?
I just think they are a big enough investment in IPCs already so you shouldn’t also have to invest 2 turns to get one.

I agree with you, and yes that was what I was thinking of

I am gonna post a new version of mine using KISS. I think it is too complicated.

but i will do that in a new thread :-D

One of those ideas that will keep you up at night, wishing it could smoothly be implemented without making your own map!