I am just wondering is it the best strategy to Italy stay neutral. I am leaning on the neutral side, here’s why:

1. They could get all 4 victory conditions while staying neutral, and it is frankly easier doing so, since if they aren’t going to be attacking any major power, they don’t have to defend their home country, and they could spend more money on helping the nationalists, and they could spend more on tech, especially Wartime economy (more cash=more battleships) and improved construction (fast development of ships or cheap development). For Abyssinia, It might be best to stay defensive, if Abyssinia has lend-lease, or has succeeded on that recruitment roll, though maybe not.

2. They could support the other axis through lend-lease. To me, it seems usually it is the other way around with the offensive Italy, and A good British player would definitely suppress Italian plans to take areas with a few militia.

@insanehoshi I get what you mean, but there is the same type of “line” separating Macedonia from the triple boundary of Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria

@gen-manstein Maybe for carpet bombing, you can affect the Industry (the IPPs). For example if the IPP value of an given area is 3, then each 12 rolled (for all 3 dice which would equal 3 IPPs total) is -1 IPP produced from that territory in that turn.

@delaja Battleship guns could reach that distance (33 km). Also is the territory only representing Rome, or is it representing the urban areas around it?

@ghetty You should use risk cavalry.

@CaptainNapalm I like the Italian neutrality, but if you want to make it more reasonable to Italy go to war, and to promote going to war, here’s some changes I would make:

Italian VPs:
3 | Neo-Roman empire: get 1 VP up to a maximum of 3 VPs for each of these territory groups Italy holds at the end of the Game: Yugoslavia and Thessaly, Western and Eastern Egypt, Gibraltar, Transjordan and Syria, Spain (NS allies to Italy in this Scenario.
1 | Fascist Victory: NS wins the Spanish civil war.

Italian Navy:
Add 1 naval transport at SZ 81.

Italian volunteers:
While Italy is neutral during the Spanish Civil War, Add +1 to NS recruitment rolls.
While at war, Italy get recruitment rolls for each home country territory they get.

@theveteran Yeah, but I still think it should be annexed, not invaded, since it is a soviet puppet state.

A thing that I would like to be in v4 is Great circle routes. For example If you went from Tokyo to Los angles, the shortest routes is if you go up north through Alaska, which would less the amount of distance traveled by about 350 miles from if you went horizontally. In global war, going up north through alaska takes a distance of 9 sea zones to the 5 if you go “straight”. Basically, less SZs in the areas that are quite north or South.

I thought what if you did the turn in GW1936 warroom style, so the movement is more simultaneous and who goes first would depend on a D6 die roll with modifiers that would depend on what you did in the last round, for example if you were more aggressive, you would get a higher modifier than if you just did non-combat movements. Here’s a rough draft of what this could look like:

+1 for each territory last round you conquered NOT using blitz (for a maximum of +3 )

+1 for each territory last round you conquered using blitz (for a maximum of +3 )

-1 for each battle you lost as the attacker (which represents momentum lost when an attack is repulsed)

+1 for each battle won as the defender (which could mean counterattacks)

@noneshallpass well then winning means that you would go first. problem solved

@noneshallpass said in Rolling for turn order:

y to play 2 turns in a row (3 for Germany if you count Blitzkrieg), combined with units that have themselves a blitz ability seems simply too overwhelming.

for the 2 turns in a row germany would have to the first turn not bid anything and if another nation does that then it will be up to chance.

@noneshallpass why would that be a problem?

@trig How about you bid IPPs, like in Warroom

@delaja what do you mean by 1 paratrooper or marines preventing retreat? Can you give an example?

Normally, in ww2 when 2 armies met, they didn’t fight to the death. So I thought that if the attacker or defender loses 1/3 of the defenders/attackers they will retreat. If they dont’ have anywhere to retreat, the any unit they control will surrender on a 12.

I was thinking that partisans should have an attack of 1 and when they attack, they can’t be shot back. any thoughts?

@noneshallpass If the japanese could use the route, they would. Literally this is basic geography
.

A thing that I would like to be in v4 is Great circle routes. For example If you went from Tokyo to Los angles, the shortest routes is if you go up north through Alaska, which would less the amount of distance traveled by about 350 miles from if you went horizontally. In global war, going up north through alaska takes a distance of 9 sea zones to the 5 if you go “straight”. Basically, less SZs in the areas that are quite north or South.