Game?

Ok, i concede you can take and hold bryansk G4 with @aagamerz13 's strategy

There’s two main house rules for Canada. One is the Halifax rules which basically includes Canada as part of ANZAC.

Second is the one in Triplea. Canada as its own power and develops from BM3. This is not so easy for table top games because Canada doesn’t have its own set of units. Perhaps you can paint a bunch.

Neither of these rules have gained a huge amount of interest or acceptance.

@wheatbeer:

@Demandr3d:

uhhh, no I buy the kwangsi IC on turn 1, and on a j2 dow take Fic and IC it on turn 3….wheres the confusion?

Kwangsi is a 1 IPC territory … perhaps you meant Kiangsu (aka Shanghai) while he was thinking you meant Kwangtung (aka Hong Kong)

Bingo

@Rocmistro:

One gripe: I almost feel that the bonus income stuff forces you to play the War exactly how it played out in reality. That’s a bit of a bummer, as I would like to see different scenarios play out.  Oh well.

Yeah, the national objectives are based more or less on historical objectives of the actual war. Think about this though; you had Japan capture Alaska, Italy captured Cairo and Germany conquered Russia without having to face an Allied invasion of France. You DID play it differently from reality.
Plus, believe it or not, a lot of Allied strategies end up being vastly different from the real war. Most successful Allied strategies I have seen involve the US taking out Japan first, then dealing with Germany/Italy. In one game, Germany took London then went on to attack Russia. The US managed to take care of Japan then took Rome and liberated Paris. Germany used so much to take London that they didn’t really have enough to take on the Russians and did very poorly in Russia. Berlin fell to the US and London NEVER GOT LIBERATED!

That’s what I thought too, Garg.  Only Cow knows for sure  :lol:

@FieldMarshalGames:

I second that.  1942 is the best way to train new players.

I know you want to break out Global but you might scare them away!

If you use that funky little 1942 board then you had better anchor it down or one little bump and what a mess.

Mark: We will be starting the game around 9 or so this morning, so I will let you know how it goes. I usually spend some time going through various scenarios in my head and speculating as to which side should have the greater advantage when doing changes like this. Without really looking at the board, I am thinking it will be the Allies, because for one their are many more of them so they stand to gain more by teaming up/attacking the Axis at the same time. Furthermore, one of the 3 Axis players (Japan) can’t really use this advantage, b/c they are pretty much isolated.

With that in mind, I am considering weakening the Allies a bit and see how it pans out. One idea I have is reducing the major IC in India to a minor, and adding another minor IC in West India as well. I will probably also add a couple extra infantry in India to start out with too. This will allow India to serve as a legitimate garrison for the UK, with allowing them to dominate…at least thats the plan.

I am considering this approach b/c I believe the Allies will dominate the Atlantic, and Germany will be hard pressed against a combined US/UK invasion plus Russia breathing down their necks, so my thinking is that by weakening India’s offensive capabilities a bit, Japan will be able to pressure Russia more from the east, thus making up for the imbalance in the west.

Like I said, this will take some time to get down, but I think the two-turn system will be worth it in the end. I really wish A&A would move to this system in the first place, as I know many that use it, or would like to use it.

Let me know your thoughts!..

@13thguardsriflediv:

May adjacent ‘pro allied neutrals’ be blitzed and taken over in one go? In other words could the Soviets move a tank to Caucasus and from there take both ‘Iran’ territories in one move?

No.  You have to stop in the first one.