That assumption is wrong. While Germany starts the scenario controlling those territories, they are still original Russian territories, similar to how the Chinese territories controlled by Japan at the start of the games are still original Chinese territories, preventing Japan from building major ICs on anything but Korea.
Then why in the set up instructions does it say put a German control marker on the territory, as well as units? Just a unit on it should be enough. Every time you take an enemy territory do you put a control marker on it? I don’t.
You can play however you want of course. But the rulebook clearly states:
If you have captured the territory, place your control
marker on the territory and adjust the national production
While the emblem printed on the map indicates the original controller of the territory
the control marker indicates the the actual controller of the territory - as ColoneCarter pointed out.
There are some rules where the distinction between original and actual controller is of importance.
The 3 IPC bonus for Russia is only one example. The territories you mentioned can never become
“original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls”.
When the scenario begins Germany has already captured some original Russian territories.
If Russia takes them back, they will be original Russian territories under Russian control.
So better avoid confusion.
Japan is ridiculously strong (but then is on 1940 too).
Germany can be held a while and Italy should not grow at all, but the U.S. must invest nearly all its income in the Pacific.
Still makes a refreshing change from 1940 though.
I play every weekend on the table top when we get bored with the latest Alpha we’ll change it up and do any one of the different versions, original OOB from the first release to Oztea’s 41 set up, theres also games like fortress America….or the old classic. I dont think I’ll ever get bored with the games.
Just jumping in, since the water seems warm enough.
Are people trying to win as the axis militarily(meaning conventional forces/economy shifting) or by victory cities?
Just curious, cause if you don’t have to worry about future turns(by ending the game early through cities), you may be able to afford to give up certain ground and take unusual risks or losses to secure the cities in question and then see if the allies are in position to liberate one in time.
I’ve drafted and posted early ideas on unconventional strategies. One designed for Europe with a goal of 5 cities in 5 turns seemed plausible. My first live try failed, based on one particular allied response and a close battle being not close after dice were rolled. Am I giving up? Nope. I’m refining the strategy. (In this example, it is clear I must take Normandy if I permit France to produce units, as 3 carriers for the allies proved to be “a bridge to far” for the German air and naval forces.)
It just occurred to me that it’s possible, if very unlikely, for a literal draw to occur, meaning a situation in which neither side has the ability to win according to the game’s rules.
If every capital in the game is taken by the opposing alliance, then no one has won but all sides have lost the ability to continue producing units. China doesn’t matter because their units are incapable of achieving Allied victory conditions due to ACME walls. If this occurs and all existing land units are destroyed or isolated due to loss of transports, then no side could possibly win because no side could conquer any new territory. Such a game would undoubtedly be a thing of legend.