ANZAC gets a fighter in England? Is this for balance or is there some sort of historic content to it?
I am guessing both? It makes it so the UK can not go on the offensive with 4 fighters right away, but gives extra punch on defense.
Maybe to signify American pilots etc in the UK?
Should make the game interesting to see how it plays out.
No more Free French Navy? :cry:
I think that’s a typo
Yes, it was a typo - he’s corrected it.
I’m not liking the new victory conditions for the Axis. It further takes away from the global feel of this global game. If you can win by only playing well on one side, what’s the point of having both boards out?
I’m not liking the new victory conditions for the Axis. It further takes away from the global feel of this global game. If you can win by only playing well on one side, what’s the point of having both boards out?
I don’t much like it either. I think getting the US to pay attention to the Pacific should be done via NOs, not victory conditions. The Allies can pound either side into the dust, and just be out of position on the other and the Axis can win.
I’m not liking the new victory conditions for the Axis. It further takes away from the global feel of this global game. If you can win by only playing well on one side, what’s the point of having both boards out?
I don’t much like it either. I think getting the US to pay attention to the Pacific should be done via NOs, not victory conditions. The Allies can pound either side into the dust, and just be out of position on the other and the Axis can win.
i like to think of it more as the allies have lost rather than the axis have won. it was the allies that needed to save the world from imperialistic powers. you could say the allies did not save the world if they liberated europe but all of asia and the pacific were ruled by the japanese.
sure the allies could redeploy and try to fight the japanese but try to explain that to the chinese, indian, and aussie kids learning japanese in school. and the exhausted uk/usa infantryman that after slogging through europe they need to now fly to the other side of the world for more years of fighting.
when the game did not have these victory conditions usa would spend all it’s ipc on one theater and crush either germany or japan. so, we played the game and the outcome was only based on ONE theater. the game was unbalanced. now usa must spend in both theaters making more action over the globe and giving the axis a better chance at winning.
That can still be done through NOs, and an all-out KGF shouldn’t be made impossible, just harder to pull off.
Looking at this new setup, the Taranto raid is going to be very costly to attempt. It would be nice if there were a fighter and tac on Malta/Gibraltar so a real bloody air raid could still be attempted. In compensation, give Italy maybe a couple more infantry. I do like how Italy has been pumped up.
It does seem that Britain will be able to maintain some of their ships. And Russia gets a nice boost in the Far East. It will be interesting to see if Italy’s new strength can offset this and the Allies’ original advantages.
i have not playtested yet but i think axis will have advantage.
i think the vc change makes it very hard for allies.
I am not arguing necessarily the historical accuracy of this victory condition, but rather how it changes the feel of the game. I would rather if the Allies felt serious consequences for throwing everything into one theatre, rather than losing to a mediocrely powerful and unopposed Japan. The changed NOs help this. Really, I think the US NOs should be changed to this, when at war:
1. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling the West Indies and Johnston Island.
2. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling 5 of the 7 following islands: Midway, Wake, Marinaras, Iwo Jima, Caroline, Solomon Islands and Guam.
3. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling the Philippines.
4. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.
5. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Mexico, Southeast Mexico, West Indies and Panama.
6. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Brazil and the Line Islands.
7. Collect 5 IPCs per turn for controlling Hawaii.
So, if America goes all out Europe, they could lose every NO to Japan. If they go all out Japan, they could lose 15 IPCs in NOs to the Axis. If they do the balancing act they were supposed to they could get 35 IPCs from NOs.
Then take out the vc change.
Not sure I like the Global victory conditions for the Axis… seems like the Axis can make a cheap victory grab by blitzing Asia.
Anyone notice The airbase/fighter in Scicily now? While it won’t STOP Taranto, it may help make it more even. I like that the scramble rules are now limited. ( it also makes a Scicily/Sardinia Airbases combo very nice)
@ll:
Not sure I like the Global victory conditions for the Axis… seems like the Axis can make a cheap victory grab by blitzing Asia.
Anyone notice The airbase/fighter in Scicily now? While it won’t STOP Taranto, it may help make it more even. I like that the scramble rules are now limited. ( it also makes a Scicily/Sardinia Airbases combo very nice)
I think it will flat out stop it for most players, especially if Germany lands a couple of fighters in Northern Italy. The odds are pretty bad of getting through to the battleship and transport, and that’s really what you want as the UK.
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
Testing this out in a game tonight. My gut’s telling me the Axis will be much more competitive now.
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
Yes. Italians will rule Africa due to its 2 transports survviving
Man so the new rules really make the game that much more slanted to the Axis? Has anyone played Alpha rules yet?
No need to jump to conclusions, especially when you have to ask your second question.
I was only asking questions, from the responses it seems like Larry went the other way and made the game Axis favored.
Yes. Italians will rule Africa due to its 2 transports survviving
I’m not so sure. UK is more likely to keep some ships, not do the Taranto raid, and then Germany is less likely to try Sealion. That would let UK purchase for South Africa. UK also has a lot of tricks they can pull maneuvering between the Middle East, India, and South Africa. I think the battle for Africa is going to be more exciting, but not slanted too much to either side.
Weldone Harry not introducing the rule that said UK government could be transfered to Canada. This rule made no sense.
Well done with scramble from territories that are not islands. I do not agree with the 3 limitation.
Bad done with not letting subs counter attack alone transports.
Some questions about ending the game immediatly instead of allowing a full round to try to recover.
Can someone point out the changes in a short list?
Its a new game.
I am interested in the UK/German naval outcomes.
sz 110 or sz109 coastal scramble with fig…? anyone. Hard to kill the entire navy if you do not know what your opponent will do.
