Why is surrender not an option in the original game?

@tchenao

Gotcha.

Most players consider the game to be quite unbalanced in favor of the Axis. So the two sides will bid (in terms of IPCs) before the game and the lowest bid team will play the Allies. The bid can be used to place additional units before the game starts.

Sea Lion is definitely a much riskier strategy than just going straight for Moscow. Most people only go through with it if London is not well protected after the first round. A failed Sea Lion is pretty much a game ender.

@Stough @mainah @Aaron_the_Warmonger
Guys, I have moved your game appointment to the “Find Online Players” category, as this was off-topic in the previous thread.
Enjoy your game :slightly_smiling_face:

I have played something like 80 games face to face and 7 on Triple A

@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

@Baron:

@Young:

I like your idea of reducing the UK NOs to just Malta for UKE, and just Malaya for UKP, however… just like Japan needs to side step their own NOs to take away UKP’s NO (Malaya), Italy should do the same around Malta, or get help from Germany.

Sorry, I miswrote my intent. I really like your two NOs as they were.
I was just emphasized the main interesting target from historical POV.

Cheers.

i think it is a great idea larry.

it helps balance the game by making it easier for axis to win and it has the added benefit of helping to reduce all usa cash being diverted against one axis power.

for those worrying about realism, there is plenty to worry about, but this is just as realistic as any other rule.

Thanks very much.
Cheers!

E_D

I finished a global game yesterday. I was Ge and It, a friend was Ja, another was UK, ANZAC and FR and another China, US and SU.

Even though my Italian fleet was left alone and a I1 where I lost nothing and gained 5 territories, followed by another couple of good turns for the Axis the Allies won.

The moment the US and SU were at war the megafleet of the US moved to the most eastern territory of the SU and landed 10 land units there, while their bombers took care of the transports and small ships at the Japanese coast (and after that landed next to the land forces in the Soviet Far East). Yes, US bombers can take of from San Francisco, attack the Japanese Sea and land in Soviet Union. Japan had to pull its navy back and with that the game was over. No more expansion for Japan, a couple of relatively bad rolls from Germany and Soviets pumping out hordes of infantry and it was all over.

To balance things a bit more we are going to use the Italian Fix (we thought up that rule and then read in on here too) and use the Japanese extra NO of 10 IPC while not at war (except with China). I don’t think it will be enough so maybe we will even consider super subs for Germany, Warbonds for Italy or Super Factories (what’s the name?)for Japan.

Mind you, we used the new set up as described in Canucks post (less aircraft in the Pacific). The naval base in NSW is logical, but extremely powerful for ANZAC. They get both NO’s on turn 1 and can reach almost everywhere that’s important for them.