In regards to balancing the Pacific vs Atlantic in the new global game the Anzac could be the key. Balance would be achieved if the Anzac & UK are still separate units (they have different colors) but are both controlled by the UK and allowed to take their turn as one nation. In games that the Orange Godzila is allowed to run ramped the UK has no presence in the pacific. No IC in India or Australia. In AA40 Global I hope there is at least a minor IC in these countries at set-up, and maybe even one in Africa. This would help keep the UK fighting for her commonwealth tt as she wouldn’t want to just hand over those IC’s to Japan. I also hope that by keeping them separate will force the UK to spend the ipc’s generated by the Anzac in Australia, or at least get a large Commonwealth NO that is earmarked for the Commonwealth IC’s. The key is forcing the UK to spend $ in both oceans, but giving it enough money to do so. Also by allowing the UK to use both units at once would be cool!
One player could control both ANZAC and UK and achieve what you are thinking by keeping their money separated thus forcing that player to invest some money in the Pacific theatre.
In the global game I think the Uk should end up controlling both. Units and $ should be separate and earmarked. The question is:
1)Will there turns be at different times (like Germ & Italy)
2)Will it be at same time but separate (like US & China);
3)Will it be all together as one nation allowing for joint attacks.
I guess much testing would be needed, but if 1 or 2 are adopted #3 would be an awesome house rule.
@WILD:
In the global game I think the Uk should end up controlling both. Units and $ should be separate and earmarked. The question is:
1)Will there turns be at different times (like Germ & Italy)
2)Will it be at same time but separate (like US & China);
3)Will it be all together as one nation allowing for joint attacks.
I guess much testing would be needed, but if 1 or 2 are adopted #3 would be an awesome house rule.
I agree with you, I think it should be option #3
Option 3 sounds the best, but I think the incomes should be kept seperate like they are in AAPacific.
@WILD:
In the global game I think the Uk should end up controlling both. Units and $ should be separate and earmarked. The question is:
1)Will there turns be at different times (like Germ & Italy)
2)Will it be at same time but separate (like US & China);
3)Will it be all together as one nation allowing for joint attacks.
I guess much testing would be needed, but if 1 or 2 are adopted #3 would be an awesome house rule.
Option 3 sounds the best, but I think the incomes should be kept seperate like they are in AAPacific.
That’s what the man said.
yes to #3
The ONLY way to keep it balanced is to keep all Europe and Pacific income separate.
This means that the Western USA and Eastern USA’s moneys will not mix at all, which in my opinion is good. (and also that UK’s Europe board income, and Pacific board income will also not mix at all.)
And I too would like the us to be have 2 incomes one for the Pacific and one for the Atlantic theatres.
The UK by rule may have to spend $ in the pacific through the Anzac. The US really doesn’t have a minor ally that it will control like the UK. The only thing I can think of is to connect its NO’s to that theater. Like if there is an island NO for the pacific (similar to AA50) then that $ is earmarked for the pacific theater. Also with the new convoy zones (not knowing any details) I think the US may have to dedicate some resources to both theaters to keep its money flowing, and interrupt its enemies convoys.
PS:If #3 is adopted it would be cool if the Anzac could skip its turn w/UK and joint strike with the US later in that round giving the game more of a cooperative feel.
I can see not allowing the US & UK to attack together (to powerful) but allowing the Anzac to attack with the UK or US would give the game something its been missing joint attacks with allies. You could even go on to extend it to China/allies. You could offset it by allowing limited strikes with Germ/Italy. Boy this could lead to a lot of new house rules.
I don’t think US will need to “mix” income. We know Western US is 10 and 50. We can postulate the Eastern US will be 12 and 60. That’s 110, + Central US (6) + Alasks (2) + Hawaii (1) + Mexico (2) + Brazil (3) + Cuba (1) + Phillipiness [typo?] (2) + Pannama (1) = 128 IPCs!!! Forget KGF or KJF, it’s Kill Everyone First!!!
Phillipiness [typo?]
Philippines. Yeah always thought that spelling was weird. Half way between Phillip and Felipe.
128 IPCs!!! Forget KGF or KJF, it’s Kill Everyone First!!!
Lol. Yeah no kidding.
Welcome Flintlock. You can be the new spellchecker.
@Brain:
One player could control both ANZAC and UK and achieve what you are thinking by keeping their money separated thus forcing that player to invest some money in the Pacific theatre.
I agree!
If the setup is like the 41 version of AA50 then yes I think it will be balanced.
Something that I noticed about that version- after playing both versions several times- was that unlike the 42 version of AA50, the 41 left a more “open” game and more possiblities. Both sides still have there advantages, but in the 41 it is more extreme- the Allies start with more cash and land but much less units, the Axis start with less cash but a LOT more attacking units in the beginning.
Since the global game will start in 1940, I expect that the setup will be somewhat similar to the 41 in AA50 where the game is more “open”. The 42 is a more restrictive, predictable and a more “closed” game because the variables are few and the constants are set in stone more in regards to position, income and units attained.
I agree AA50 41 is more of a free for all. Especially with Japan having so much power early on.A huge air force and lots of tranniies.
I think that Larry’s goal has been to create all of his games balanced.
Agreed, at first we might not see it but after lots of playing we know that all the games he has created are balanced but do take some thinking to get to that point.
If it is not balanced, then there is always bidding.
guys His last three havve been pretty good, why would his next two be bad? I think this has the potential to be his best yet! Although a 1939 edition is probably larrys next target!
I would like a 1914 version as well.
