Global Team game when it comes out!

@Ichabod:

Max Moscow purchases until the Allies prove that it will be defended G6. Than at that point defend and go for the economic victory.

And if the Allies are dropping enough into Moscow to keep it, Japan should be absolutely owning the Pacific and bringing in 70+ ipcs.

@IKE:

Another option in a 2v2 live game is to split the Allies up by theater, which we like to do.

Allies player 1: US (Atlantic), UK (London), Russia, France
Allies player 2: US (Pacific), UK (Calcutta), Anzac, China

Ofcourse this involves heavy coordination in strategy of spending US $.  It’s give and take.

We have done this in the past, and it is pretty cool. The 2 US players lobbying for income/units is kinda what happened historically (which theater gets a boost?). Does the Pac player allow the Siberians to march home? Dose India give up some air/fleet to Egypt? This gives the Euro and Pac allied players something to do throughout the game, and coordination is a must. Some of their powers are in the fight from the get go, some are dwindling, and others are ramping up.

On the Pac side, US controlling Anzac seems right because they need to work together once the US gets into the game. As China/India looses ground the US picks up steam so that player is involved throughout.

On the Euro side the UK gets a lot of action as do the French (turn one). The US/Russia comes into play slowly, and you don’t want someone to have only the US/Russia because of that.

In our group Russia is an inept power to play because it can be very boring unless there is a Sea lion. There is nothing good about playing the US/Russia, waiting for 3 rounds to go by, and the game is paused until the next day lol. Even when we split the allies up differently, Russia is a bit of a question. Sometimes we alternate Russia’s turn between both allied players.

@CWO:

@DizzKneeLand33:

Apparently none of you has a cat…

Yes, the cat issue is something that’s come up a few times on this board, as the picture below will illustrate.  I can’t recall if the suggestions were made seriously or not, but some board members have thought about protecting their games-in-progress from one weekend to the next by using a system of overhead pulleys to either raise the table to the ceiling or lower a protective hood over the map.  Feasible for a dedicated gaming room in the basement, but not likely to be approved for the living room by the lady of the house.

That is SO CUTE!!!

How well does the cat play?  Does he attack the US on turn one? :-D

I could possibly do Tues night, but if the game wasn’t finished in one day I am not sure I could finish it next Tuesday.

Eddie Moreno

My turns usually take about 10 mins as axis, 2-3 mins as allies (not counting UK or late-game USA)(not counting die rolls. I find that making a few mistakes in a fast-paced game is more fun than making no mistakes in a game where you can take decent naps if it is not your turn.

The problem with adding units to Russia is that America/England have been made virtually impossible to kill.  So we either make the game more fun for Russia AND weaken USA/UK to make it possible to beat them again, or we don’t do anything and leave it a monochromatic game (attack Russia being the only viable strategy.)

I, for one, seriously miss being able to do KEF.  I’m not saying it was an “I win” button, because it wasn’t.  But I miss the OPTION.  At least KCF (Kill Calcutta First) is still very viable.

@italiansarecoming:

@empireman:

@Gargantua:

Even After I’ve removed every axis piece from the board, I keep playing.

I start sending units to South America, to look for escaped war criminals, and hold nuremburg trials.

I also start doing stupid things with the middle east, like carving out new nations, JUST because I can.

It’s this whole new Axis and Allies Experience…

Yah me too…… I have cold war, I go to korea and Vietman, I also head to the middle east to!

Have you guys tried bombing ghaza with israel troops. Or have had fights in Africa where dictatorships get over thrown?

Heck yeah!

I agree with the thinking here that we should stick to OOB rules for at least a little longer. I don’t mind a few official changes here and there. I always use the errata and FAQ’s that are released after a game comes out due to misprints in the manual or an obvious balance problem (AAP). However, these sweeping changes are too much too fast. Its almost like a few influencial people screamed too early and no one else was able to say, “lets slow down and take a more methodical approach to the changes.”
It seems like we are being caught up in a rushing river and can’t get out. Alpha is evidence that the squeaky wheel gets greased.

I will stick to OOB rules until something official comes out and then evaluate it. If there are a few reasonable changes I will use them, but if it is anything like these Alpha changes, I most likely won’t. I never used LHTR for the same reason.