I think is a very good idea and here are the reasons why.
#1 For table top play it reduces time to play each turn if you have lets say 4 players +. The German and Japan player can play their turn at the same time. In our group it takes Germany/japan around 10-15 minutes to play their turns each. So, if they play at the same time you can save 10-15 minutes of game time right there. Do that for the first 4 turns as an example and you just sped up the game almost 1 hour +.
#2 It does not change game balance in the overall strategy/tactics of the game. What it does change though is that Italy can no longer “can open” for Germany, Germany now has to “can open” for Italy. That is a tactical change to the game that will effect some of the tactical approaches to the game when it comes to the invasion of Russia. Is that bad? No, it will force experienced players to just adjust and come up with new tactics for Germany/Italy and Russia. It is never bad to have experienced players looking at the game in a “new” way and how to react to the change, that is what makes the game fun.
For table top play any changes that increases the pace of the game in terms of how many minutes/hours to play turns is a big deal. This saves time in the overall picture of the game and thus I think #1 is a very good point.
I do not think option #2 will change the game if Experienced players are playing Russia/Germany/Italy. It will just change up the dynamic of the game in tactical terms with out effecting the game in a meaningful strategic way.
Now I will add one more change to “chew” on.
The OP’s change was driven by the desire to reduce the time of turns. This idea does not decrease the time of turns but puts a twist on the Allied side of who “can opens” between the USA and the UK.
Have the UK go before the USA will then force the UK to ‘can open’ for the USA instead of how it works right now which is the opposite. The theory is if we are going to change up the Axis thinking on the Europe map by moving Russia ahead of Germany, which effects the Italy/Germany tandem, you will get the same effect of having the UK move right before the USA.
Just a thought.
For our next match I think I will talk to my group and we will try this idea and see how it works and let you guys know. Iam focused on does it actually reduce the amount of time to play a turn and is it noticeable?
If Germany has to be Italy’s can opener Sea lion may be done with ?
Play testing will only tell.
I always thought it was strange that Mongolia has no money value which makes no sense to me. I think if Mongolia gets dragged into the war, having their military and money join USSR could be interesting.
Guys - Italy still goes before Germany, so there is no hange there.
The only difference is Russia can respond to Italian attacks. before Germany goes.
Well, there is a difference in the dynamic now between Germany/Italy.
Under the current turn order…Germany/Russia/Italy. The dynamic is the relationship between Russia’s response to Germany and then Italy can react off of Russia. They (Italy) can perform a very effective response attack based on Russian actions which will (can open) for Germany at the top of the next turn.
IF we change it to
Russia/Germany/Italy…Then Germany/Italy lose the ability to tag team Russia based on what Russia does on that specific turn. The dynamic now is can Germany create a situation tactically (can open) for Italy to exploit and force a Russian reaction move (at the top of the next turn) to Italy so that Germany can take advantage on their following turn based on Russia’s turn. Â It is a subtle change, which is why your idea is a good one BUT it is a change tactically on how you approach the invasion and eventual conquest of Russia.
I think in the end that is why it is such a good idea. It only really changes the dynamic on the Russian front, some could say it gives a slight edge to Russia on their defense coupled with it does not change anything else going on in the game.
For our group I like the idea because now the two main Axis powers move at the same time which saves time. We have talked in our group on how to group up the Allies in such a way that a Allied Eruope power and a Pacific Allied power are moving at the same time to once again save time. The only hang up is when rare situations arise when turn order is important if there will be interaction between the two maps, albeit, they show up later in the game.
Not to mention the effective 37IPC bid to the USSR.
Not to mention the effective 37IPC bid to the USSR.
I like the idea but this seems the main problem. Perhaps let USSR only start without IPC or with a reduced amount (=like a bid).
Switch the Russian and German turn order. Russia goes first, Germany follows.
NO BIDS
NO BS
NO NEW RULES TO REMEMBER
NO CHANGES
Just 1 slight adjustment that saves time and improves balance.
Not to mention the effective 37IPC bid to the USSR.
I like the idea but this seems the main problem. Perhaps let USSR only start without IPC or with a reduced amount (=like a bid).
What can a neutral Russia purchase turn 1 to mess with the German first turn strategies?
I think another 12 infantry in a final assault on Moscow is pretty significant.
My concern was not related to turn 1 or 2 but to later German turn:
9 additional Art for a Russian counterattack may cause a problem for Germany advancing to Belarus or Western Ukraine or one turn later to Bryansk, because Italy cannot take this area first (RU takes it back before the German turn) and therefore G cannot land their air on top of it’s army.
12 additional Inf may delay a G 6 attack on Russia (Simon33 was faster while I typed this post).
My concern was based on a game otherwise played without bid or only with a small bid (for example: balanced mod; Â our group with other houesrules).
If you play OOB-rules with a bid around 30 IPC, then Gargantua’s idea is very fine (I already understood that he only wants to make one simple adjustment), the inherent bid goes to Russia and does not destroy the game in the MED (as usual IMO).
I will have to try it to see more effects.
