Italy Setup 1936

@Wildcat6305 Thanks for the reply! Yeah, I watched the video after I posted (dumb of me), and noticed the new cities, new islands in the pacific, etc. I wasn’t too worried about the terrain features, if that was the only change. I could find some other way to represent jungle, dessert, tundra, etc. with my current map. But sounds like that won’t work. Not going to lie, that’s highly disappointing. Really disappointing that they’d do that to your customers who already shelled out $150.00+ for the current map, just to make a new one making this obsolete. You essentially HAVE to buy the new one in order to get the rule fixes (which are desperately needed), otherwise they would not make sense with the old map, or would have to be further modified/house ruled by individual owners. Just upsetting, because we don’t all have $150.00 to throw around every 2 years when they decide to update the map. Oh well, looks like I’ll have to think on it.

@cdatkins74 I know. I said that if being at war with Abyssinia meant that Italy was at “war” and therefore received their “wartime income”, THEN Italy would have no incentive to attack. Because if they attacked and won then they would cease to be at “war” and would go back down to “peacetime income”. To counter this, I assume the creator made the rule that one must be at war with a Major Power to receive “wartime income”. I believe “wartime income” should be changed to “Total Mobilization”, or “Total War Economy”, or something of the sort as to avoid confusion. Heck, perhaps there should be three levels of income. Peacetime (limited troop types can be built), wartime (all troops can be built but you’re not at total war and don’t yet receive “wartime economy” or what I proposed to be “Total War Economy” income bonuses), and “Total War Economy” (you can build anything and receive wartime bonus income).

Under the current rules it doesn’t say that you can’t do it. However, V-3 rules have a separate reference card for Free France which states that Free France cannot research Technology. That’s not the only change. It says that FF can place units at any Allied factory and that FF can invade Vichy territories.

That’s what GHG is making it sound like to me. I definitely get your point, I think it’s a lot of fun to be able to select what you’d want to buy as the minor power. But I guess I understand from a “simplifying the rules” standpoint to make this happen. That said, I wonder what’s more helpful to those nations. Take Greece for example. Do they have better odds of building a unit with their 1 IPP a turn (assuming that territory wasn’t captured right away, that is)? Or are they better off rolling a D12 and needing a 1, 2 or 3 (again, depending on what was or wasn’t taken) to get an infantry/2 militia? Greece conceivably has as a 25% chance to get a unit if no territory lost right away. Those are pretty decent odds.

I’m in the same boat, SS Gen. Would like to see when V3 comes out and decide then, but I’m sure I’d be willing to part with it at that point. Again, if that’s not too long a wait.

@cdatkins74 I’m still going to try it for the memes. I’m fully aware of any strategic concerns. Making China a major power by upgrading the Jehol factory would be hilarious and therefore 100% worth the attempt.

Hello everyone, I think having contested land zones, with perhaps 3 rounds of battle per turn per zone, would add a nice layer of depth to this game. It would be similar to how Axis and Allies D-Day would do it. Perhaps there could be a supply limit to each zone and the attacker/defender would suffer debuffs if they went over the cap. Factories or forts could increase the supply limit, or something like that. I won’t go into depth cause it’s 99% not gonna happen but I think it’s a cool idea. The allowance of enemy combatants remaining in the same zone even at the end of the combat phase (contested zone) could allow for interesting frontlines. The 3 battle limit would allow for armoured units to still utilize the blitz as well. Furthermore, planes could have to be stationed in airbases and could make multiple sorties during their attack and defence phases depending on their range. So for example, a plane based at an airbase within range of 2 zones being attacked could partake in both battles assuming that the plane survives the initial battle(s). Another idea would be to allow subs and bombers to be put into a strategic war box that abstractly represents convoy raiding and strategic bombing. The units would not be on the map and could not partake in battle whilst in the strategic war box, and perhaps even be forced into that box and not allowed to be on the board. To do any of these I believe that incomes would have to be adjusted to be higher, or the turns would have to be put down to 3 month ticks. These are just random ideas that you can tear apart or add to. None of them are fully fleshed and I haven’t considered any balancing issues.

@cdatkins74 Yeah I’m inclined to agree too. I was just curious how other people were interpreting the rule.