Please explain why you chose the one you did. Even though you only picked the primary factor in motivating your house rule selections, what other factors listed (or not listed) in the poll motivate your house rule selections (i.e. what are your second, third, etc… choices)?
The great thing about this game is it’s never the same. It always plays out differently (dice). However, my crew likes to mix it up further by switching up the allies and adding a few nominal house rules. Check out our thread, alternate or traditional?
Well its a hard call, but since we are dealing with a game i think balance issues are important, while Historical realism are a close runner up. A game is meant to be enjoyable, but if its one sided then the forgone conclusion of who will win will reduce it to a quick boring affair. So if you apply house rules to solve the problem it can spice up the game and correct balance issues. Sometimes a complete teardown of a given ruleset and a new set of “house rules” that fix a broken game are the only solution.
Our house rules have been adapted to prolong the lenght of the game. this allow for different outcomes as well as new tactical opprotunities. I am not under the belief that the game should end quickly or be concluded in one night of play. I also belive in changing the starting allies for everygame. both of these provide for interesting game scenarios.
You mean a free for all? russia vs UK, german vs japan? hmm i have not tried that.
My main reason is to speed up gameplay - since otherwise, I can’t get anyone to play with me :(
But I’m also interested in balancing it out.
For speeding up gameplay, it seems that the following might work: In the first round, all countries take their turn as usual (Russia-Germany-UK-Japan-USA). But after that first round, Japan and Germany go simultaneously, followed by the Allies all going simultaneously. (The biggest gripe from my friends is having to wait around too much for their turn.)
ImpLeader: Once you’ve tried alternate setups, you’ll never go back :wink:. If you’d like to know, ask away. I’ve got some great stories, and some good advice on what allies work and which ones don’t.
So i guess Germany and Russia is the best two nation “team” while Germany and USA looks good too. Ok like they say on Jerry Springer… “tell us your story”…
In a GERM/Russia vs. everyone game, the combined Navies of US/UK/Japan is too much for Germany, who will fall first. Russia will hold out only because Moscow is the only victory city not accessible by water. Of course, you have to give them a new ally if you want to keep the game going, which will be either UK or Japan. America is too far away to help them, and UK/Japan can easily take Asia all by themselves (assuming it’s not just them vs. everyone).
US/Germ is a great team, and the UK will fall first, making them almost impossible to defeat. Therefore, you must split the deadly alliance to make it a fair game. We played this setup once, and I was Germany. US took London on turn 4 (I believe), and I picked up Japan as my ally vs. USA/USSR. Russia was able to hold me off however, and I owned all of Africa, but Japan was able to get to Moscow before I did (can you believe it)? At that point, it became a three player free-for-all, which was bad for me, because the other two teams had two capitals. Plus, USA and Japan were ignoring the Pacific. Basically, I was boxed in the whole game, and eventually Berlin fell :cry:.
Trust me though–if you try these you’ll like the results, and it might not happen exactly like I’ve laid out because dice will be dice. That’s why I love this game. It’s never the same. Check out our thread though–I’m serious
Yeah, on that note, I may have voted for Game Balance, because what’s the point of playing if the scales are already tilted one way? But that’s mostly in reference to playing Traditional. Our standing house rule is basically, “Never play the way WWII actually went down. Switch up allies whenever a nation gets eliminated.” If you do it that way, versatility usually comes about of its own accord. :wink:
