Harris Game Design Forums

I'm sorry if it disappoints you that I write such short responses to your long posts, and I did not mean to put words into your mouth if that is what you think I did. Again, your strategy calls for UK/ANZAC to do far too many things at once. That is what I was talking about when I said I would not r...

I am not sure why you think my "feelings were hurt." Just because your post was long does not mean the pointing out of the flaws in its reasoning need to be. I'm sorry, your research has debunked nothing. The allies cannot defend everywhere. Japan has several expendable transports after the invasion...

The point is that once America is gone, the 3 pathetically minor powers can never ever challenge the Japanese fleet. Looking at the rest of the board, if Japan isn't taken by UK/ANZAC right after Japan takes the USA, then it's game over, Japan wins. You ignore that if UK and ANZAC declare war, Japan...

Larry, liking the 2-move a lot.

The collapse rules add a little complexity, which I like too.

I hope to see the more ambitious strategic movement in a future game though. It probably was a bit too much to introduce it into an already-released game.

I guess that makes sense. To me, in a lot of those scenarios, it's pretty obvious who will win 1 on 1 because of simple economics.

I don't really get how this works. USA just duels Germany? How is this fun?

Vince, the problem is that the movement isn't always a retreat; it could be an advance into a territory your ally has just captured. Without some (IMO, silly) rule about moving closer to an enemy capital to determine what is a retreat and what is an advance, the rule has to go for caution. So the pr...

That is a challenge to think of a term alternate to surrender. Am I right in thinking of the collapse as the total loss of the ability to make war, where the enemy (unless opposed by an ally of the collapsed country) is at the mercy of the invader? I am having trouble with this as I cannot think of ...