Why is surrender not an option in the original game?

@shadowhawk

Agreed. Though it is more bearable online.

I agree with a post that Mashmallow posted earlier, there is no guarantee that you are going to get that NO for a clear med, you should not even rely on that one. The Italians have so many uses, on the ground, with actual IPC earning territory’s that those planes can be used for, you need to weigh out their impact in the med versus potentially taking Egypt, steam rolling Greece, building an actually strong can-opener force in Russia, and even Protecting Rome.

The last few games that I have played, when I am the Axis, I get my Italian partner to seriously evaluate the Taranto raid force. If it is the max force possible, and the UK is totally on point, I say scrap the scramble, focus on more attainable objectives. As a German player, I sure as hell don’t want to burn the Luftwaffe on an air vs naval clean up battle G2, where I can lose guaranteed safe hits against Russian ground troops once Barbarossa commences. On the other hand, If the UK doesn’t bring the max force down, or they don’t make a move to middle east with SA and India navies / units, and Italy looks like they might have some time to maneuver for a few rounds, then scramble all the way. I have seen games were Italy won the Taranto raid, and from then on became unstoppable in the Med, which in turn leads to Germany being able to achieve their full potential, and results in an Axis victory.

Italy unfortunately has to play the game, or at least start the game, being completely on board to support the Germans in whichever direction they plan to strike. A strong Afrika campaign with Italian air power can lead to Italy generating sufficient IPCs to gain a bit more control over their destiny. A successful Italian campaign in the middle East, or as a can-opener can have the same impact. Italy with zero navy, and zero air force, means they might as well stockpile Rome and prepare to defend Europe, there will be no expeditionary force.

@Black_Elk:

Here’s a little something I do, that I’ve found really helps to shave a few minutes off every turn.
It might seem simple, but you’d be surprised how much time can be spent digging and returning pieces to their trays, if you don’t have a good system in place…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35904.msg1411574#msg1411574

You can see an example image in there at the bottom using 1942.2 but I adopt the same system in G40. Once I started doing this, I never went back. Now I’m a big proponent of grouping by shape, and trusting in color differentiation for easy recognition, rather than the other way round. Hard habit to break, for the OCD sculpt collector, but it works. Even chainsmoking degenerates like me can make the extra effort to be better orgnaized haha.

Also, like others have mentioned before and elsewhere too, my group separates combat movement, and combat proper with the purchase phase. So the phases like this…
repair, combat movement, purchase, combat, non com, placement, collect.
If you want to pick up the pace it’s highly effective for focusing your players. It doesn’t change anything compared to the standard phase order of “purchase, combat movement, combat proper” other than the speed with which your players will make decisions.

interesting, i like the idea of sorting by unit type instead of faction, i may toy around with that in a smaller version to see how it feels before doing it with the G40 units (it’d be a huge pain to re-sort them again after, lol)

Holland airbase may sometimes be built on round 3 to deter an American airstrike on the German transport fleet after sealion.  If you are seriously committed to sealion on the very first turn no matter what, then building the airbase G1 it is a better deal than a carrier because you will go into G3 with a battleship instead of a carrier.  Normandy naval base will repair it for you so 2 hits to the battleship saves 2 planes just like the carrier, but the BB also attacks @4 and the base costs $1 less.  The best part is they might take the bait and attack it and lose planes, which is good for Germany in any sealion scenario.  More likely your extreme level of commitment to sealion should lead the allies to play conservatively with their air forces, so there will be no attack on your battleship, no Taranto attack, and USA may build in preparation for sealion rather than focus on Pacific defense.  The big downside to it is you are basically locked into sealion because if you don’t go through with it, you will have to tie up an awful lot of resources defending it for minimal benefit.

@Clyde85:

@Cmdr:

You’d have to be prepared for Italy to take Spain on the same round true.

What is Italy going to be using to take Spain with? In this speculative scenario, isnt the ENTIRE Italian fleet, and perhapse a part of their airforce, destroyed?

Clearly not if they stack a few troops in Sfr before attackin Spain…
But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s probably a bad idea to allow US to land troops there every subsequent round.

@Daedelus:

It means you can win the Game without having to capture any Russian Cities.

Well, yeah, theoretically.  Just seems like, particularly with new rules bringing in the U.S. if Axis is in Canadia, that’s not a very realistic proposition.  South Africa seems like it would make for more viable strategery options.

I mean, I haven’t ever put a lot of thought into an Ottawa strategy, mostly because, just looking at it, it seems pretty well doomed to fail.  Might as well try to grab New York.

man,that looks so cool,my europe arrived yesterday,i have no room in my house to set it up,ill have to buy a wooden shed LOL