if you’re Italy and Germany signals Sealion, DON’T take Gibraltar. You simply bomb the base after the operation, after which it cannot be repaired, hampering the USA.
Won many a game this way. The poison pill is one of my all-time favorites hahaha!
Best (most fun) Teams in 2v2
-
P1 Russia, USA
P2 UK, ANZAC, China, France -
@Young:
I would choose an option that is not on here, Player 1 gets Russia and China, player 2 gets the Allied powers. (UK/France/US/anzac)
I would hate to be player 1.
You got that right!
-
Other. I always do UK/ANZAC/Russia and US/China/France
UK and ANZAC are politicially tied, as well as often strategically, and once the US gets involved, they’re doing the most out of anyone.
-
I dunno, I would be happy playing Russia/China. But then I never root for the Patriots or Cowboys, but rather the underdog Chiefs or Redskins.
Seriously though I don’t mind losing my country so long as my allies win the game, and I’d rather be in the thickest part of the battle, and to me the most important theatre is the Russian fronts.
-
I dunno, I would be happy playing Russia/China. But then I never root for the Patriots or Cowboys, but rather the underdog Chiefs or Redskins.
Seriously though I don’t mind losing my country so long as my allies win the game, and I’d rather be in the thickest part of the battle, and to me the most important theatre is the Russian fronts.
No doubting that, but I would have given France to the Russian/Chinese player, just to stay awake after China’s turn.
-
Just do it per the rulebook but shift one player to the Axis. That gives US/China + Russia/France for one Allied player, UK/ANZAC for the other. It works fine with about equal time needed to plan strategy since UK is often more complicated, and China and France are trivial to play.
-
I say UK, Russia, and China
US, ANZAC, and FranceThat ways player 2 can focus on the water, and player 1 can focus on land (mainly)
-
My play group always splits the Allies into the two respective theaters in the same way that the Axis are split. The Pacific player has control of everything that happens on that board, likewise for the Europe player.
Of course, this means that two players end up playing the USA simultaneously. Some discussion goes back and forth over how much funding each side of the board should receive given the state of affairs, and usually one side or the other is focused on. I like this a lot because it forces the two Allied players to really put their heads together over what kind of game to play, each bringing their evaluation of their side of the board to the table. Also, some jokes get flung around about requisitioning funds, failing to put the paperwork in, congressional debates, etc. etc.
Usually Russia and the U.K. stick to the division of force that’s already in place, but sometimes U.K.'s Pacific forces get called over to Africa, or perhaps Moscow funnels some IPC’s to support the far eastern troops (or the troops march home).
In keeping with this tradition, one game the Japanese player flew 4 bombers over to help the Germans and then relinquished control of the units to the German player (to be moved during Japan’s turn, of course).
-
Nice Larry! I really like this for its simplicity and need for team conferencing. It would however tend to possibly drag the game on at times. :mrgreen: That last sentence has lots of qualifiers.
In face to face games this might be the way to go, but in online tournaments this wouldn’t be the case.
-
We are in the middle of a 2v2 right now.
Japan & Germany/Italy vs USA/China/Anzac & UK/Russia/France
Everyone got a lot to think about.
-
For the sake of it, has anyone played a 1 v 1 v 1. Germany/Italy/France vs Russia/China/Japan vs UK/US/ANZAC ?
Suggested Topics
