MOVED: WTS Sealed NIB Nova Games Axis & Allies + French/Chinese Expansion

I think the #1 lesson I learned on the forums and actually playing the game is this.

UK1 YOU ALWAYS BUILD: 6 INF + 1FTR or 9 INF on London.

If Germany is going to go ahead with sea lion make it a honest attempt. Defend London to the best of your ability on UK1 and UK2 and see what happens.

UK gets in trouble when they do not defend London to the max on their first 2 turns and goes off script. UK cannot afford to miscalculate the situation and be under manned on the first 2 turns on London and let Germany waltz in and take it.

UK2 Your purchase is a response to Germany. If they go Sea Lion build you MUST build more defense on the island. If they go with a Russia build and no TRS that is when you can build that minor IC somewhere and start looking at areas to annoy the Axis.

A bit houseruley, but you could simply have the UK be a single economy but still two capitals, that way Japan could destroy Calcutta, then after the UK collects again, Germany finishes them off in London. You also need to make Moscow less attractive (G40 was created with the intention of Sea Lion and a more successful Burma campaign to be possible), so additional national objectives are needed for the USSR, with a combination of a means to make China more difficult for Japan, to prevent a Moscow-Rush or Dark Skies Strategy from always taking place.

Another thing is, the allies need simple and also possible to obtain victory conditions, so perhaps this:

Europe Victory: The Allies control 1 original European Axis Victory City; Calcutta and Sydney still under Allies Control
Pacific Victory: Japan controls no originally Pacific Allies Victory Cities; Moscow and London still under Allies Control

There are three things that affect strategy. You and your opponents/teammates, the setup, and the dice.
Because there is no affect of dice G1 for instance, the only factors are you and the setup. This comes down to the fact that the setup offers some moves and you pick the best one.

I’m still not sure that this aspect of the tech discussion belongs here since it is more about a house rule but I mentioned how we have developed a progressive valued chart  for the techs but I didn’t give the limitations of attaining the tech.  A tech die is three (3) IPC’s every tern a player wants to roll for a tech.  A neutral nation can roll one die only per rounf thatthey are neutral.  That is three IPC’s per round.  If a tech has a R&D value of 25, it may take a nation at least 5 rounds to develop that tech.  That is at least 15 IPC’s in order to develop a tech.  A nation that is war may invest in three dice (9IPC’s) per rounf in order to develop three different tech.'s at a time.  They can not be applied to a single tech but must be spread over the three techs to be develpoed.  It can get expensive but the thought process is this; a country will invest in R&D to develop a specific technology.  It will not just through money at a problem and randomly hope to get a good result….governments maybe but not gamers.  If and when we play with technology, I prefer this R&D chart.  The Anniversary/Global chart and dice costs can definately thow the balance of the game off.  Last game I played of global 1940, theAmerican player shelled out alot of IPC’s on tech.  It put his production behind and the other allied player had to really hold on for the US to catch up but the US player was able to develop long range heavy bombers and cheaper ships.  It was devostating to the the axis player (me) because he then went dark skies on the axis and it became a war of attrition that I could not repulse effectively.  I have to take this moment to say I love Narvik.  Direct and to the point.  Tech is fun sometimes but there is alot to just playing the game.

If germany doesn’t have many transports, be sure to slide a few infantry and artillery up into Karelia to force your way into Scandinavia to get those nice No’s and reinforce with Brits and US, let the cash role in

Okay, thanks. I’ll let that bastard know he was right.

Well you admit to Bad Play on the part of U.K. so the case is closed.  Regardless of what had to go right for the Germans.

And no, resources don’t HAVE to be built to deal with the Japanese Navy, but the reality is 100% of the USA’s income is going into the atlantic, thereby relieving NO pressure on Germany.

A Jap navy with transports off the east coast of the U.S. or threatening australia however, would divert that 100%.  Sending a useless navy to South America was a poor decision in this game. Hinsight or not.