1940 British IPC question

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Sounds about right.

@cds

Thank you! Seems like G2 is better than G3.

I agree on the points you said. I was playing as Axis, and I always like the Russian retreat move now. Make his planes inept. If you merge up your Russian forces with British forces you can hold Egypt for much longer.

The problem he had with trying to take Norway was that if he sent enough to Norway to take it he wouldn’t have enough to take and defend Paris. Since I was guaranteed with my move to get Egypt.

@Karl7:

I played a Europe OOB game the other day against my dad and local guys back in my home town of Boise Idaho and got absolutely killed as the Axis.  I gave the allies a 28 ipc bid to counter what they claimed was an overwhelming Axis advantage.  (probably very stupid on my part… sigh)  Anyhow, they used the bid to prevent the Axis from sinking the British fleet.  It was downhill there on out.

My questions:

(1) if you don’t/can’t do sealion are the Axis doomed OOB?

(2) did Larry say Alpha 3.9 translates to Europe only?  If so, what national objectives do you use?

I am heading back up to Boise for rematch and want to use updates rules if so.

Axis are not doomed at all. I find it harder to win as the Axis when I’ve done sealion then when I didn’t. Doing Sealion means putting too much resources in London.

There are no official rules for europe only. A couple of threads down there’s a discussion to wich NO’s etc are being used.

@gen-manstein Actually haven’t played with bid in solo games, so I hope that will be an advantage.

@Ruanek:

I could have sworn the UK could occupy French Indo-China to get its 2 IPCs.  And occupying territories controlled by powers whose capital is taken is similar in the concept for occupying the Dutch East Indies.

Nope.  Dutch territories are a special case.

@Ruanek:

In any case, what’s the logic behind not being able to occupy friendly territories whose capital is taken but being able to do it after liberating it from the enemy?

What Gargantua said.  Also, it’s not nice to kick your friends when they’re down and plunder their territories.  Besides, what if there are still units belonging to your ally in the territory?  Will they just let you walk in and take over?

Thanks Krieghund

Yes, but with so much information overload I started doubting my own thoughts and ideas.

@Krieghund:

@GrayBlaZe:

Hey Keighund, got a question; Why could it not be considered to be up to a nine person global game instead of six.  I do understand that playing France, China or ANZAC will be very minor, however, it’s possible for nine people to draw straws and last three places got it get the minors.  Or am I missing somthing?  I’m assuming that it’s just listed as six because that is the max number that would be a good game to spread playing around equally so nobody is just totally eliminated fast with France or having to play limited China.  Is this correct?  Thanx……

You’ve already answered your own question:

@GrayBlaZe:

When they state the number of players, it is just a recomendation.  You could very well play with nine players except; France, China, & ANZAC would be quite boring, unless a newbe or child was playing with you, it would be good for them to play a minor country.  If you are playing with six then some player would play two counties, however, they are still considerd nine different armies; if you play two they don’t mix there income.  So it always be nine indiviual counties weither you play with nine people or two.

The “official” player mix listed in the rules is what we consider to be the best mix for optimal enjoyment of the game.  There’s nothing stopping you from changing that if you have more than six people who want to play.  I do think, however, that getting beyond six will definitely get into territory that could be at least somewhat boring for players of minor powers (ANZAC, China and France).  A seventh player playing all three wouldn’t be too bad, though.