Modified turn sequence?

@Eric-Poppleton well I tried it by myself some and it sorta worked. My goal was to get my buddies into the game and try it with them but we’re still in the learning phase-figured it’s only a valid test if they have developed strategies in the normal game

I find it funny.

Painstate posting this question on the premise that axis players “drag” the game out once they start losing.

Then posts that he loves Axis players that refuse to give up.  Then asks “how many do you know who do that”

As for setting a 25 turn limit, based on the length your group plays, that seems ridiculously long. Try 12 turn as suggested or have a tactical/statistical review of some kind.

I don’t know what the challenge your group is facing is -but we almost always complete in one session.  Usually we schedule a weekend.  And get two full games in. One on each day, with the backup day for the game if it runs long.

Maybe get an egg timer for each side to increase focus!

Hello Zaibach,

Sorry for the late response.  Yes, the UK takes a major Turn 1 hit in the Med from this system.  It also prevents the UK from launching a “Taranto Raid” against Italy in Turn 1.

However, this is later counterbalanced by the Allies ability to attack together simultaneously.  It is a lot easier for the US and UK forces to unite and launch an attack into N. Africa and the Med in Turn 3 or Turn 4.

We’ve played about 10 games now with the 3-Turn system and have had wins on both Axis and Allied sides.

@Young:

@Baron:

@Young:

Cruisers
receive 1@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Aircraft Carriers
receive 1@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Battleships
receive 2@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Do you realize that these warships are made better at destroying directly planes than planes themselves?

Sorry… I don’t understand your question.

According to usual casualty order, when planes will roll a hit in naval combat, the owner usually choose a Submarine or a Destroyer before 10 IPCs Fighters.
With your suggested rule, CA, CV and BB will take down aircrafts with more regularity than planes’ hit rolled.  To me it seem paradoxical.

Here is a rule we have been trying…

Engaged Land Combat:

The attacker has 3 options after each round of combat;

continue the battle, 2) retreat, 3) partial retreat, or 4 ) stand.  Options 3 and 4 end further combat by the attacker, and allow the defender a one-time only play of any of these 3 actions; retreat, stand, and/or counterattack.  Defending unit retreats follow the same retreat rules as attacker except the destination territory is any that is under friendly control.  Counterattacking units get one round free combat using attack dice.  Defending air units must retreat and cannot counterattack.  After the counterattack, the counterattacking units are considered engaged and cannot be moved on their turn and must become the attacker.  Attacking or defending units that stand and are still in a territory that contains unfriendly units on their turn, must either attack and/or move to territories that were in friendly control or had friendly units at the start of the their turn.

there was a Historical version of Revised online for tournaments or something. 
in that version they also had rules for adding Italy, to make 6 players.

also the turn order became…

in the 1st round………
Russia, then Both Axis players (Also Italy if played) taking there turn together as one (Each phase done together),
then US & UK also taking there turn together

every round after……… the Axis (together), then the Allies (Together).

very interesting way to play. unfortunately i never got to play this version so i dont know how well it worked.  And I dont know how it would work for 1942.

I remember When they added Italy they made Germany itself worth 20 IPC’s,  Italy started with 12 and controlled Southern Europe (which was split into Italy & S. Europe), Balkans, Algieria.  there were other changes to the map as well.

So it would take 1 year for ships off California to reach Japan?

IN AA yes.

Keep up the good work.