Global Team game when it comes out!

Maby if the allies are winning they could make your stay at the game verry annoying.
Once japan lost its fleet and has the US parked around its mainland its as good as dead.

So maby the allied player could first capture all the islands japan has with a single transport. Your turn will consist of skipping because no money and nothing to move. Allied player will have all countries to play with guess you will get bored from the game.

I’m interested in playing with Triple A. Best way to reach me is by email at jonkrost@comcast.net.

I have a different opinion……You can not prevent Sea Lion from an experienced German player…I have tried to prevent Sea Lion in every imaginable way…it can’t be done

If I am playing the British…I prefer using that money to give units to the UK Pacific and units lurking around the Med amphibiously

Obviously I am paying close attention to the German buys and course correct if need be

Here’s a funny quote from a site that talks about dice towers:

“Historically, the Ancient Romans used dice towers to control their dice, this being a natural outgrowth of the Roman penchant for building siege towers to control the Greeks, etc. Somewhere along the line – probably around the invention of gunpowder – sappers came into favor and dice towers fell out of fashion.  […]  Dice towers have the added advantage of forcing a minimum level of randomization to the throw of each die, which is a very good thing if you’ve ever gamed with one of those guys who likes to let the die slide off the edge of his palm and cry out, “Another six!” (This is a technique that the ancient Romans called “signor cheatypants”.)”

Japan is ridiculously strong (but then is on 1940 too).
Germany can be held a while and Italy should not grow at all, but the U.S. must invest nearly all its income in the Pacific.
Still makes a refreshing change from 1940 though.

@Gargantua:

@Paksos:

Never played 2nd ed. What’s the difference in the Mongolia rule?

I’m up for 2nd ed though if you are game, Gargantua……

Let’s Rock.

I need to “practice” my axis strategies.

So do I  :-D

@Make_It_Round:

I think it is possible, however tedious, to count the number of meaningful choices that players have in any given game, and to guess at one’s enjoyment threshold in terms of these.

It is utterly impossible to count the number of meaningful choices that players have in any given game because each “meaningful choice” is a product of the other “meaningful choices” that were made previously. Furthermore, each “meaningful choice” is then subject to all of the possible dice outcomes, and thus multiplied by all of those possibilities and then multiplied by all of the “meaningful choices” offered by the various non-combat possibilities as they are determined by the dice outcomes. As you can see we get into these massive factorial situations where we are multiplying massive exponentials by even more massive exponentials until what is essentially infinity.

To make a comparison: In chess there are only 20 possible moves to make on the first turn. (16 pawn moves and 4 knight moves) The opponent is faced with the same. So the possible combinations for the opening 2 moves (1 each) in chess is 400. None of which are absolutely stupid. there are 8,902 possible moves by 2 each and by move 7 there are almost eleven MILLION possible positions. That’s without dice, with only 2 players, with a much much much more limited scope for unit movement, no scope for adding units and far far fewer spaces.

Now you asked about the “meaningful choices”. Some work has been done in this regard in chess and it seems that in the average game of about 30 moves (moving a single piece at at time. There are over 4.5 MILLION games outcomes in smart competitive situations. Now, multiply that by the factor of dice, multiple movement of units, game spaces, purchases and the fact that most AA games will see over 100 times that 60 units move factor and you have an utterly infinite combination of outcomes.

Which is part of the reason it is so much more entertaining than chess.

…or maybe just because we get to play with little tanks and planes.

@Ruanek:

@Idi:

Try the Cone of Silence

As said in your other thread, most people seem to prefer actually talking to each other over making the game a little shorter.

Yeah, it’s also a social thing.
And thinking about the situation is part of the fun (well, it is for me)

Some turns take more thinking than others (for example when there are many moves that need to be in sync)
So: get a chess clock, that way at least both parties have about the same time