Why is surrender not an option in the original game?

@tchenao

Gotcha.

Most players consider the game to be quite unbalanced in favor of the Axis. So the two sides will bid (in terms of IPCs) before the game and the lowest bid team will play the Allies. The bid can be used to place additional units before the game starts.

Sea Lion is definitely a much riskier strategy than just going straight for Moscow. Most people only go through with it if London is not well protected after the first round. A failed Sea Lion is pretty much a game ender.

I think you’ve got the right idea.

You might remember my “11 conclusions” thread from a few weeks back, where I explained I thought we should develop a “strategic framework”. My thought is essentially that we should push the meta-game to a final state of maturity by determining what the best Allied response is to the rapid Axis push, and use our conclusions to help support a theory of the board.

The strategy I described earlier (combining the Russians in Africa, the Canadian / U.S. push for the money islands and concentrated British support of Moscow) is the best I can come up with for an Allied response. I am interested to see if you agree or would be willing to test it in your games as well, or if you have any objections that I should consider.

I am buying the following units as part of this strategy:

Russia:
7 artillery, 4 mech on turn 1 followed by straight infantry unless special circumstances demand a fighter or some artillery. I am sending 6 mech, 2 tanks to Africa. Remember the idea is that these forces will be replaced by the British in short order.

America:
4 bombers turn 1 (for Europe) followed by fleet for the foreseeable future (carrier, loaded transports, assorted warships but very few aircraft as ANZAC will provide these).

UK Europe:
6 infantry, 1 fighter turn 1; minor IC’s in Persia and Egypt turn 2; mech infantry turn 3 followed by fighters and mechs 4+

UK Pacific:
3 infantry, 2 artillery turn 1; continue building infantry and artillery until Japan is thrown back, then switch to mechs and fighters to support the defense of Moscow.

ANZAC:
Straight fighters unless Japan is doing some crazy kill Australia first move. These fighters will land on American carriers and/or journey to Moscow.

The general strategy begins by coordinating Russian, Chinese, British and American stacks so they are all hurtling towards China and the money islands at once. Japan can annihilate one or maybe two of them, but then they’re stuck just trying to hold on to their gains. At that point Second Russia is born and the tan blob can begin to move on the Germans. America sends fleet to blockade Italy and/or provide cover for a Grecian beachhead using Egyptians and Brazilian-American forces, who have been marching across Sub-Saharan Africa this whole time.

I find Ozteas playable w/o a bid. '39 hasn’t been playtested as much. Japan usually steamrolls china so you may want to give a few guys to China. It doesn’t rally take any longer as the first few turns go pretty fast. You should read the game notes if you haven’t played it.

Only 10% believe allies have an advantage, maybe I am not so crazy after all for thinking axis advantage.

@jim010:

For defensive power for my money, and allows for fht swapping at sea.

That’s a pretty big deal right there.

i think it is a great idea larry.

it helps balance the game by making it easier for axis to win and it has the added benefit of helping to reduce all usa cash being diverted against one axis power.

for those worrying about realism, there is plenty to worry about, but this is just as realistic as any other rule.

@hewhoisnickel:

Jesus, you two bicker like a married couple, and in every thread on the forums, it seems.

:lol:

@buicksuper:

Anyways well find out tonight if u.s. will be speaking japanese or german.

Or Italian.  If that ever happened, Germany and Japan might never recover from the embarrassment.