we were playing a tight game of '41. I was Germany and was doing a bomber strat. UK saw an opening so they tried a berlin assault. I took a chance and left my bombers, taking inf as casualties then proceeded to roll three ones with my three bombers! back breaker.
years earlier in a game of classic moscow had fallen but germany was being bombed to oblivion by my fleet of 10 uk bombers, then his AA got hot and hit 8 of 10! game.
finally got to play this (previously suggested on an earlier thread :wink:) idea. I think it makes a big difference in the pacific theatre. unfortunately the US player then pulled out and went full KGF allowing Japan to godzilla again resulting in axis victory.
So you are writing off the Italian fleet and using them to fortify France @ 3 inf/ turn?
excellent point about the effect of NO’s on stategy. Now if Germany had an NO that included the baltic or scandinavian TT’s…
Bard- That is what I was suggesting, starting territories worth 0, coastal Jap (and Kwangtung) TT’s unchanged.
I would only considerthis in '41 if there were house rules or agreements concerning spending theatres for each nation
@Subotai:
The “standard” bid for allies in 41 +NOs are from $6 to $9, one unit pr. TT.
It seems that this applies for regular dice games as well as LL games.
Usually the units are put in Egy and Kalia.
From your experience does this encourage more Pacific interaction or less?
All Chinese TT’s being worth zero would help as well. Does not effect their production and makes it more of a money pit for Japan.
I always play this rule as the axis, I do not enforce it on my opponents in friendly FTF games though.
I go back and forth, but I see your point about better allied defense in the west, it might encourage allied presence in the pacific and others have posted that more units in Asia will just encourage more KGF because one can stall Japan with existing units. The problem I have is that Europe is pretty balanced if decent USSR and UK play (with USA help) and if we give them more then do we encourage the KGF strat even more? Also, Italy really needs to be able to get African $ or its NO’s to be viable and Egypt bids curtail that. Hmmm
ach-not sure where all the hostility is coming from :?.
Especially when I was in essence agreeing with you :|
End of turn collection and placement sounds pretty good as well but the Flying Tigers will still be dead :-(
All Chinese terretories should be worth zero. Does not effect allies and makes it less appealing for Japan.
I have made this suggestion several times. Actukally I suggested China go first, that way you would end/begin a round with USA/China. I received about as much feedback on it as you have so far. Perhaps the idea will generate more interest now that another has also brought it up.
If SBR’s are out of control in your playgroup I strongly suggest the fighter intercept optional rule to “get the monkey off your back” so to speak.
I actually did that though, I spent just 5 IPC at the start in the hopes of getting Radar as I KNEW bombers were going to be a problem for me. I actually got lucky and got a 6, but then it ended up giving me heavy bombers.
Dude, you got heavy bombers for $5 and you are struggling?!?
I still think China going first will solve much of these problems. They get to beef up AND save their fighter. The restriction on movement keeps them from doing anything too ahistorical as well.
I can see the Brazilian complex in a US pacific heavy campaign where UK is putting everything into europe and needs help liberating africa. The additional bonus would be getting ground troops (USA) to persia to slow the Jap advance while your pacific builds forced jap navy investment. that being said, the build limit in Brazil would most likely doom this strat.
@Cmdr:
Sometimes doing the less than optimal thing can be a good thing; as it can throw and opponent off due to their not being familiar with it, and the needed response.
OK, good point.
But how would you know if your opponent will stumble on your different-than-mainstream strategy OR jump all over it’s sub-optimal properties and whallop the Axis?
I tend to always give my opponents the benefit of the doubt.
Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, they have to do something to counter it. That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.
Chic logic.
Please read what you wrote, it doesn’t make sense.
Let me explain.
@Cmdr:
Even if they do realize the sub optimal strategy, …
OK, you’re with me, yes, I give the opponent the benefit of the doubt. They recognize I am employing a sub-optimal strategy.
@Cmdr:
…they have to do something to counter it. …
OK, yes, I have to agree with you here Captain Obvious.
@Cmdr:
That alone makes them also use a sub-optimal strategy, ….
Woah! Estrogen based thinking alert! How does them realizing you are employing a sub-optimal strategy FORCE the opponent into a counter that is sub-optimal? Assuming you know what ‘sub-optimal’ means, now the allies should be able to easily handle the Axis move, because, by definition, it is NOT the best move for them to make (again, the benefit of the doubt is giving to the opponent).
@Cmdr:
…hopefully they’ll screw up or use a sub-optimal strategy that is less effective than yours is, and you’ll win.
Ah yes, the crux of your post. I make a sub-optimal move… but I will win because I hope my opponent will screw up (too).
Chic logic. Explained.
man, I just gave you a +1 karma for a different post that used non-hostile logic and then I read this slam? Come on dude!