Which nation you prefer?

@slo:

how do you keep track of the NO’s, and how do you keep track of the income from them, do you include it on the IPC chart?

In the 1941 setup for example, the USA gets 40 ipc….they also have automatically completed a NO bye controlling the usa…so would you mark 40 or 45 om the ipc chart?

The IPC chart is a tool to help determine one’s IPCs they will collect at the end of their turn.  These are always in play (part of the base rules).  National Objectives are an optional rule, and are not tracked via the IPC chart.  You simply determine which NO bonus you have achieved and add those extra IPCs to your IPCs from the chart to get your IPCs awarded/collected at turns end.  Add this to whatever unspent IPCs that you have remaining, and now you know your total you can spend the next turn.

@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.

Thanks anyway.

How about America gets the ability to launch bombers from aircraft carriers. (They cannot land on the carriers, but they can launch from them.)

This ability is only available in the Pacific and if at any time the American fleet is stronger in the atlantic than in the pacific, it is lost for the duration of the game. (Fighters are air assets, not naval assets, even on aircraft carriers.)

I more than agree with templeton on the freedom to players idea. I appreciate the game offers a nice historical point of view, but it is the idea of being able to do the “what if” playing that makes it really exciting.

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.