IC Question

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 :/

yes

@IKE:

Another option in a 2v2 live game is to split the Allies up by theater, which we like to do.

Allies player 1: US (Atlantic), UK (London), Russia, France
Allies player 2: US (Pacific), UK (Calcutta), Anzac, China

Ofcourse this involves heavy coordination in strategy of spending US $.  It’s give and take.

We have done this in the past, and it is pretty cool. The 2 US players lobbying for income/units is kinda what happened historically (which theater gets a boost?). Does the Pac player allow the Siberians to march home? Dose India give up some air/fleet to Egypt? This gives the Euro and Pac allied players something to do throughout the game, and coordination is a must. Some of their powers are in the fight from the get go, some are dwindling, and others are ramping up.

On the Pac side, US controlling Anzac seems right because they need to work together once the US gets into the game. As China/India looses ground the US picks up steam so that player is involved throughout.

On the Euro side the UK gets a lot of action as do the French (turn one). The US/Russia comes into play slowly, and you don’t want someone to have only the US/Russia because of that.

In our group Russia is an inept power to play because it can be very boring unless there is a Sea lion. There is nothing good about playing the US/Russia, waiting for 3 rounds to go by, and the game is paused until the next day lol. Even when we split the allies up differently, Russia is a bit of a question. Sometimes we alternate Russia’s turn between both allied players.

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.

Zallomallo is right.  Because the sub submerged, it no longer blocks the amphibious assault and cannot kill the transport.  There was no reason for the sub to submerge, however, as the planes could no longer hit it.  If the sub did not submerge, the transport could retreat, assuming it had somewhere to retreat to (if not, it would be lost).

I would like to play a game with at least 4 people but most of my friends that played Spring 1942 did not move on to Global.  They found it to be too time consuming and complicated.  I myself love the game and I am thinking of trying out playing a forum game at some point soon.

Calvin’s right.

Ozteas 1941 is well reviewed. If you’re comfortable with some players being at peace at the start, that is also worth a look. Starts like round 3 of 1940.

Although if you prefer the simplicity of everyone fighting right away, go to g42!