Hi from Prague!
OK - so I can't think outside of my historical box enough for you guys, huh? I'll have to work on it. . . 
A couple of suggestions though:
If you alter the US or Soviet entry - I think you may want to modify the vicotry point track as well (since it is more or less based on a historical timeline) - something like a +1 VP shift in the Allied favor for every turn the US entry is delayed past Winter 41 (for example, if the US did not enter until Summer of 42 - there would be a +2 VP shift in the allied favor). . .
Wow!
Did you post this somewhere before because this is the first time I’ve heard this, and we’ve been using variable entry for the US and USSR for a long time. If not, I’d say that’s a pretty major oversight! If the VP track is balanced for a historical US entry, then your suggestion makes sense to me. That would explain why most of the time in our games (taking into account occasional luck) the Axis usually wins once we reach the point that we check for VP’s. The VP shift in our last game would have been +3 to the Allies and would have made a huge difference in the game. I’m not saying we would have won – but on the turn the game ended Jason would have been 2 VP’s short instead of 1 VP over. I’m not convinced he wouldn’t have still won – but he would have definitely started to lose VP’s in the Pacific and the game would have definitely gone at least a few more turns.
If the VP’s should be modified for delayed US entry shouldn’t a note to that effect be added to the variable entry rules?
Does the same situation apply to entry for the Soviet Union? It seems to me that a delay in Soviet entry doesn’t have the same kind of impact on the game that it does with the US and all of its production; it also gives Germany a few more options to try out some different things.
As far as air support goes - I really think we should consider doing away with the unsupported combat strength - only support units that have a front line unit to support can attack/defend. I think that would help get rid of the horde of planes supporting an attack as well as the 1 infantry unit invastions supported by 6-7 ships.
I agree with this idea, but I still don’t think it goes far enough. The other side of the coin here are the massive attacks on airbases. I know that the airbase rules are an optional rule, but one of our players insists that we use them because they are historical. I agree with him that they’re historical, but as written they’re also game-breaking. Not allowing aircraft to make ground attacks unless they have a front line unit to support fixes half of the problem – we still need a fix to the airbase attack problem.
One of the things I like in World in Flames is that you have to make decisions every turn as to how you’re going to use your fighters. For example, as Germany you can use them all tactically – but if you do you won’t have anything left to defend against strategic bombing attacks. Who hasn’t played WiF and faced that decision near the end of a turn where you have one fighter left and you can use it on a mission – but you’re looking at that stack of STR’s that your opponent hasn’t used yet… That kind of decision process is missing from The Struggle.
For our next game tonight I think I’m going to suggest that we make all aircraft single-use-per turn similar to WiF. You can use them only once – it’s your choice whether to use them offensively or hold them back to be able to react to your opponent. The one difference I’ll suggest is that planes can always defend in their own territory against airbase or tactical (but not strategic) attacks. Similarly, CV air groups can always defend their fleet ala the naval rules in WiF. Rebases will not count as an action – that way a player can move a plane forward tactically and then be able to use it in the Mech phase.
Another thing I like from WiF is that on strategic bombing attacks you get a +1 column shift if your enemy doesn’t intercept the bombers. I think something similar ought to be done in this game – say, a +1 to the die roll if bombers or strategic bombers (but not other aircraft) making strategic attacks aren’t intercepted. This could account for the very real political consequences that would result from not trying to defend the homeland.
Regarding the amphibious attacks using only one infantry and then using shore bombardment – we haven’t been doing this, though looking back through the rules I can see that it doesn’t say you can’t. We’ve always said from the very first game we played that you can only use one ship for every two infantry (1 ship for 1-2 INF, 2 ships for 3-4, etc.). Any excess ships cannot bombard. I can tell you that this has worked for us very well. Letting excess ships bombard at a 1 seems kind of cheesy to me – sort of like the massive unsupported aircraft ground attacks.
We did have another question come up during our last game that I just remembered. When a fighter wants to retreat from a combat, does it move 2 or 4? I have assumed 2, based on page 21 of the rulebook, which reads, “Air units can retreat a maximum of their movement range” and also the usage of the term “movement range”, which has always been differentiated from the term “movement allowance.” Which is correct?
You would need to say something about the Netherlands being a part of the WA. They aren't listed as such and don't automatically become part of the WA at the outset of the game.
Actually, they are – it’s on page 39 of the rulebook, which reads “If Japan attacks the Western Allies (U.S., Great Britain, Free France and the Dutch East Indies) before they are able to declare war on Japan (before the Allied turn), Japan can conduct a one time only surprise attack.” It does seem open to interpretation, but to me the clear intent is that the NEI are part of the Western Allies once war breaks out. I do think this point needs to be clarified (Mark?) to avoid gamesmanship like in our last game. In our last game the argument was that since Germany never attacked the Netherlands, they weren’t part of the Allies and so once Japan went to war the NEI wouldn’t be part of the Allies.
Historically, Japan HAD to have the oil of the NEI; oil was their very reason for going to war. One of the flaws in the game in my opinion (as I’ve stated many times) is that Japan doesn’t have any compelling reason to go after the oil once they’re at war. I’ve played games that weren’t as detailed as this one where Japan had to take the NEI by a certain turn or they automatically lost the game. By saying that the NEI joins the Allies once war breaks out, at least there is some cost in game terms (the economic points of the NEI going to the Allies) if Japan doesn’t do in the game what they historically pretty much had to do once they made the decision to go to war.
I suppose the Dutch might have tried to stay neutral if Japan left them alone. They did however, regard Japan’s mounting aggressiveness as a threat, and Japan had already become rather strident in their “requests” to the Dutch for more oil, with more than a few thinly-veiled threats. As it was, none of this matters, because Japan wasn’t going to leave them alone. The rules already say that Japan can’t go to war with the UK but not the US (an interesting “what-if” – if the Japanese DOW was against the UK but not the US could Roosevelt have gotten the support he needed to go to war?), so why not add the NEI to that same equation. You can’t and shouldn’t force a player to play historically, but you can and should force them to deal with historical realities, and saying that the NEI are part of the Western Allies accomplishes this. Arbitrarily stating that the NEI are part of the Western Allies is no different than saying Japan can’t be at war with the UK or US separately, and closes a loophole in the rules.
Mark/John – can we get a ruling?
