@Tizkit nice idea on the dice :+1:
Power Groupings - Global Game
-
In real life, you can probably mix the teams depending on what people want, no problem
But I agree with Func, for online gameplay, it could be wise to group the nations together to increase the speed
-
I can see what you mean, Omega, about pairing based simply on what fits your group. I can see a lot of people going with a traditional UK/ANZAC, US/China, and France with whoever since a lot of AA50 strategies could easily be adapted to a spread like that. For my group I was looking at the regional idea because, as Functioneta pointed out, it’s easier to be able to have all your pieces in one general area as a player, plus my group doesn’t seem to get a whole lot of cohesion going together and can end up screwing each other’s strategies up. But for a good group that likes diversity the split groupings might be good.
Definitely the online setup should be as streamlined as possible… I agree with you there, Functioneta.
Another interesting grouping might be to have one player be the UK/US to be able to coordinate the battle of the Atlantic better, while another controls ANZAC/China in the Pacific, and France could go to either of the last two depending on whether the USSR player wants another power or is willing to give the ANZAC/China player a third for the lack of a “major” power. UK/US would have UK immediately in battle with US building up, ANZAC/China would immediately be in the fight, but would have the challenge of low income vs. Godzilla Japan, and USSR would have France for a little bit while they’re still preparing.
-
well how many players would be playing? We have 3 people. My group was thinking of splitting it up. Axis, then half and half allies
-
I was assuming the maximum number of players, assuming that’s 6.
-
I had been assuming the Max number of players to be 7
The three axis, Germany, Italy, Japan
The three allied, US, UK, USSRAnd a fourth allied player, who controls France (the early powerhowse under threat), China (the caged animal by turn 3), and ANZAC (The power that doesnt do much of anything untill after turn 3)
This minor power player would have enough to do throughout the game that it would be almost worth playing
France will still be a power after paris falls, we just arent sure how much of a role it can/will play after turn 3
China will be more resilent in the global game because Japan wont be able to empty manchuria and Korea with russians on the border, even if there is a pact, you have to at least leave a token force i hope to enforce the pact. Also the US can dip into its European money if the going gets tough in the pacific. So china, if played well, might live on in a limited role for the entire game
And ANZAC is distant enough from Japan that they wont be under siege untill some time after turn 5, so that player has at least untill then to fool around on that front
The important feature of a 4th allied player is so the major players dont get to use the minor powers as their lap dog, there is a seperate commander, and a separate definition of victory. ANZAC wont just funnel units to India, China wont make suiciadal attacks for the US and France will try to hang on as long as it can, rather than inflict the most pain on germany.
-
I think Italy and the ANZAC should be played by the same person.
-
I think the turn order is going to make a difference on how the pairings should go.
-
I think Italy and the ANZAC should be played by the same person.
there on different sides
-
Germany and China should go together then.
-
I hadn’t really considered 7 players… :-o
-
Germany and China should go together then.
there still on different sides
the only axis nations are Italy Germany and Japan -
I like to hedge my bets.
-
I think Italy and the ANZAC should be played by the same person.
there on different sides
Execute the traitor.
-
Germany and China should go together then.
there still on different sides
the only axis nations are Italy Germany and JapanHe’s messing with you, finnman, it’s not a serious suggestion.
-
Okay, here’s the best power grouping for a 6 player game:
Player 1 - USSR and Germany
Player 2 - Japan and US
Player 3 - UK and Italy
Player 4 - China
Player 5 - France
Player 6 - ANZACThis would definitely be optimal setup because it allows three of the players to play both sides. Who would want to be stuck on only one team? It also leaves the players with the three most important powers with only one power so no one player has all the fun.
-
Okay, here’s the best power grouping for a 6 player game:
Player 1 - USSR and Germany
Player 2 - Japan and US
Player 3 - UK and Italy
Player 4 - China
Player 5 - France
Player 6 - ANZACThis would definitely be optimal setup because it allows three of the players to play both sides. Who would want to be stuck on only one team? It also leaves the players with the three most important powers with only one power so no one player has all the fun.
How would you divide up a nine player game?
-
This is an interesting question, but I believe I have a solution.
Player 1 - England
Player 2 - Australia
Player 3 - India
Player 4 - Canada
Player 5 - Egypt
Player 6 - New Zealand
Player 7 - Scotland
Player 8 - South Africa
Player 9 - Germany, Japan, France, USSR, Italy, US, ChinaThis is optimal set up for a nine player game. We should divide up the British Empire, since they are way too powerful. World War 2 was mostly about breaking up the British Empire, so it would make sense to break it up between players to show the arguing within the empire, while the other powers, controlled by only one player since they are unimportant, fight each other.
-
I have a better solution:
Player 1 - Axis
Player 2 - AlliesWhat do you think? Axis and Allies. Has a familiar ring to it. Kind of catchy, huh?
-
No, that’s just stupid. Get out of here with your crazy ideas.
-
No, that’s just stupid. Get out of here with your crazy ideas.
You’re kidding right?, hahaha, only kidding? :|
Suggested Topics
