Political Situation Question…

Welcome to the forum Jman.

My mistake was not sending my two move units to Romania the previous turn as Germany. I just played out turn 9 and US was able to stack Northern Italy. Italy is out of the game now, but on the other side of the board Japan is making 105, and he is bombing Russia with 5 bombers every turn. He has more than UK in the south and he can now start landing in Africa taking the money away from Russia and UK. I do agree that US is going to eventually take Germany, but could he do it before Moscow falls? Probably :/

I think what also helped the USA in the Pacific was the type of war it was; wasn’t the majority of the Japanese land forces fighting in China? The USA could use their wealth of equipment and air-power to good use this way.

I like the idea of the different start-ups and scenarios and maybe more victory conditions for the Global Games.

I don’t think WW2 Axis & Allies games are dead either; I like the idea of more Theater type games as well like:
Eastern Front (have lots of territories; maybe make good use of rail-roads and blitzkrieg tactics etc… have extra "special infantry to represent the SS and other stuff)
Stalingrad would be cool…
Kursk would be cool…

Maybe some form of Atlantic Battles (subs vs convoys etc…)
Maybe some form of Battle of Britain (air battles) or some form of Bombing strategy game of the allies vs Germany (air battles).

I think there’s lots of games and ways they could still go.

1 ipc units are too strong, they would replace infantry.

calcutta is supposed to fall anyway, who cares.

Another option, besides the CV buy, is to invest in bombers.

Do a strat. bomb on London G1 (with 2 bombers), and do another one with 2 + 2 on G2 (with a G1 buy of 2 bombers and whatever else your heart desires for 6 IPCs).

In my opinion, it’s the better option because once you’re through taking London, extra bombers are far more useful against the USSR than a carrier.

I agree with the thinking here that we should stick to OOB rules for at least a little longer. I don’t mind a few official changes here and there. I always use the errata and FAQ’s that are released after a game comes out due to misprints in the manual or an obvious balance problem (AAP). However, these sweeping changes are too much too fast. Its almost like a few influencial people screamed too early and no one else was able to say, “lets slow down and take a more methodical approach to the changes.”
It seems like we are being caught up in a rushing river and can’t get out. Alpha is evidence that the squeaky wheel gets greased.

I will stick to OOB rules until something official comes out and then evaluate it. If there are a few reasonable changes I will use them, but if it is anything like these Alpha changes, I most likely won’t. I never used LHTR for the same reason.

I’m currently playing a game which we borrowed some house rules from the previous poster in this thread. We are using tech tokens for 5 IPC’s each, but you can only purchase as many tech tokens as you have Victory Cities. You can purchase tech tokens, but may not take the rolls unless you are at war. So to start out the game Germany could buy 2 tech tokens. If they fail that first roll, then the next turn they could buy 1 more if they had taken out Paris. If not then they could only keep using the 2 they had left over from the previous turn. This version has taken away a lot of the luck aspect of tech which is nice. It also limits the amount of tech you can roll a turn so no power has an excessive amount. Small powers also have a harder time getting them.