Gotcha. That is a rough Allies game. When you say a solo game, do you mean you played both sides, or that you played Allies against TripleA AI? Just curious. Also, upon rereading what I said earlier, I didn’t mean for my thoughts to come across as harsh, so my apologies. :)

@LewisClark The UK is split into two economies, not two powers. The UK player, if I understand your predicament correctly, can still move ALL their pieces on both sides of the board. They simply cannot purchase/collect income on the Europe side. There is no Europe/Pacific control of the pieces as all UK pieces are moved at the same time since they share a turn.

@nishav I don’t know of any designer comments, but this is one of those aspects of the game that is determined by balance and playability rather than pinpoint geographical accuracy. If there were more SZs in the Pacific, that side of the game would take longer, since more turns would be needed to move ships. It would also restrict strategic options, since, if there were more SZs to travel through, units would have less ability to threaten multiple areas from whatever position they are in.

All that to say, I get your point, and a geographically accurate map does have some appeal, but if you’re looking to play a balanced and fun game that doesn’t take up your whole week, the way they made it is well done.

@FranceNeedsMorePower That does sound fun but you still have the problem of Italy being underwhelming in the first place. I hesitate to add anything to France that could impact Italy in any meaningful way. Doing so would require an Italian change in setup, and if I understand correctly, the goal here is a little more excitement and possibly balance, not redoing the whole game. Changing the Italian setup because you changed France’s (beyond slowing Germany down) is more of an alternate edition than a house rule.

Sorry about all the edits. I was figuring out noncombat moves when I just want to reinforce.

@marshmallowofwar I agree. One of my favorite parts of the game when playing Germany or Russia is looking at the stacks and trying to calculate odds and what moves are best in the turns leading up to the (usually) inevitable battle for Moscow. Really engages the brain!

@FranceNeedsMorePower My honest answer is that I think you are taking off more than you can chew at once. I suggest playtesting this in phases. Start with making minor adjustments to France (like the ones I suggested or similar). If that makes you happy-great! If not, then slowly add changes.

It seems right now that you are a little too eager to change everything, and I fear you will wind up disappointing yourself and never settling on anything.

Just my two-cents, but those are my honest thoughts. Start simple and give France a low-impact option or two.

My bad. I repeated the Italian turn history.

I don’t know how Germany was able to both hold off Russia after giving them 3 turns of buildup and have enough of a fleet to not only successfully defeat London (which sounds like it had built up) and challenge the Americans. Without seeing the game, it sounds to me like Russia needed to poke Germany a little harder (maybe build up along the front to draw more German units and thus IPCs) and the British needed to build up more in London. A prepared UK player shouldn’t lose London on turn 4, IMHO. A stack of 20+ infantry and several fighters (keep the French one there especially if Sealion seems like a threat) should be enough to make Germany suffer. Even if London falls, the German navy shouldn’t be able to outlast the Americans if the German player has put any thought into the Eastern Front. Germany starts the game with a lot of power and potential directions it could go, but to have that kind of stomping sounds more like Allied mistakes than Axis success.

It is general consensus that cruisers and battleships are overpriced in OOB and are rarely (if ever) advisable to purchase. Here is a thought, and I look forward to feedback:

As WWII developed, naval battles increasingly were dependent less on big naval guns and more on aircraft. Designs in ships (AAA armament especially) reflected this by the later years of the war, and I am hoping to incorporate that. Say that cruisers and battleships had limited AAA, in each battle they participate in rolling 1@1 before the rolling begins. I feel as though this is a good solution for two reasons:

1. It reflects reality. When planes attacked warships, They had to wait until optimal range to release bombs/torpedoes, while the ships had been firing all throughout the approach.

2. It adds value and dynamism to the ships. In every sixth battle in which one of these ships comes up against planes, it will theoretically score a preemptive hit. That comes out to a 1.7 IPC value every 6 battles, on average. 6 battles may be more than many of one’s ships fight in a game, so I feel as though this bonus ability is not overwhelming, especially since no navy will have more than a handful, save for rare occasions.

I know that, in some cases, this may be a large shift. Say Japan attacks the UK BB off Malaya (SZ 37) with a cruiser and 2 bombers. It is possible that, with this new ability, the BB could score a preemptive hit on a bomber and sink the cruiser in a lone round of combat, and should the remaining 2 Japanese units score only 1 hit, proceed to destroy the last bomber in the second round of combat.

I acknowledge that, in such cases, it may be over the top. But it does prove the point that such a tweak would force players to respect cruisers and BBs more, and it would give more reason for purchasing cruisers as screening ships. My apologies if this is in the wrong section of the forum.

Thoughts?

@Raider13 If I did my math correctly, you are spending 81 German IPCs on factories/bases. In other words, you are down 13 tanks and an infantry in your quest for Moscow. I concur with the other opinions that this is untenable. To spend this much money is not an investment; it’s a death wish. I have never seen the Romanian factory as a good investment, but I could possibly see a minor factory as acceptable. A capable German player in an “average” game, however, will almost always be able to take Moscow without any additional factories.

That isn’t to say that any more are inherently bad, but they are for more specific goals (e.g. building a Med. fleet from Yugo.)

It is general consensus that cruisers and battleships are overpriced in OOB and are rarely (if ever) advisable to purchase. Here is a thought, and I look forward to feedback:

As WWII developed, naval battles increasingly were dependent less on big naval guns and more on aircraft. Designs in ships (AAA armament especially) reflected this by the later years of the war, and I am hoping to incorporate that. Say that cruisers and battleships had limited AAA, in each battle they participate in rolling 1@1 before the rolling begins. I feel as though this is a good solution for two reasons:

1. It reflects reality. When planes attacked warships, They had to wait until optimal range to release bombs/torpedoes, while the ships had been firing all throughout the approach.

2. It adds value and dynamism to the ships. In every sixth battle in which one of these ships comes up against planes, it will theoretically score a preemptive hit. That comes out to a 1.7 IPC value every 6 battles, on average. 6 battles may be more than many of one’s ships fight in a game, so I feel as though this bonus ability is not overwhelming, especially since no navy will have more than a handful, save for rare occasions.

I know that, in some cases, this may be a large shift. Say Japan attacks the UK BB off Malaya (SZ 37) with a cruiser and 2 bombers. It is possible that, with this new ability, the BB could score a preemptive hit on a bomber and sink the cruiser in a lone round of combat, and should the remaining 2 Japanese units score only 1 hit, proceed to destroy the last bomber in the second round of combat.

I acknowledge that, in such cases, it may be over the top. But it does prove the point that such a tweak would force players to respect cruisers and BBs more, and it would give more reason for purchasing cruisers as screening ships. My apologies if this is in the wrong section of the forum.

Thoughts?

@FranceNeedsMorePower When I play Britain I also wish that. :) If you do that, however, then Austria should start with one, since it would do the CP even more damage to give the Entente any further advantage.

In regards to the American strategy, I agree that it is frustrating playing as the waking giant of the US only to be capped at a measly 20 IPCs throughout the whole game. There are a few ways to remedy this, but each has their pitfalls.

1. You could set up a national objective system in the game (as I have worked on before and enjoyed) in which the US graduates to higher income levels over a number of turns. For example, the first turn the US is at war it collects 2 more IPCs, the second turn 4, up through the 5th turn when they collect 10, at which point it stops increasing. This would need to be balanced by a strong CP national objective of some kind, and I have not spent the time investigating this yet.

2. If you are willing to fudge some history, once the US goes to war, Canada becomes a US (not British) territory. This overplays the independence movement that resulted from the war, but it does give the US a few more IPCs and doesn’t shift the game balance too much. British player will need to be a little stingier, but if the Ottomans are already on the run, this may not be the end of the world.

There are more options, but since I have to leave for class, I will leave it at this for now. I look forward to any comments or thoughts you may have. :)

@nishav I don’t know of any designer comments, but this is one of those aspects of the game that is determined by balance and playability rather than pinpoint geographical accuracy. If there were more SZs in the Pacific, that side of the game would take longer, since more turns would be needed to move ships. It would also restrict strategic options, since, if there were more SZs to travel through, units would have less ability to threaten multiple areas from whatever position they are in.

All that to say, I get your point, and a geographically accurate map does have some appeal, but if you’re looking to play a balanced and fun game that doesn’t take up your whole week, the way they made it is well done.

@The-Janus In my experience, if the Allies have consistent control of Paris (long enough for France to consider purchases), the game is essentially over. If Germany is weak enough that Paris is taken and held, then France’s economy really doesn’t need a boost, IMHO. I get that it is more fun to buy expensive units, but it simply would be kicking Germany while it is down.

That said, if you have a good European game as the Allies but a crappy situation in the Pacific, maybe something can be considered, but the French really cannot do much about the Pacific.

Oops, didn’t mean to send it twice.

@VictoryFirst I tried but it won’t attach to an email. If you’d rather, we can just call it a draw.

@VictoryFirst I tried but it won’t attach to an email. If you’d rather, we can just call it a draw.

@VictoryFirst IT-US 20.tsvg

@VictoryFirst FR-UK 20.tsvg