Post your Game summaries here

yeah, but we are still fooling around with new-ish ideas after a years break for Gencon 2017 42.2 so its not just–->  deathblow

good point kruzfeld I agree the bid balances perceptions, especially in the tournament

Another approach to picking teams is to draw for teams of 2/1 2/2 2/3 etc. (and/or experienced team leaders) then after teams are known, agree upon assignments within that team.

@Argothair:

My play group is very considerate about trying to (a) identify when the game isn’t much worth playing anymore, and then (2) accurately describe the likely outcome of the game.

Right, like there are no hard-and-fast rules about “oh, you lost your capital, or you lost Cairo, or you’re making 30 IPCs less per turn, so it’s game over.” Instead we look at the board and try to see if there are battles or campaigns coming up that are likely (>10%?) to make a dramatic impact on the state of the game, especially campaigns where the underdog is going on the offensive, or where the apparent favorite is in danger of being pushed back if they lose a key attack. E.g. it matters a lot whether Germany has one stack next door to Moscow, with nothing to reinforce it if that stack is destroyed, vs. a steady stream of reinforcements and a huge stack next to Moscow. In the former case, Moscow could recover if it fends off a German battle with 80% odds to take Moscow. In the latter case, even if Moscow pulls out that 20% from the dice, they will still have 80% odds to die one turn later, so it’s not a big deal. The former position is interesting and worth playing on if we can manage to find time for a second session; the latter position is not interesting and the game should be called.

When we call a game, we don’t insist on unconditional surrender. Instead, we try to agree on what the game looks like. For example, “the Allies are way ahead, but the Axis still have a slight chance.” Or, “It’s hard to say for sure who’s winning, but it looks like the Axis have a slight edge.” Sometimes we don’t always precisely agree – one side might claim the Allies are ahead by “a little” while the other side might claim the Allies have “a significant lead,” but so far we have always at least agreed on which side has the edge, even if not by how much.

Hey!  I am in your play group and what you are saying is…. basically right.  Although have we played global together?  Don’t recall honestly

Dutch are part of the Allies, they are not neutral. Dutch territories have always been valid landing zones for Allied aircraft.

Rule “change” is a clarification and not an actual change, I agree.

I think four player is the best.  As the Allies it’s easier to be on the same page and everyone has a more to do.

The setup I prefer:

Germany & Italy
Japan

Russia, UK, France
USA, China, Anzac

The USA player should control Anzac since they’ll be working closely with them.

I’d be curious about a minor in Egypt paired with successful Taranto. Egypt would be pretty hard to get without Germany sending considerable resources.

Wow, 4 battleships for Germany.  That sounds so cool, but I agree with Young Grasshopper, it sounds like you have left yourself very weak in other areas.  Still, I would love to see Germany with 4 battleships.  Of course, I have always been partial to the Bismarck.

As for attacking England, how much of your Luftwaffe do you still have.  With 6 transports you could hit England with 12 land units against Britains 15 infantry.  If you still have a lot of Luftwaffe to counter the 6 RAF planes, you could probably take England.  However, Captainhook is also right, Russia is probably getting ready to invade you.  Hope you got enough men to repel them.

@mwindianapolis:

how about just toss for them?

UFC cage match in the back yard!  :evil:  :-D