I love this game but it seems to just keep getting more confusing. The spirit of what is intended is clear cut. The writing of the rule itself seems to be an issue.
I never did see where paratroops clarifications were written into the rules. The Japanese sneak attack rules are still a bit cloudy. I believe we play both correctly but I’ve been wrong about my interpretation before.
Maybe rewrite the rules like they were written in the original Third Reich. Example: See rule 7-1.a.c. and rule 6-4.b.t.
The fortification rules I thought were going to say only 1 fort per territory?
You only need one great game and everyone will buy it.
There are so many AA variants out there and in many ways this is the best, but it’s still fiddly with rules. Changes should be made slowly and with great care in wording. We keep getting in fights and flip a coin over tiny issues that actually change the whole game. For example, it doesn’t say Japan can’t move into Vichy…so Japan does so UK can’t attack it unless UK declares war on Japan. It’s exploitation but it’s allowed so it can’t really be argued.
In this game you can attack Russia first turn and leave UK/Poland/France alone. They can’t even attack Germany until after Japan attacks UK. I actually really love this option but it seems a bit unrealistic. Just little ways to exploit the game here and there at times makes it a bit frustrating for us.
3/4 of the questions out here are actually clear cut in the rules, but some things should be rewritten to be more clear. Basically the longer the rules get the more fun the game - but more interpretation issues occur.
I agree the rules could be more clear, my friend and i would get into arguments about little things that could have a huge impact. but i’ve been trying to adapt my own one month rules and so i know how hard it is to address every issue that may come up. also i think sometimes common sense just needs to be used.
with regards to your issue about germany attacking russia and the allies not getting involved. while it may seem broken for game balance i think it is accurate. there is a ww2 computer game called hearts of iron. there are actually three alliances within it all with their own play style. it’s broken up into the axis, allies, and comintern, and considering that the capitalist system of the allies is the antithesis of communist russia, i dont think it would be far off for the allies to ignore germany should the german player avoid attacking poland or any other neutral which the allies have guaranteed sovereignty to. i think that if Germany were to make substantial progress into russia the stalin may call for help from the allies, but this is hard to simulate in a baord game. it works on the computer because diplomacy can run through an algorithm which runs all the possibilities. i havent even touched on the political situation in my variant, but just brainstorming ideas i’ve come to appreciate how difficult it is.
there will always be ways to game the system, and rules that may seem prefect to one group but another group finds all sorts of issues with them. i think people, who are lucky enough to have groups that play together consistently, should just address the rules from the get go and write down their interpretations and stick to those.