7.1 Official clarification

@superbattleshipyamato Right. alot more complications introduces longer play. More areas means longer play, More units longer play. I wish their was a light 12 page version with only about 6-10 more units, not 60 more. The map would have about 60% less areas and play would take 2-3 hours but still be buckets of dice concept. That would be my wish plus dedicated piece sets or a version that used counters like nova games edition.

It should be the same for Nat China. Szechwan falls, China can’t build no more whether they have 3 or more territories worth 3 icp’s or more.
If it’s liberated then they will get 6 icp’s and any non captured territories and can start building again.

If they have some money left and Szechwan is captured, they should have to give money to attacker. I would like to try this in a game.

The rule is as long as they have territories worth total of 3 icp’s or more, they can build and place in those territories.

thanks for the link to the rules, they will come in handy this weekend  :-P

To the designers - how many games of 7.1 have you played?

Out of 6 games we have played Axis won once but that was mainly due to good rolls in first turn.

Axis have never taken all of Russia’s cities. In 5 games they never held a single Russian cities for more than 1 round. I wouldn’t even say Russia is too strong. The Baltic States/Poland issue definitely buys Russia an extra round (even though it only addresses the center).

It’s the 1st turn that is the issue now it seems. Germany and especially Italy can’t seem to get enough of the UK navy, planes, and infantry out of the way. I think 6.1 was 60/40 Axis favor but I’m thinking now it’s 80/20 Allies favor.

It seems there could be possible rule misinterpretations from various people on the board. What is the percentage breakdown for the designers win/loss in 7.1?

Crus, if your looking for these rules of Tigermans game they are at Board Game Geek.

Ben,

I sent you a message.

It’s really just a list of questions and suggestions. It’s more difficult to do this over an iPod than I expected.

Regardless, I hope it knocks down the despair a bit.

That’s perfect Tigerman!  Exactly what I wanted to know.

I do have a quick question for the creators brought up while discussing the minor axis powers in another thread:

If the Germans build a naval base on Romania can the Romanians (who don’t need an IC) build ships in the Black Sea to help protect an axis fleet, or do they only produce ground/air units in their capital (not ships next to it)? Using the same principle, are they allowed to build a ftr for a German (or Italian) carrier in the Black Sea? Obviously they would have to had saved some IPCs.

I believe this next part is still under review, any word yet?

This leads me to a 2nd question, say the Germans build a minor IC in both Romania, and Bulgaria, and a NB for Bulgaria (sz43 Black Sea). I know the Germans could build ships in the Black Sea from the Bulgarian IC w/NB, but would the same NB servicing sz43 also fill the requirement to allow for ships to be built from Germany’s Romanian IC adjacent to it? Can a NB from one territory service an IC from a different territory (for ship building) as long as they share the same sz, and are owned by the same power. This is also in question if UK builds an IC for Cairo which comes w/NB servicing the Med sz47 (allows you to build ships in sz47). Can the same Cairo IC (would also be adjacent to sz64) also build ships in the Red Sea using the Upper Egypt NB that services sz64 as long as they owned both Cairo & Upper Egypt?

Further more in a similar situation as above, can a NB in a territory of your ally serve the requirements for shipbuilding for an IC you own as long as they are adjacent to the same sz? Say the Italians take Holland and build a NB (sz 16). Would the Italian NB allow the Germans to drop ships into sz 16 from their adjacent major IC in W Germany?