Is it not necessarily the case the sacking and holding London for three turns virtually guarantees victory for the Axis? Or reasonably possible for the allies to recover?
My point being that I like that sea lion is hard and rare because if you spend 2 hours setting up a board and a turn 2 gambit works and the game is over….
Yeah our first couple game “maths” was to leave any ally you could out of the war as long as possible. But apparently that just come back to haunt you.
Once people get set in their way and opennings are going the same the idea of bids seem pretty cool. Because you can spend that money to load up the weakness they were focusing on. So that axis need to work out a new weakness.
And among our group until one of us came to this forum to ask we were convinced global was very much skewed to the Allies. To the point we were convinced we were doing something wrong and the game was broken. But after being exposed to some outsides (here and other groups) the axis are starting to come back. First Axis win ever two games ago (out of maybe 10) followed by another Axis win.
Were just stuck in our playing ways that wasn’t axis efficient I wager.
Are you still using the modified turn sequence? The looks very interesting at least for the first turn. Could save our game and hour or two! Only balance question is about the Japanese getting a free shot at the spread out russian east infantry. No concerns due to the replacement mongolian troops one gets instead?
Bit of a noob when it comes to mods so forgive me for a possibly stupid question.
Is this a self contained mod. We use all the normal book rules but use the revised setup charts and changed NO?
I think we get off topic quite a bit talking about the really WW2, and stopping for “shots” breaks between turns.
So its us, I’ll see if we can’t keep ourselves on topic and moving foward next time.
Finally registered here after reading many of your post so wanted to ask some questions
One of which is how long do you guys find this game takes to play.
Maybe we’re just slow but on average we play for about 12 hours and make it to the end of turn 3. Which is why we tend to call it for one side or the other then. Are we just slow asses?
Turn one can take 4-5 hours.
We tend to find that the USA commits heavily to one theatre or the other and that theatre for the axis tends to lose badly enough that the axis concede since for example last game it would be that Germany/Italy (even at 80-90 IPC) can’t win vs US Russia Pacific UK (~140)
I posted in one of the other threads that if we updated our victory rules that axis can win if either gets enough VC axis win not both need it.
We’ve only played 3 games so far but we were off the opinion that the favour laid heavily on the allies. We’re play straight up box rules which ment victory conditions for the allies is the need to win both sides of the board.
Last game with the suggestions from these forums I player germany and sealion’d successfully, (took two tries) and italy stormed africa and was landing in south russian. But by the end of turn three the rookie playing Japan has entirely collapsed so we called the game in favour of the allies.
If we switched to the new rules of either axis power needs to reach its level of VC for an overall win might be most reasonable. In the above game I’m sure Germany could of delivered that and tokyo just had to sit huddled on its island and not get invaded.
Although my group has only played 3 games so far and most games are decided by one side conceding at the end of turn 3.
Our biggest complaint is the game still plays like two separate games. The increased distance between Japan and Germany means they are virtually playing their own games and it takes 7+ rounds for Japan to head straight for moscow to attempt to help (a fav strategy of mine in A&A 1942)
Do you folks find the boards interact with each other enough to justify playing a game that takes signficantly longer to play vs A&A 1942?
