I don’t think it will be much of a game changer to switch the order between the russians and the germans. even if it is a game changer in the OOB rules,there are so many new rules now that it might not be that big a deal. for example, attacking a VC gives the defender 1 2-hit inf is a good defensive boost to VC territories. how wll germany take moscow on g1?
it wouldn’t be a big deal to have all allies go, then all axis go. i don’t feel that strongly about it. the only reason why i proposed it was because the axis were the aggressors in wwii and the aggressors should naturally attack first.
Yes the axis go first… only on the first turn allowing germany to play before the Soviets really changes things because the established Soviet deployment at start was designed with Soviets move first plus its what actually happened. On the second turn everything goes back to axis followed by allies. that way no problems. The Soviets need to be allowed to destroy those germans at western russia territory or germany has a real advantage as they can now protect a sizable force.
i agree with you that it will be a big advantage for germany if they go first. however, i can just see it now. we have all the allies go, then both the axis. wouldn’t everyone ask, well then shouldn’t the game be called allies and axis instead. :lol:
NO thats not the idea….
Turn 1
soviets
axis
allies
turn 2-turn 999
axis
allies
this is phase two BTW not phase one. sorry for confusion.
apparently it’s not clear because i didn’t know that the game sequence was set and done. why am i proposing all these ideas on game sequence if the rules for it are already set in stone? my last post was concerning my proposal, not anyone else’s.
in my proposal, i’m saying that to speed up things the russians should take their turn with the other allies… that way there are only 2 turns per round instead of 3. but what should the order to the 2 turns be? allies and then axis or the other way around? imp says russia needs to move first in the game.
i don’t think the turn sequence should change at all. every turn should be the same sequence as the turn before. i understand that your change is as simple a change as you can have, but it’s still a change and thus not simple enough for my taste.
for phase 1, i vote for no change in turn sequence rules… russia, germany, uk, japan then us as in OOB rules.
this is the only solution to my following criteria:
-same turn sequence throughout each turn
-russia goes before germany on turn 1
-germany goes before both uk and us on turn 1
-japan goes before us on turn 1
the only solution satisfying all those criteria are the OOB rules.
i still think we should keep the same order of stages within each turn… like develop weapons at the end of each turn.
The sequence change is in phase two: it was never addressed under phase one. Phase one is done and Phase two has started.
Lastly, only on the first turn we allow the Soviets to move first, then the axis, followed by the allies ( including Soviets)
EVERY other turn is conducted with both axis or italy as well playing then all the allies. thats it nothing more. The problem is solved with combining turns together to speed up play. Also, the idea is more historical because say one nation does not see the results of another nations failures… thus allowing them to modify their planning… turn sequence is basically “simultaneous” for all nations of a team, only the combat is resolved at the same time… otherwise each player moves his own forces at his own speed.
Actually he incorrectly posted this as phase one…its most likely what is going on here with all the confusion.
Also historically its really not possible for UK to get a early jump on Japan… in April 1942 Nagumo basically chased sommerville to Ceylon and the brits avoided the japanese because they were not in any position to attack them with their meager forces. Thats another reason why axis should move together. Now it may require some adjustments to UK’s position in India or some adjustment of Japans deployment of trannies near india and australia. I can easilly make these player aids for the kit.
BTW under playtesting ( adding some other rules we got a 35% reduction in playing time) which is much better adding no loss in fun factor.)
OK I didn’t realise none of it is for phase 1.
I know round sequence wasn’t discussed but I thought turn sequence was simple.
Victory condition is also essential for completeness.
I’ve changed the topic name to phase 2 now.
OK
In particular the collecting income before combat in the new turn sequence is a realism boost that is clean and simple thus I prefer it asap :-)
@Imperious:
Also historically its really not possible for UK to get a early jump on Japan… in April 1942 Nagumo basically chased sommerville to Ceylon and the brits avoided the japanese because they were not in any position to attack them with their meager forces. Thats another reason why axis should move together. Now it may require some adjustments to UK’s position in India or some adjustment of Japans deployment of trannies near india and australia. I can easilly make these player aids for the kit.
I don’t prefer map changes but this isn’t map change.
I don’t mind minor changes to start up military. Either way people have to look up the table anyway. It quite a bit to memorize…that 10 x 10 or so table and 5 of them.
I did not propose a “map” change it was a remark about the inviability of allowing UK to move in the pacific before Japan. At the time of the game Japan was cresting and UK was still in trouble.
Yeah.
I am saying I don’t mind a new startup military location table.
So how does the combined turn thing work?
The whole team has phase 1, then phase 2, phase3, etc?
They all play each phase as they choose, except during movement and combat its done at the same time to avoid seeing the results of one combat action and then using this knowledge to move/ not move…attack/ not attack
during movement and combat its done at the same time to avoid seeing the results of one combat action and then using this knowledge to move/ not move…attack/ not attack
More importantly, its so they can’t see combat result and then decision what to build.
for simplicity and less in-game argumuent lets just make them perform phases one after another,
and generally define the a little more clearly
I am anticipating complex diplomacy happening occasionally with introducing of National Victory
Game Sequence
1st turn
[USSR]
[Germany, Japan]
[UK, US]
Later turns
[Germany, Japan]
[USSR, UK, US]
[A, B] means A performs phase 1, B performs phase 1, A performs phase 2, B performs phase 2…etc.
Yep thats exactly the way to go. add that to the final draft.
With USSR, UK and US combats being resolved at the same time, (as with Germany and Japan), “D-Day” type coordinated attack is now possible all the time.
Is that ok?
As for “add that to the final draft” I’ll be compiling a phase 2 final draft once the outline of phase 2 is formed.
Currently lots of discussion in land and naval combat….
but little in Units, Neutrals, and National Victory.
Maybe Italy can be phase 3.
We’ve work so much with land and naval combat I think these shall now be phase 2.
In turn we move Italy and New Units to phase 3 alongside all the physical “map change” and “piece change” rules.
Of course we’ll also await for theduke’s comments and we also have to see his “phase 1.5” rules before pulling together phase 2 draft.
Yes indeed but the Italy idea has to be combined with the lend lease idea, because italy has to have its own income, while we offset extra axis income with aid to soviets and UK from the allies.
Up to you.
I am just saying that so we have all those things that require map changes or additional pieces left to the end.
Funny I can’t see a National Advantage thread.
