@knp7765:
I have a few thoughts. First, I LOVE the new scramble rules. I always thought it was silly that airbases that weren’t on islands couldn’t scramble. The limit of 3 ftrs or tacs is good too. No one should be allowed to scramble 10+ planes. The new rules for British territories is much better.
Agreed. :-)
@knp7765:
The new Axis victory conditions I’m not so sure about. I like that it does make the Allies deal with Japan and not just pour everything into Europe and ignore Japan. However, it seems odd to me that Germany and Italy could get smashed by the Allies yet Japan grabs 6 Victory Cities and it is an Axis victory. If you think about it, that’s not too big of a stretch for Japan. They start the game with two, then Manila, Hong Kong and Honolulu are within Japan’s grasp which would give them 5, although admittedly Honolulu would be somewhat tougher with the US fleet in the way. After that, they just need 1 more city to win. San Francisco is nearly impossible unless the USA player really screws up. However, Sydney and Calcutta are very possible, especially since by this time Japan should be making some major $$$. I still think they should have to hold it for 1 full round however.
We’ll see how the new victory conditions pan out. At first glance, I like it. The global game should be just that, global. To iggy the Pacific and go KGF…well, why not just skip your game of global and just play the European side? Global means global, so I like what I’m seeing with that.
@knp7765:
One rule change I don’t understand is the AA guns being removed if that territory is captured. Why? I don’t understand the reasoning for this one.
AA guns have gone from being a complex defense against strategic bombing raids to being an additional land game piece more representing AA defences for Army units. I don’t understand why they didn’t make this change long ago. I like it.
@knp7765:
Two things I definitely disagree with are the Major IC rule and the Submarine rule.
First, the Major ICs. I can understand not allowing players to build brand new Major ICs on foreign territories (eg. USA on Norway). My problem is not being able to upgrade a captured IC from minor to major. That part doesn’t make sense to me. Say Germany pulls off Sealion and captures UK. The UK IC gets downgraded to minor. Why wouldn’t Germany be able to upgrade that IC back to major. For one thing, Germany would still have to pay the 20 IPCs to do it, which would negate some of the plunder they got from capturing London. Also, if any country captured a major IC that wasn’t an enemy capital, like USA capturing Western Germany or Northern Italy, they wouldn’t even get any plunder IPCs but would still have to pay the 20 IPCs to upgrade. Secondly, it seems to me if you are holding such valuable enemy territory, you would be able to make use of it’s resources for your war effort and thus be able to upgrade the IC from minor to major.
I agree completely with the new rule. Even if a country captured a valuable center for production from an enemy, they still produced all their major armaments in their own country. It is ridiculous for Japan to be able to produce major fleet units out of Singapore, and likewise for the US to do the same in Norway. As far as I’m concerned, allowing minor complexes is a stretch, so the new restriction on major complexes is completely justifiable. I like this new rule too.
@knp7765:
As for the new Submarine rule, that makes even less sense to me. Say you are commanding a submarine and along comes some enemy transports loaded with troops and equipment all by themselves with no enemy warships guarding them. You aren’t going to take a shot at them? When there are no warships to harass you? COME ON! Troop transports should be escorted by at least one warship. The original rule forced players to commit escorts for their transports or suffer the consequences. Plus, there is no guarantee that the sub’s shot will hit any of your transports since they still only hit on 2 or less. I don’t think repealing this rule was a good idea.
I like this rule too. Submarines in WWII were not used, nor were they any good in defense. They were an attack weapon. Allowing the defense shot allowed players to use subs to defend land territories against amphibious invasion unrealistically. Submarines should be restricted to being used offensively in their own players turn. I agree with this change too. :-)
