@Black_Elk:
It all comes down to whether or not the players are going to take a 13 VC win seriously.
We already know that Moscow will be needed for 15, and definitely needed for 18, (though honestly at 18 I don’t think people are paying much attention to anything but the Capitals anyway.) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what sort of patterns emerge.
One thing is for certain though, if the listed values are correct, this game is going to be all about bombers. Without transports as fodder, the new unit roster will still favor aircraft over capital ships (even with the new rules for subs, and naval air strikes). And with bombers so cheap, we’re bound to see more of them purchased, which is likely to make any naval defense more challenging to coordinate. I’m a little spooked by the cheap bombers, because I’m used to playing in games where bombers are carefully controlled, and the purchase of new ones is rare. The higher cost of AA guns, combined with cheaper bombers, would seem to favor strat bombing games, which are inherently unpredictable. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.
The other thing I keep thinking about with the National Bonuses, is that they might be easier to take away from the enemy, than they are to achieve for yourself; just on account of the way the territories are grouped together. So it could be that we’re overestimating their impact on the gameplay for everyone. We’ll have to check out the starting units and round one purchase options, then see how these can be used to their greatest effect, before we understand which National Objectives are really in play.
I think people will be taking the 13 VC win as seriously as they have taken the 8 VC win in Revised… but of course, we will see.
I haven’t even thought about the bomber situation yet. Something that bothered me was that, in the last game, in order to do a potential 20 IPC damage to Germany, you’d need a good 3 bombers for both the UK and USA, as each nation was capped to 10 IPC damage. Now, USA can potentially just build bombers, letting the UK spend all it’s money on taking Germany down. Of course, I guess we will see when the game comes out…
Not only are AA guns more expensive, mind you, but they are less effective as well. I don’t think AA guns fire at aircraft flying THROUGH their territory, just aircraft that commit to an attack in their territory.
In LHTR, if America just bought bombers and shipped them to UK, then bombed Germany, they could do at most, 10 IPC damage per round, because of how those SBR rules worked. In order to do more, UK would also need to dedicate itself to a bombing strategy. In this game, USA could potentially do 20 IPC of damage to Germany per round, while the UK and Soviet Union beat it to a pulp. My main concern, however, is still that the Pacific will be treated the same way it was in Revised when optimal strategies are used. Something I like about Europe and D-Day is that they do play so that a historically accurate strategy is viable. When the games give the US player a choice on to commit to East or West, and Japan the option to invade Russia, it seems all that goes right down the tubes.