Rules Question/Clarification

@altruex

For me, playing with National Objectives is a must, 1) You’ll find that it makes the game WAY more interesting, 2) It is kinda the one thing that actually makes half the stuff you can do in a WW2 scenario make sense… and 3) It balances the game a lot better in that retrospectrum.

As for Research and Development, this is for sure optional since it kinda plays an important role but not super into swaying which side will beat the other, so do what you will with this.

As for house rules, I only have 1 house rule I put into play, one at which I like to call the “Siberian-Manchurian Pact” which, by the name you can probably tell that it relates to the real time non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan at the time.

The reason I have this houserule into play is that for starters, I feel like it is a HUGE waste of time for the Soviets to be throwing valuable infantry into Japanese Manchuria all to gain a single infantry for 1 turn only to lose it, as well as the fact that it kinda defeats the purpose of Japan fighting the Pacific as a whole instead of having to deal with the annoyance of the Soviets taking Manchuria with like 5 infantry…

And in the other aspect of it, It is a huge waste of time for Japan to be going after Siberia, whether theres units there or not. It’s of the USSR player’s own will to move those infantry to the Eastern Front against Germany or to keep them there, but like I said, Japan can at most get like 4 to 6 IPC’s outta the far Eastern Russian territories… which I can literally get double that with like, 3 provinces down south (The Money Islands).

All in all, that’s not to say these 2 can’t go to war with eachother, the basic rule is that if Japan and The Soviet Union do go to war, it needs to be through the Chinese border with the Soviet Union and not the Manchurian border, because it saves people ALOT of time and strain and annoyance from either side if one is attacking the other.

Just my opinion though.

@Comical_Sans:

Thanks for the feedback sjlr1! In terms of tech, are rockets particularly great in europe/africa? For one game I’ve had is that with a German-Russo Stalemate with Italy trying to contest Africa with America, (With an Italian Industrial Complex on Egypt), and both the Soviets and Americans had developed rockets. So they kept on around the clock strategic bombing and rocket strikes on the Industrial Complex in Germany and the Italian Industrial Complex in Egypt, forcing the two Axis powers to constantly repair their factories. On turn 5, three bombers from U.S. all got a six during a strategic bombing on Italy’s Egypt Industrial Complex, completely shattering Italy’s already fragile economy. By turn 7, the around the clock bombing forced Italy to withdraw from Africa completely and Germany, being bogged down by U.S., U.K. and USSR bombings and rockets, were purchasing less and less units. By turn nine, Japan also got kicked out of the Asian mainland, and was stuck with the home isles and an IC in the East Indies. At the same time, Italy only retained the boot as the Russians and a few British mechanized infantry took the Balkans. By Turn nine, Italy had capitulated, with Germany only retaining Germany and Norway. After Germany fell, the Allies won with a total of 15 Victory Cities. The combination of Strategic Bombings and Rockets forced Italy and Germany back when they seemed to have an initial advantage. So are Rockets a tech that the European Powers should aim for?

Rockets are a great tech for the USSR and UK, as the UK can reach either Italy or Germany with its AA in the British mainland, and if the Japanese or italians have built an IC then the one in india can do harm as well. The USSR starts of with 3 AA guns, and all can reach Italy or Germany, which can be devastating. Most of the time, USSR needs most of its money buying infantry and tanks to fight the Germans but can afford a few tech tokens early in the game. It’s a little less useful for the US unless they put their AA guns on a transport and shuffle them somewhere (Okinawa or Iwo Jima against Japan, B United Kingdom against Germany or Italy), which can be a bit tedious. And if the US and UK spam bombers like you said, the Axis will be hurting badly! You could try playing with the Escorts/Interceptors optional official rule if you wish.
Hope this helps

Does the 1941 scenario even work without the NOs? I solitaired it for a bit once and the board seemed almost empty of units after about three turns. Germany collapsed because its lost income from the rather easy NOs really makes a difference. Japan seemed rather irrelevant since it takes longer to gain momentum without the NOs, and Germany falls sooner to a KGF.
The 1942 scenario seems better suited for a non-NO game because it´s got more starting units and the theaters are better balanced. Germany is stronger so a KGF will take longer and Asia has got more options since India won´t fall as easily, China is tougher and the US Pacific fleet is stronger.

Russia gets to reinforce Cauc R1, so softening up Cauc for Italy isn’t a good reason to hit Cauc G1.

If you want Cauc, think about setting up for a Round 2 attack….in that case, it would be Italy and its bbs that would soften up Cauc I1 (unless it had to counter Ukraine), and then Germany goes for it G2.  To do this effectively the G Med transport should survive until G2, where it joins the Italy fleet.

With a bid unit to Egypt, you had better just leave Egypt alone and hit the following:

sz2 use 1 ss, 1 fig, 1 bmb
sz6 use 1 ss, 1 fig (+ 1 ca if you feel like it)
sz12 use 1 ss, 2 fig
take Gibraltar with an infantry from France or Algeria to help Italy get its NO

on Italy 1, you can hit Egypt or Trj, whichever, or both if the UK pulled back to Sudan.  Just make sure to get both of your NO’s so as to get the money flowing.  If the UK pulled out of Egypt so that your Libyian troops can take it, you could even move the fleet to sz13, dropping off 1 inf, 1 arm in Algeria so that on Italy 2 you could take Brazil with the infantry unit if the US is headed to the Pacific, but the armor unit could still go to Egypt on Italy 2.

This should accomplish what you need to accomplish.

Also, you should buy at least 1 air unit on G1 (preferably a bomber), so as to keep the pressure up on the UK Atlantic fleet since you should have decimated it.

Oh wow I overlooked that :-o and will definitely remember that from now on.  My group and I never played it correctly then even though it probably would have only mattered like twice.  Usually we had allied units in originally controlled Russian territory then it was obvious.  Thanks for the heads up.

The point is that randomness is assumed here… I am just as often allies as I am axis and it makes no difference.

that being said I think the game sides are equal. The stats show that.

Any decent A&A player wont care what side he plays.

If you ate truelly concerned about the skill issue, just review the tournies from R3 to the finish.  every player from that point knows how to play the game.