Yes, I bought the Landing craft sets for my D day game. Less than 40 pieces and it cost me as much as an A&A game. It was delivered by UPS, and since I was not home, the total cost would finally reach what I paid for A&A Europe and Pacific together. On top of that, I had to buy paint.
It didn’t come cheap, but now I got some cool Landing Craft pieces for my D-day game that my friends don’t have.
….zero People want to play France…?
…strange…wonder why…?
Yes Marc, but in that case UK and France could just as well accepted the proposal from the Sovjet Foreign minister Litvinov and marched into Germany in 1933 to arrest Hitler. After all, Hitler did threat to attack USSR in his book Mein Kampf, so nobody could say they didn’t know. It looks like the capitalist Brits hated the commies so much, they wanted Germany to grow strong and kill the commies. So no, I don’t think the Brits or the French would have done anything to prevent the war from starting. It had to be prevented by someone else, like the Terminator coming to 1936 by accident, and mistaking Hitler for John Connor
Yes I believe that God the almighty could have prevented this war, if he was not so keen on punishing the Jews. Of course WWII could have been part of his Master Plan to get the Jews moving into the promised land Israel, and in that case, WWII would have been unavoidable
IMHO the WWII could have been prevented if the French had honored the Versailes Treaty and not been idiots that occupied Germany 10 years after the war just for revenge. They should have known that hatred would grow in the German hearts when they starved.
Yes, if the Art School had accepted Hitler as a student after WWI, then he would have spent his time making art, not war
Hello, the war could have been prevented during the attack on Austria in 1938. Canaris had mobilized several troops of military police to arrest Hitler for war mongering, but he changed his mind when he realized how happy the German people got, and the next year it was too late
@wittmann:
Japan is overpowered, Russia is underpowered and too easily neutered.
Germany might be just about right for me.
Italy: don’t get me started on how ridiculous it can become.
I am not sure, but I guess this has something to do with balance and playability, since this is supposed to be a fun game and not a serious simulation. If you try to make a game with the real numbers, Italy will not be fun to play. As I remember USA had 40 % of the worlds military potential, Germany and USSR had 14 %, UK 10, France 4, Japan 2 and Italy only 1 %.
….and I operate with one UK player.
UK, Canada, ANZAC, India, South Africa and all colonies are one UK player.
Its a houserule thread, and Black Elk want a more simple game, not a long and complex one. 9 players don’t make for a simple game, it should be between 2 and 4. All UK nations, USA and China will probably be played by the same person. So why not gather all UK territories into one single UK player ? Why split it up ?
Yes, as Spitfired said, UK should be one economy and one player, not 3.
If UK want to place 10 units in London and none in India, every turn, that should be a decision of the UK player, and not the game designer. I believe they added the ANZAC and Indian players for no good reasons.
Come to think about it, the facilities can be improved too. We don’t need major or minor IC,s. The classic factory rule, that let the IPC value of the territory decide how many units to place, was good enough. Just fix the IPC values with a pencil. Scotland was never worth 2 anyway.
On Turn orders and DOWs.
A very old House rule is the All Axis turn, then the All Allies turn. So basically Germany, Italy and Japan purchase units, combat move, resolve combat, non combat move and place units at the same time. Then all Allies do the same. Now this is a real time saver, and it only take away the dead time when 7 players are waiting bored for one player to do his stuff. But it will affect the tactics, since some players like to exploit the gamey stuff like can openers or reinforce a newly captured territory with other nations fighters. But besides that, the All Axis All Allies turn is very good.
Now since some players start as neutrals, I suggest this
All Axis turn
All Allies turn
All Neutrals turn
While not at war, neutral USA and USSR must purchase units and do non combat movement in the All Neutrals turn. After they have been attacked, they move to the All Allies turn for the rest of the game.
I think all neutrals should be attackable, even the true ones. But Spain, Turkey and Sweden should be cut in several territories, not just a big one. So if Germany attack Western Turkey, then the other parts of Turkey join the All Allies turn. It would be too bad if vital areas and great war contributes like Spain, Turkey and Sweden was impassable just because of simplicity.
I agree that the National Objectives are too much. They should have made the map balanced without NO,s, and then let the NO,s be optional just like in Anniversary 50. If you skip the NO,s now, I figure both Germany and USA will be severely underpowered. Maybe just cut down the unnecessary ones. I never did understand how Germany could squeeze 7 IPC out of Leningrad after they bombed the city, killed all men and burned the land, while the original owner never got more than 2 IPC in peacetime. But that said, its hard to model the Swedish iron ore trade without a NO. And how about USA, should we print new values on the map, or just give USA a wartime bonus ?
I totally agree with Black Elk, the new system with major and minor IC,s is just ridiculous. They should have stayed to the classic system and let the IPC value of the territory decide how many units you could mobilize there. Then you could place 8 units in a 8 IPC territory and one unit in a 1 IPC territory. Easy and simple to understand. And the SBR damage would be cut at the double value of the territory. Of course the cost of purchasing a new factory should depend on the IPC value of the territory. Maybe even Ports and Airbases capacity should be connected to the IPC value of the territory ?
IMHO the separate Europe and Pacific games is balanced as is. But it was way wrong, maybe even borderline derogatory, to clash two different games together and name it Global. They really should have made one specific Global game with its own unique set up and Rulebook. And in this Global game, UK should be one player with one economy and one Capital. Just like USA, Germany and USSR. You don’t see USSR split up with Ukraine, Buriatya and Irkutsk as separate economies, so why should the British Empire be split up with small colonies as separate economies ?
Of course the current Global set up will be unbalanced if you houserule UK as one economy. The Designer should have made Global a unique game from the start. So if you make UK one player, and I suggest to include Canada, India, ANZAC and every colony UK had before 1939, then you must change the starting set up too. As for the issue about UK mobilizing all units in UK, I figure the IC limit will stop that. And even more if we skip the major minor thing, and let the IPC value of the territory decide how many units to place.
Just out of curiosity what are the rational reason you made the distance Berlin-Paris equal with Berlin-Moscow ? In my map Moscow is twice as far away as Paris. On top of that, the Western Europe got a lot of railways and roads that make movement easy, while in Russia the lack of roads and difficult terrain make movement a pain. So if Berlin-Paris is 4 spaces, I would make Berlin-Moscow 8 spaces, at least on my map.
I agree with the Monster of course, and IMHO the only minor IC that pay off for Germany is in Jugoslavia so you can put a tranny there and sail a man over to Egypt and collect the 5 IPC NO.
Personally, I’d have to say it’s Midway.�  If the US and not the Japanese carriers had been destroyed, if Midway had been occupied and another attack on Hawaii organized from there…
I think World War II would have gone very different.
Most historians say Midway changed the war because it proved that Japan was so weak that the US forces already present in the Pacific were strong enough to keep them at bay, so the main 80 % of US military production could be used against Germany. And come to think about it, Japan did build zero new warships during the war, US build 200 new Carriers. I figure a Japanese victory at Midway would have set back US one or two months. But what you say, is a totally new way of thinking, since now Japan would take Hawaii too, and from there walked ashore on the Western Coast and shoot down every Yankee one by one ? Just like in A&A when US is empty and you land one inf there, game over  :-D
Quick notes on a London subdued,
- Total control of the middle east would ensue
- Total control of the Mediterranean would be available for Italy, and potentially spain.
The theatres should really be separated for this question.
So you are sure that Churchill would never dare to establish a government in exile in Canada, so he could keep on commanding and supplying the Mediterean units from Canada, USA, South Africa, India, Australia and the other Commonwealth countries ? You take for granted that the real war is like the A&A war, take the capital and you win the war ?
Quick notes on a London subdued,
- NO lend lease would come to Russia
Only 10 % of the LendLease come through Murmansk. Most of it come through Persia and 25 % come through Vladivostok in the Sovjet Far East. So if London is subdued, then Russia lose the 10 % from Murmansk.
