Need a little help the game is preditable

Yeah the history is known, but the highlighting is also new to me. It seems like a good feature.

The allies can (and usually will) still win the game if being 30-40 IPCs behind, IF they can correct this pretty soon. Let’s say in ~5 turns max., they must at least get a total equalization of both economies.

Having said that, if there is no visible possibility to (at least) equalize, the allies will have lost the game even if their shortfall is only small. I have no exact figures here but I bet the allies will have lost the game even if their shortfall is 5 IPCs per turn only, if they have no possibility to repair this.

Sometimes every IPC (per turn) counts…

@Rocmistro:

One gripe: I almost feel that the bonus income stuff forces you to play the War exactly how it played out in reality. That’s a bit of a bummer, as I would like to see different scenarios play out.  Oh well.

Yeah, the national objectives are based more or less on historical objectives of the actual war. Think about this though; you had Japan capture Alaska, Italy captured Cairo and Germany conquered Russia without having to face an Allied invasion of France. You DID play it differently from reality.
Plus, believe it or not, a lot of Allied strategies end up being vastly different from the real war. Most successful Allied strategies I have seen involve the US taking out Japan first, then dealing with Germany/Italy. In one game, Germany took London then went on to attack Russia. The US managed to take care of Japan then took Rome and liberated Paris. Germany used so much to take London that they didn’t really have enough to take on the Russians and did very poorly in Russia. Berlin fell to the US and London NEVER GOT LIBERATED!

I say you just have to go with the dice.  Even if it is “game over”, there will always be another game.
I had a game a little while back where I, as Germany, was poised to take Moscow.  In my first attack, the Russians managed to put units on Bryansk which blocked the majority of my units to the south.  As a result, I barely matched the Russian defenders.  I had 1 fighter and 1 bomber that could reach Moscow and support the battle.  The Russian AA gun fires and gets a hit for BOTH planes!  I couldn’t believe the luck.  That battle was lost by the way and the Kremlin was saved.
Next round, I retook Bryansk and moved many more units up front, including planes.  I moved in on Moscow and this time had 10 planes (2 bombers, 5 tacs and 3 fighters).  With all of that to shoot at, the Russian AA gun didn’t get A SINGLE HIT.  I overwhelmed the defenders.  Moscow was captured, the Kremlin destroyed and Stalin was executed for War Crimes against the Fatherland.
What I’m getting at is that’s just the luck of the roll.  You have to just go with it.  I have defended with 3 submarines and gotten 3 hits.  I have also defended with fighters and gotten all 5s and 6s.  It’s frustrating but it’s still just a game.  Take the loss, lick your wounds and come back to conquer the next time.

The colored major and minors are people’s own creations. And I find either 2, 4, or 6 players is best (6 is a stretch b/c of you could get knocked out). And, for example, if i play a 4 player game i divide the powers

Germany and Italy
Japan
US and Russia
UK, Anzac, France, China

6 players
Germany
Japan
Italy
US China
Uk France
Russia Anzac

If you’re new i would either recommend the allies for a two player, probable UkAnzacFranceChina for 4 player and either italy, USchina, or UKFrance for a 6 player. Whatever you do, don’t play as Japan (and probable not Germany either). I’ve played my fair share of new players and Japan is disastrous. At least with Germany they know to go in the general direction of moscow. But with Japan i’ve seen people ignore the DEI. Game over.

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.

Glad I could be of service Bishop =)

@Col.:

I’m looking to do the same thing as Bishop. I already got the boards, boxes, bases, etc, now I’m just looking to fill out the pieces. I have two sets of Spring 42 pieces and a set of Italian pieces, and an old set to use for China, so I need french and anzac pieces, and tac. bombers and mech. inf.

Nobody really answered the part in Bishop’s question about how many mech. inf. and tac. bombers each country needs. I was sort of wondering the same thing. Does the US and UK need 12 of each? Could they get by with using like 9 each, maybe even less? I’m not opposed to using chips so that’s not an issue.

Maybe the better question is are they really needed? I can see where mechs would help getting to the front line quicker with the added territories, but am I killing the game by not having tacs?

You need tacs for each country, and in my opinion more units is better than not enough. I’m not at home so I can’t count the pieces but I believe from counting before that there’s between 6-10 each of mech and tacs. It really sucks running out so buy on the higher side to be safe.

Just jumping in, since the water seems warm enough.

Are people trying to win as the axis militarily(meaning conventional forces/economy shifting) or by victory cities?

Just curious, cause if you don’t have to worry about future turns(by ending the game early through cities), you may be able to afford to give up certain ground and take unusual risks or losses to secure the cities in question and then see if the allies are in position to liberate one in time.

I’ve drafted and posted early ideas on unconventional strategies. One designed for Europe with a goal of 5 cities in 5 turns seemed plausible. My first live try failed, based on one particular allied response and a close battle being not close after dice were rolled. Am I giving up? Nope. I’m refining the strategy. (In this example, it is clear I must take Normandy if I permit France to produce units, as 3 carriers for the allies proved to be “a bridge to far” for the German air and naval forces.)