UK National Objectice

Taht is good to know.
If you ever wanted a game with members on this site, there is one every three months in Derbyshire. PM Private Panic or look in the Events thread.

@CWO:

The rulebooks in some of the early A&A games (I can’t remember which ones off the top of my head) included brief descriptions of each power’s strengths and weaknesses and of its general situation, followed by statement like “If you’re the kind of player who prefers such-and-such a thing, consider playing this country.”  Those were handy to new players, and they were a bit along the lines of what EvenkiNatlOkrug says about his own system for helping players decide which power fits their particular style.

If my memory serves, Larry’s summation about Germany was: “If you want to be the center of attention, consider playing Germany.”   :-)

Yep, this is actually where I got the idea. It’s in the rulebook from Revised. I’m not sure about all of them, but if you wanted a balanced game, you should play UK and if you wanted a big land war, you should play USSR.

Having played some more games, I no longer really feel dat the Allies have a better chance of winning. Perhaps it just takes more games to learn how to play axis effectively.

Having NO’s on indeed makes the game more realistic and fluid, in the sense that fighting for something like australia for example really is worth the effort more. Perhaps we will try NO’s in the future, when all of our players are more experienced with the vanilla ruleset.

I think the N.O.s should not all be  5 IPC’s  I do not see them as being equal.
Soviet player is the only exception

Maybe a small bonus for having all.

I find the US/UK vs Japan option (1941) is very viable.  Maybe I am misreading what was said before, but it actually seems more viable to me than a traditional kill Germany first. (I think this is because Italy can liberate/take land and Germany can reinforce it with fighters to defend now, a very significant and major defensive capability!)

America may be limited to 52 IPC or less a round if they go Kill Japan first.  However, England should be making significantly more than the 20-30 IPC they get in a kill Germany/ignore Japan campaign because of the NO in the Pacific, the non-loss of the NO in the Indian Ocean/Africa/Australia/etc, the increased land ownership in the Asian SE and SE Pacific Islands, etc.  Meanwhile, Japan shouldn’t be earning too much either, America could, realistically, be earning near to more than double what Japan is if played right.

Thanks anyway.

@axis_roll:

Don’t get me wrong, I like to KJF, it’s more fun, since it IS harder to execute.  I like a challenge.  Probably why I like to play the Axis… they’re the underdog.

So KJF is an underdog type of allied strategy.   :wink:

KJF is harder of master, not of execute. When you master KJF, it’s more powerful than a mastered KGF. First, because very few people know how counter KJF and many start to do strange things. Second, because it’s easier for axis reach economic parity in KGF than in KGF. Third, for league games, I found it’s easier reach 9 VCs with KJF (Manila, Shangai, Paris). Fourth, a KGF strat let Japan try invade american mainland (a strat I still don’t master, but seems very nasty in a initial KGF game)

Yeah, didn’t see that thread was moved back until after I posted, but I thought I had seen mention of a UK bonus for controlling sea zones somewhere other than Lynxes’ post, such as one of the people that posted after seeing the game at Gen Con, I suppose I was mistaken though.