Anyone playing A&A near Southern Utah?

?

We played with dice, not low luck.

I’m still not sure that this aspect of the tech discussion belongs here since it is more about a house rule but I mentioned how we have developed a progressive valued chart  for the techs but I didn’t give the limitations of attaining the tech.  A tech die is three (3) IPC’s every tern a player wants to roll for a tech.  A neutral nation can roll one die only per rounf thatthey are neutral.  That is three IPC’s per round.  If a tech has a R&D value of 25, it may take a nation at least 5 rounds to develop that tech.  That is at least 15 IPC’s in order to develop a tech.  A nation that is war may invest in three dice (9IPC’s) per rounf in order to develop three different tech.'s at a time.  They can not be applied to a single tech but must be spread over the three techs to be develpoed.  It can get expensive but the thought process is this; a country will invest in R&D to develop a specific technology.  It will not just through money at a problem and randomly hope to get a good result….governments maybe but not gamers.  If and when we play with technology, I prefer this R&D chart.  The Anniversary/Global chart and dice costs can definately thow the balance of the game off.  Last game I played of global 1940, theAmerican player shelled out alot of IPC’s on tech.  It put his production behind and the other allied player had to really hold on for the US to catch up but the US player was able to develop long range heavy bombers and cheaper ships.  It was devostating to the the axis player (me) because he then went dark skies on the axis and it became a war of attrition that I could not repulse effectively.  I have to take this moment to say I love Narvik.  Direct and to the point.  Tech is fun sometimes but there is alot to just playing the game.

Has been Germany since 1987. That said, I enjoy playing the Western Allies now. Trying to coordinate landings in France and resupplying them, can be challenging. Seeing Germany ease
off the pressure on Russia can be very satisfying too.
Makes it all a bit tense. One mistake in the West and Moscow could fall.

I think, that’s the way to go.
11 or less victory cities is too easy for the axis.
12 victory cities for less experienced axis players (7VC on europe and 5 on the pacific side seems like the allies are loosing on both sides. Only 1 victory city to go for eiter a european or pacific win).
13 victory cities for experienced axis players (Win on one side of the board but don’t loose the other)
14 victory cities seems to be too difficult, but if you want a challenge as the axis, or if you really, really want to play the axis

Keep it global, even for the axis. (My personal opinion.)

Thanks!

In your mind, what would one look like?

Thank you very much