Axis = When 1 falls, the other 2 follow?

So I was wondering if it would be possible if there could be a 2 player game but only 2 countries would fight, and is it possible, if yes well are there ‘custom rules’ that could be implemented?

Well yes. If you get an account with mediafire, you wont get that. Everyone should have at least a dropbox account and probably Mediafire

The main Problem is, the game isn’t fun for every player, if you can only win as allies by almoust complete neglection of Japan. The Japanese Player will have a poor gaming experience. On the other hand, you won’t win the war in the pacific.
I recently invested loads of Russian troops, a UK factory in India and the US heavy into the pacific (1941 scenario) and didn’t come close to a win in the pacific and lost to europe. Eventough the Japanese player made a major mistake and i got lucky when he attackt some groundforces with mainly planes. The best I could achieve was a stall with Japan earning somewhat 50 IPC a turn (playing with NO).
While Germany on the other hand was playing extremely conservative, but finally crushed the USSR (rolling really good dice), so the US Invasion froce stationed in the atlantic.

Whats missing in this game?
I guess a industrial complex in India to start with could slow the japanese advance, while still saveing IPC for UK (doesn’t have to build one). This would make the game more challanging for the Japanese Player (otherwise there is no opponent on the continent) and gives the UK player more action on the pacific side of the board, while still able to build up some fleet to fight the Germans/Italians.

Or you can just download the rulebook from the WOTC site, grab extra units (from other or older games), paint them to match, print a map out created by Imperious Leader and you should be on your way.

This is what I did any way.  Although I went as far as to recreate the Combat board, IPC chart and National Objective/Setup Charts.

Germany has indeed money for techs (all countries saving Italy and Sparrings of the Far East have enough). Air/naval tech is not so bad for germans (roll 1 tech team round one and even supersubs and improved shipyards can be used), and anyway 4 usable of 6 means some people will still try it for HBs. Also Germans could simply ignore HBs tech and buy normal bombers for SBR London and soviet ICs

As for USA, it’s not them who japs will bomb, it’s soviets as I said, and soviets will have 15-20 less IPCs to spend in repairings and units than germans. Also, nothing prevents a japanese bomber SBR cau, landing at ger and then start merry SBRs on London also  wink In fact, Japan, being the richer country of the game (15+ economic advantage over the richer allied nation), can invest both in tech and bombers

Ok, let’s list what techs each power can use, I list each power if the investment is worth it:

Improved arty: Ger, Sov
Rockets: Ger, Sov, Jap, UK, Ita
Paratroopers: Ger, Jap, UK, USA
Increased fact: Ger, Sov, Jap, UK
War bonds: Ger, Sov, Jap, UK, Ita, USA
Mech inf: Ger, Sov, Jap

Super subs: Jap, UK, Ita, USA
Jet fighters: Ger, Jap, UK, USA
Improved shipyards: Jap, UK, Ita, USA
Radar: Ger, Sov, Ita
LRA: Ger, Jap, UK, USA
H Bombers: Ger, Sov, Jap, UK, Ita, USA

Germany has 6/6 on land table and 4/6 on air/naval, and shouldn’t choose air/naval in most cases. All in all, Allies have a much higher chance of getting Heavy Bombers and turning the tide of the game with them. Even if Allies miss H Bombers they will get good enough techs to make the tech IPCs worth it, but Germany can’t put IPCs into Air/naval table without a high risk of wasting valuable IPCs. With UK and US going for air/naval table and Japan going for it as well, you still have a 50-100% higher chance for Allies, enough to say tech favours allies.

I just think it was neat to see Italy augment an already exhisting strategy.  Yeah it was more of an endgame deal but I am sopprised more and more every day how Italy can make it a better game even with limited income and starting units.

LT

Japan??? :-D

@axis_roll:

Don’t get me wrong, I like to KJF, it’s more fun, since it IS harder to execute.  I like a challenge.  Probably why I like to play the Axis… they’re the underdog.

So KJF is an underdog type of allied strategy.   :wink:

KJF is harder of master, not of execute. When you master KJF, it’s more powerful than a mastered KGF. First, because very few people know how counter KJF and many start to do strange things. Second, because it’s easier for axis reach economic parity in KGF than in KGF. Third, for league games, I found it’s easier reach 9 VCs with KJF (Manila, Shangai, Paris). Fourth, a KGF strat let Japan try invade american mainland (a strat I still don’t master, but seems very nasty in a initial KGF game)