Interesting thread!

I’ve never understood why people play LL, I think it does take the fun out of the game. I like the extreme dice rolls when they happen, even if I’m on the bad end of one. Surely no one could argue that chance plays no part in war, there are plenty of things that chance is supposed to represent: morale, weather, intelligence, training, supplies, experience etc. And if LL makes no difference to the outcome of the whole game, as some seem to suggest, then why bother?

If you want a game with no chance, play chess. I prefer to fear the dice.

Ageed! The increase to Armor defence is what really makes revised better. It has made us completey rethink how we structure our forces especially for def.

In a KGF game has anyone tried the following when playing USA: spend as much as feasable on bombers and run contiunous SBR on Germany/Southern Europe?

I have wanted to try this but never done it.

It would leave all the fighting to Britian and Soviets, but would the IPC loss to Germany help defeat them as effectively as if the US used conventional means?

Anyone tried this? What happened?

I like the addition of a new land unit, but dislike the idea of artillery as a seperate unit. You can have Inf and Amored divisions, which can have artillery elements, but artillery never existed as a stand alone division.

If a new land unit needed to be added I would have preferred it to be Mechanised Inf. Inf that can keep up with Amor and deliver a stronger attack than normal inf.

Overall I would rather have Art than not.

No one agrees, ah well. That’s what house rules are for, my house, my rules!

Anyway, the point is not to say what IPC values territories should really have, but what should their value be in relation to other territories, especially those nearby in the same theartre of operations.

As pointed out by Lucifer, the US could potentially have much more than it has compared to some nations. But the current pricing of Australia would be the equilvant of making Mexico or Brazil more valuable than the US.

That is, two small jungle and mountain covered islands with little resources and almost no infrasture are priced at twice the value of a 1st world nation that sits right next door.

It is of course true that these islands had petroleum and rubber that Japan needed (as pointed out), though I wouldn’t value that over the iron ore, petroleum, coal, ports, steel mills, ship yards, factories, refineries etc in Australia. The Japanese took the indonesian islands because they were easy targets, with only tiny colonial garrisions.

The main point of my change is to get the Japanese player to at least think about moving south. Currently the Japanese player spends most resources trying to take all of China, and push to Moscow neither of which were ever attempted.

And the so called crap that the Japanese sent to the Coral Sea gave a better account of itself than the allied fleet it engaged. Only problem was they couldn’t afford the losses and the US could. And if Australian involvement meant so little to Britain, why did Churchill do every thing in his power to keep the Australian divisions in North Africa instead of going to the Pacific when the Japanese entered the war?

I haven’t read this anywhere else, but the IPC value assigned to the countries in SE Asia and in particular Australia are ridiculous.

Australia was a fully industrialized nation of comparable economy and population to Canada. In realty the GDP of Australia was greater than that of French Indochina, the Philippines, East Indies, Borneo and New Guinea combined! All these countries were 3rd world colonies at the time and still are 3rd world economies.

That the East Indies and Borneo are 4 IPC’s each while Australia is 2 IPC’s is ridiculous. Where is the incentive for the Japanese player to attack Australia as they did in the war or to invade as they prepared to (and would have if not for the battle of the Coral Sea).

Australia was used as an allied naval base and as the Allied headquarters in the Pacific theater.

In my games East Indies and Borneo are reduced by one IPC each (and that still leaves them with far too much) and Australia increased to 4 IPC’s.

This gives the Japanese a serious reason to come south and gives Great Britain a better option for building up forces in the Pacific, especially if they choose colonial NA.

Give it a go and see how game play changes, it will make it slightly harder for the Japanese, but much more historically accurate.

The Japanese can still capture all those IPC’s early on, and the threat of this will force the US navy to come to the rescue as historically happened otherwise Australia will be lost to the Japanese.

Has anyone done anything similar.