The godfather returns! Good to see you back on the thread Positronica.
Glad you like the changes.
You make valid points.
It brings us back to the underlining struggle of game play vs. historical fact. Where do we draw the line? This group seems a bit more vocal towards the historical rather then game play. My view is to stay historically accurate as long as it does not sacrifice game play. If I have to choose I will choose game play.
Counterpoints to your changes:
A. Great point makes sense but…
1. I think murraymoto is right they are going to fight it out from turn one on no matter what. We just get to decide where.
2. With the increase of territories this increases income, but we have not increased the cost of units so in theory Germany should have the extra income to support offensives in other regions of the world.
3. No matter where the line is Germany can choose to turtle and bleed the Russians as they come.
4. I did not take into account the game play order, not to sure if I like it in its current order but give me some time to chew on it.
With all that said I am not averse to moving the date back a bit. It will probably solve some other issues as well.
B. When I started this project I moved the date back to accommodate Italy’s control of eastern Africa. I like the idea of putting more conflict in Africa and it fits Larry Harris’s VC list better. But I did not like the affect on other parts of the world and the fact that the US player is now removed from turn one. But I am in favor of this setup with some creativity. Micoom’s suggestion below could solve some of my concerns about the US.
C. I agree all the additional rules and the setup we are planning to use (example China’s forces) need to be looked at in detail and will need modifications.
D. The roads and rails. Your points are accurate. They would allow for easier movement. I just don’t think putting roads/rails on the map is the way to do it. This is too granular. Where are the roads and rails in Europe? Don’t the Germans get to move troops between their two fronts? Also wouldn’t the Russian sabotage/destroy their rails as they retreated? Hindering the Japanese advance. I think games like Europe Engulfed have solved this problem easily and effectively. They use strategic moves. This would be simple to implement.
Example:
Combats moves, resolve combat, non combat moves, strategic moves.
Each nation would get a fixed number of strategic moves that reflect the amount of transportation infrastructure they had.
They would get to move that number of pieces any where within their colored territory Red for Russian, Grey for Germany (this is a modification from that actual EE rule). So the Russians could move troops to the east if they need to react to the Japanese, the Americans could move troops to the California coast if necessary and the Germans could react to an invasion of France.
This is a very simple system and I ask everyone to think about it. Maybe download and read the rules for games like EE and give it a chance before dismissing it.
Also, the rule set can be modified to better fit our needs.
E. It was my intent and I will do.
F. Not sure what to do with that island. Hopefully the group will express their opinions.
G. My first response is to make it one sea square by lowering the bottom boarder so it surrounds the islands. I am trying to remove any vagueness from the map. Players should not have to refer to the manual to see if a square is touching another.
H. The battleship is not gone just displaced for the moment. At first I was not a big fan of the images but they are growing on me. I was going to address this later once we have discussed the sea zones in more detail.