Craig I’m glad your game is going great. It seems as though it will be a close game till the end. Games typically last us 8-10 turns.
Your natural rules they seem to be quite intuitive. Ill bounce the idea around with my group as well as test the set up out a bit. It does seem to have the advantage of being quite simple which is good.
Battleships didn’t seem to be quite such a big issue in our game. We like the price but I see your point, as it could become troublesome if the usa goes battleship binging. I personally like the rehealing battleship and am weary about changing such a popular and in my mind good simple rule. A thought might be to limit battleship and aircraft carrier production to one per complex per turn. How does that seem? However I hate to do such things as it provided more complexity to the game. My experience has been that the simpler the game rules get, the better the finished product seem to be.
A note on USA’s fleet:
It gets big and it gets that way fast. The game is intended to be that way. Yatammo had it right when he said they awoke a sleeping giant. Time is crucial in this game, and if the axis can’t win fast, they probably won’t win. USA will always end the game with a huge army. It’s up to the axis to crush its allies, and therefore persuade the usa to give up the war on the basis that it will cost too much. This was japans strategy all along. They never intended to conquer the USA or the British, only to force them to make concessions.
As for surplus naval units, I think the escort is the most unnecessary and least fun unit. If one has to go it should be that one. No one will probably miss it too much, however I will probably hold off on that one for a while. This is mainly due to the fact that the A&A Anniversary edition is set to introduce cruisers into the game. At that point I will reevaluate the naval vessels and decide if I need to change them up to favor the new and inevitably tweaked unit stats that will come with the new edition of the game. So only time will tell the Navy’s ultimate fate.
You have a good point with putting sunken carrier planes on caps. It does seem that you could justify it rather easily. Play that way for now.
Strategic Rail Movement rules may seem odd, but they are meant to only help the country that got the technology. I consider it that the country that developed the technology is investing in upgrading the rail systems of whatever territory’s they control. USA is not going to pay to put in a British rail system. Countries don’t share technologies, so I can’t compromise on this rule. Sorry Craig, though I get your point.
Once again thanks for the input Craig.
OH yeah,
NEUTRAL TERRITORIES - my group had the same sediments as your. They also mentioned that they would prefur neutral powers with actual unit setup. I think i will have to revise the rules to include neutral setup. (if the attacker loses, the netural will automatically rebuild any destroyed units) do you have any ideas for a neutral setup?
yeah, make your Neutrals large enough that if some one wanted to attacke them, they would need More then a couple guys and A fighter to be succesful.
Spain, and Sweden, should have 4 inf, 1 tank and a fighter
Turkey should get, 5 inf, 2 tanks and Fighter
Switzerland 4 Inf, and Fighter,
S. america.
Argintina, 4 inf, 1 tank and 1 Bomber
Brazil, 4 inf. and a tank,
the rest of S. Amerika gets 2 inf and an Arty in each Neutral space.
The african Neutrals also give them 2 inf. and 1 Arty
Any other Neutrals, 1 inf and 1 arty will be Sufficient.
My 2 cents.
ps Neutrals rebuild if they are not Conqured when Attacked.
My neutrals countries I use the White British Peices from D-Day. The Bomber is in Argintina for the fun of it. :)
Nice try, Deaddyhead, but in real world Sweden was the strongest of the neutrals. They mobilized 360 000 men of high quality, made their own Saab fighters, and after WWII ended had the nr 3 largest airforce in the world, after USA and USSR. The Bofors industrial complex also made a lot of 88.flak, heavy artillery and tanks. Sweden also had the strongest fleet in Baltic sea in 1939 before Bismarck and Tirpitz came.
So I would give Sweden 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1AA-gun,1 fighter, and 1 destroyer.
Turkey mobilized 400 000 men on horseback, but of low quality.
So I would give Turkey 4 inf because mountains favour the defender.
Spain was just finished with 3 years of civil war and almost every man in age 16 to 50 dead and had a very little army of 30 000 men during WWII
I would give Spain 4 inf, because the mountains favour the defender.
Switzerland cant be invaded in real world because the Alps. They would just block the passes, and nobody come in or out.
The rest of minor neutrals get 1 inf, no more
I agree with what u say completly.
But for game play, I made mine large so that the Attacker would have to think twice about their decision to attack a Neutral. I wanted the Attacking player to ask him/herself the Question, Do I reallly Need/want to expend the resources required to Conquer that territory.
or are the Casualties I will take worth the new territory. I am trying to prevent people from invading Neutral Countries Just on a whim or cause there is nothing else for them to do.
I have also toyed with the Idea if a Neutral is Invaded and that invasion fails, the Opposite Powers would take control of said Nation.
ex. Britain Invades Spain and Fails. Since UK is an Allied player, the Axis Powers would take countrol of Spain and there Starting Military.
I love the Idea Of Neutral ships, or even a Vichy French Fleet.
We decided to call our first game and start a new one. This was everyone’s first game of Global Conflict, and as expected, we did some crazy things while learning to play. It was a close game, but it is likely the Allies would win. We’ll start game #2 tomorrow.
I really like the individual and team victory condition for the Axis. In the last game, if we had continued, Germany would have taken the 4 Victory cities in Russia, and Italy would have taken the 3 British victory cities in Africa. The totals would have been Germany 8, Italy 5, and Japan 5 or 6 but falling rapidly.
There was a realization that the Axis could have won if Italy had allowed Germany to take the Tobruk and Egypt victory cities. This seemed awfully “cheesy” to everyone. Italy could attack and destroy most of the units, then retreat, and allow Germany to “walk-in”. This would have given Germany the 2 more victory cities it needed to meet the victory condition. Is it really different for Germany to control a Victory City instead of Italy? We didn’t have any great ideas on how to “fix” this, or if it even needed “fixing”. It just seemed like an unsatisfying way to win or lose the game.
Being unfamiliar with the map, some of the guys marked all the victory cities with wooden spools to make them easier to spot on the map. I made little flags to put in the spool to show who owns the victory city. I’m not sure how useful it is to game play, but is sure looks cool.
We started our second game. Two rules questions came up regarding submarines:
#1: One USA and one UK bomber attack a German sub. The allies choose the USA to attack first. The USA bomber misses and the German sub submerges. Does the UK bomber get to shoot at the sub?
#2: One USA bomber attacks a German sub. The USA bomber misses and the German sub submerges. The USA fleet can now move through the sea zone with the submerged German sub during non-combat movement. Can the UK fleet also move through the sea zone with the submerged German sub during non-combat movement?
We are all playing much better. This is by far the best large map A&A game our group has played.
Craig
I think ive come up with some solutions that will work.
Phase II should now include:
Land your Caps (including fighters/komakazi which had their aircraft carrier destroyed last turn)
Your Battleships repair
Your Submarines resurface.
(this means that battleship’s remain damaged throughout all of your your opponents turns & submerged submarines would no longer obstruct naval units)
Komakazi drop to $6 and can choose to defend at 3 against non submarine sea units.
Im close to having a netural set up that i really like. Netural combat will be as you requested. Could you make me a setup chart for it?
Tech Rules (I’ve gotten alot of complaints about the cluttered chart for tech) So im including an alternate way to develop technology that is much more like the revised edition rules.
Tech example:
Germany chooses to devlop heavy tanks (number 4 on the chart). Germany controls Paris & Berlin and collected $42 this turn, so it rolls five 12 sided dice. The german player rolls 3, 4, 4, 7, 11. Since germany rolled at least one 4 it now has the heavy tanks technology.
Note using this tech system, technologies will appear more quickly and most players are likely to develop technology in the game. Its also quicker and easier than using the existing global conflict system. Ive included the projected die roll for each country each turn below:
Projected Die Roll Chance of being sucessful
Germany 5-6 42% - 50%
USA 5-6 42% - 50%
UK 4-5 33% - 42%
Russia 3-4 25% - 33%
Japan 3-4 25% - 33%
Italy 2-3 17% - 25%
China 2 17%
with regards to your specific questions:
the british bomber would never shoot at the submarine because it is already submerged. The submarine does not prevent allied sea movent during non combat. The submarine resurfaces on Phase II of the german turn. Battleships follow the same pattern.
I’d be happy to add a Neutral setup chart. I can probably get to it this weekend.
I like the change and clarification to the submarines and battleships. The repair for battleships is appropriate for a $20 cost.
Komakazi’s are fun as they are without the ability to defend. They are a challenge to position. They were used in our games to play ‘chess’ with the American fleet. While the economics might not look good, the ability of a Komakazi to choose its target is very powerful. I’m not sure any change is needed. I’d have to try the change to be certain. I’ve previously posted that Komakazi’s might be over priced or under powered. I’ve changed my mind since playing the Japanese. :-D
All 5 of us really like the technology development how it is now. Everyone enjoys the roll and watching their country advance. In all other Axis and Allies games we have chosen to play without technology development. Global Conflict is the first game we actually liked the technology development process. In our first game three countries developed a technology by the 5th turn. Two of them were useful, and the players had a fun time adjusting his play around the new development. It is fun advancing the 5 stages to completion for a technology. Once you develop a technology it takes a turn to adjust purchases, then a turn to exploit the technology. This allows all the players time to adjust.
The reason we don’t like technology development in other games is that it can make or break a game with a small roll. A player may choose to ‘bet the game’ on their first technology roll. Here is an example. Say the German player believes he can win the game if he gets super submarines on the first turn. Whether he gets them or not, or even whether he is correct on his thinking or not, the game will be over by turn 2. The German player will ‘bet everything’ on getting super submarines; perhaps by purchasing all submarines on the first turn. If he doesn’t roll super submarines he is screwed. If he gets that 42% chance and develops super submarines he wins. At least he wins if he is correct on the technology being too strong. Or he loses if he was wrong about the technology. Either way the game is over by the second turn. We prefer the strategic play, not the gamble play.
If you do keep the change in technology, you might have to lower the odds of developing a technology a little. As they are, there would be an average of over 2 technologies developed each turn. Thats a lot to digest and might make a radical change in the balance of the game.
I’m not too worried about the change in technology. We can always play with it as is, or we can do what we normally do and play without technology. Global Conflict will still be an awesome game without technology.
I really appreciate all the effort that has gone into making Global Conflict. It shows it the excellent balance and depth of play. I look forward to its evolution.
Craig
Oh yea. And I withdraw my previous comments on Blockhouses. They are very balanced at $5. The UK has used them to great effect to defend islands in the South Pacific.
Craig
So how does this Blockhouse unite work ?
cost 5, defend on 4 ?
On the first round of combat, the blockhouse hits on a roll of 3 or less and can choose its target among enemy units that just got off a transport. Other than that it defends on a roll of 1. This is an especially effective defense for islands.
I think Blockhouses should target ships, like AA-guns target aircrafts.
Maybe roll dice in Opening Fire phase ?
Amphibous Assaults would go like this:
Opening fire.
AA-gun roll one dice to each aircraft, every 1 is a hit, target aircrafts, remove casualties
Blockhouses naval bombard, every 3 or less is a hit, target ships, remove casualties
Battleships shore bombard, every 4 or less is a hit, target land units, remove casualties
Attacker roll dice as usual
Defender roll dice as usual
Traditionally blockhouses were used not to target battleships and cruisers, as they didnt have the range. Blockhouses were essentially heavily fortified pillboxes. There purpose was to target enemy units in the process of landing.
Blockhouses were essentially heavily fortified pillboxes. There purpose was to target enemy units in the process of landing.
In that case Blockhouses sure must roll dice during Opening Fire Phase, because after the landing the attacker have moved far behind the remaining Blockhouses. So Blockhouse defend on 3 or less in Opening Fire Phase, and are later taken as first casualty and used as fodder.
Opening Fire Phase:
Defending AA-guns roll dice against aircrafts
Attacking Battleships shore bombard, every 4 or less is a hit, target land units
Defending Blockhouses barrage the landing crafts, every 3 or less is a hit, target amphibious landet land units
Attacker roll dice (defending Blockhouses are used as fodder)
Defender roll dice
an so on as usual
This is how we use block houses.
BlockHouse cost is 5
Can be placed in any Territory u controled at turns begining.
Max per territory is = to IPC value
Att. @ 0
Defend @ 2 (3 if there is a defending Arty in same space )
Move 0
2 Hits to kill
Preliminary Bombardment of a 2 during Amphibious assaults
Hi Everyone, I’m new. Pardon my ignorance, but how do I print this map?
To print, it depends on how much money you want to spend. I print on a vinyl banner from http://www.123print.com/Banners It cost about $140. To print at a minimum cost, break the map up to many 8.5x11 sheets and tape them together.
Craig
Hello,
i’m a newbie and have some questions about Global Conflict:
1. I read that there are new Units in Global Conflict: Mechanized Division unit, Air Transport/Paratrooper unit, Cruiser unit and blockhouses.
Can anybody give me an advice where i can get some additional plastic parts for this units?
2. I think that there is no Problem to print the large map on a vinyl plane or something and the rectangular markers on normal paper and laminate them.
But the circular markers seems to be difficult to cut off accurate.
How do you cut off the markers and on which material do you print the markers?
3. Do i need something more than the original A&A Revised to play Global Conflict?
4. Are the Files actual in the Release 3.2 or should i wait some time for a new Release before i spent a lot of time and energy to organize the additional material?
Thanks a lot?
Oelle
Some of the rules and play aids were just updated, so it might be worth waiting for version 3.3. I’ve played version 3.2 and it plays very well.
The best way to print circles is to get 3/4" or 1" pre-cut circle stickers at Staples or OfficeMax and format to print on the stickers. I then put them on bingo chips or something pre-mad.
I used pieces from http://www.tabletactics.com/ to augment my A&A pieces to add Mechanized Divisions, Air Transport units, and Cruisers.
Craig
I think the rule that makes Air only attacks hit submarines on a 1 should be eliminated.
With the current rule, submarines are overpowered. They are too difficult to eliminate. Subs have 3 strengths: Attackers (except destroyer) can only roll once to hit a sub (then they can submerge), they are cheap, and air only attacks only hit on a 1. Air only attacks only get to roll one round of combat, which limits damage. The problem is that attacking with 12 airplanes will likely only kill 2 submarines. If you have 12 aircraft, why don’t you build a navy while using CAP to protect the new build? Now the 12 submarines just move into 12 different sea zones. Now if any of the subs are attacked by the newly built navy and airplanes, you can’t CAP. Or if you attack with just the newly built navy, you probably can only attack 1 or 2 locations, only killing 1 or 2 submarines.
Is there an anti-submarines tactic I am missing? Of primary concern is how long it takes for the allies to clear the Atlantic of German submarines. How do you do it? We asked the “What if America only built submarines in the Pacific?” It seems like it could easily eliminate the Japanese Navy and blockade the Island of Japan quickly.
It is also the most confusing rule for our players in Kansas City. I’m not sure why its confusing, but it gets asked about every single round in every game. And then misinterpreted in every other round of every game.
We played again this weekend. It sure is a fun game.
Craig
