Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

@Boldfresh:

honestly, i think this game is awesome with it’s CURRENT setup.  i feel like the allies need nothing.

I don’t see how the axis can lose in this setup if the allies receive nothing.

there is only an indirect link.
a 1 (or 0) ipc terr cant get a factory, and thus cant produce anything
a 2 ipc terr cant get a major factory, an is thus limited to 3 units produced
a 3 or more terr can build a major IC an is limited to 10 units produced (this is only a limitation for eastern and central USA with production of 12 and 20  ipcs)

Well done gentlemen, always trying to recruit new War at Sea players.

There has been another update yesterday:

11/17/11 US NO change: 5 IPCs for each turn that the US has at least one land unit in the territory “France”. Theme: Great Alliance collaboration

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

Right - good clarification.

great charts

Germany, Japan and Italy have to be aggressive. While also taking calculation on when to go to war with certain countries. So if you just sit and build without moving, you’re doomed.