Harris Game Design Forums

You have a CP controlled Rome which means every US ship, including transports have to get through the mines to get to Constantinople. Also the effect of having just 2 artillery in any CP coastal tt being attacked gives the CP 2 shots at 50% at every ground unit coming in does it not? Rome fell the ...

Wall of text incoming, hope you have reading glasses! Ok, I tried a game out with the rules changes, I've wrote a report on the game, concentrating on the effects the movement system changes. First of all, to give some context I must explain the general strategy of each nation: Austria: Crush Italy ...

At this point I'm strongly considering allowing allied units, who begin their strategic movement in an allied territory, to move through that ally's controlled or contested territories as well as his own controlled or contested territories.. I notice this still would leave units starting within you...

Very good, I think you guys are on the same track now LOL. All aboard :!: Larry/Krieghund, just to confirm, are you allowing for movement from just one territory to one other territory (that show a path), or can you move units from several territories into one, or more territories using strategic m...

"Any units in a selected territory that is controlled or contested by the turn player, including the player’s capital, can be moved... " Something seems a little ambiguous there. By "selected territory" do you mean the owner's territory in a broad sense or that you can only select one territory to s...

3) Rather than transports in a single location, what about a fixed bonus for having an unbroken string of transports between US/Canada and London/Scotland (for UK) and Archangel (for USSR). That really spreads them out and makes for some fun U-boat cat and mouse. I'd have to agree that would both l...

As i mentioned a play report I feel US has too much in europe only, though I agree in pacific only they don't seem to have enough. I think if we shift from IPCs from europe to pacific we can achieve a balance, perhaps if we treated central US as pacific.

Krieghund wrote:While a 1941 setup does offer more strategic options, 1942 (in addition to being a shorter game) offers the distinct advantage of requiring no political rules.

Really? AA50 did fine with a 1941 setup without political rules. Emulating the starting situation there would be a fine start.