silly rabbit. more people makes it more fun! plus your powergroupings sounds pretty fair
My Original Thoughts
1 Player game: I’m the only person who is a big enough loser
2 Player game: Allies v. Axis
3 Player Game: Axis, Eastern Ally, Western Allies
4 Player Game: European Axis, Japan, Russia, Western Allies
5 Player Game: European Axis, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK/ANZAC/France
6 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK/ANZAC/France
7 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK, ANZAC/France
8 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US, China/France, UK, ANZAC
9 Player Game: Each for himselfThis way is most historical
Now I’m with the “7th player gets all minors” Theory, however. I do also think still, that for 8 ANZAC goes free
Which countries are you including in your Eastern and Western Allies?
Eastern allies-Russia, China (as seen here, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_1940_06.png the chinese had no western components until december 1941
Western- All else
Eastern allies-Russia, China (as seen here, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_1940_06.png the chinese had no western components until december 1941
Western- All else
I disagree with your pairings for the 3 player game. One player gets Russia and China, and the second player gets USA, France, UK, and ANZAC. That pairing seems odd and imbalanced.
I think France will be with the ussr because Russia can’t attack till turn four if I’m not mistaken. Everything else would be the same as Anniversary with Anzac with Britian.
France will almost undoubtedly be controlled by the UK. There will be a French Navy on the board after the German invasion that will have to have a little synergy with the UK to keep the UK’s NO.
I think France will be with the ussr because Russia can’t attack till turn four if I’m not mistaken. Everything else would be the same as Anniversary with Anzac with Britian.
Russia can’t attack until turn 4 unless it is attacked by the Axis, kinda like the US, however, that doesn’t mean that it won’t end up being better for Germany & Italy to attack Russia sooner, so we’ll have to see how that turns out.
France going with UK is probably going to be the best as far as coordinating the navies, as Titus stated; so (assuming 3 Allied players) to give the US and USSR players something to do until they can join the game in full it should be a US/China - USSR/ANZAC pairing or a US/ANZAC - USSR/China pairing.
Okay I agree with the UK/France thing.
My new vote:
2 player game 1. Axis 2. Allies
3 player game 1. Axis 2. UK,ANZAC,France 3.USA,China,USSR
4 player game 1. Germany,Italy 2.Japan 3.UK,ANZAC,France 4.USA,China,USSR
5 player game 1. Germany,Italy 2.Japan 3.UK,ANZAC,France 4.USA,China 5.USSR
6 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK,ANZAC,France 5.USA,China 6.USSR
7 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC,China,France
8 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC 8.China,France
9 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC 8.China 9.France
I want it politically historical, with Russia/China, and the others
As far as China goes, there’s just as much historical politics supporting US/China as USSR/China. The US has the most political ties with the incumbent government at the time (UK had a good amount of influence as well, what with Hong Kong being considered a British colony and all), hence the usual A&A pairing of US/China; what you’re talking about as far as USSR political ties would be with the insurgent communist forces on the other side of the civil war; these forces ended up winning, bringing about the communist China we have today.
If your only consideration is the political aspects of China during WW2, it could be paired with any of the 3 major Allies.
originaly it was russia alone, but that just won’t do, so I added another
I think US/China makes more sense than the others because of the Flying Tigers.
@Brain:
I think US/China makes more sense than the others because of the Flying Tigers.
Plus, weren’t the nationalists technically in power, not the communists at the time of WW2? And it also makes more sense b/c Russia wouldn’t have collaborated with china against Japan. but the U.S. would have b/c they had a shared goal.
@The:
@Brain:
I think US/China makes more sense than the others because of the Flying Tigers.
Plus, weren’t the nationalists technically in power, not the communists at the time of WW2? And it also makes more sense b/c Russia wouldn’t have collaborated with china against Japan. but the U.S. would have b/c they had a shared goal.
Hence the typical grouping of US/China in previous versions of A&A.
originaly it was russia alone, but that just won’t do, so I added another
Yeah, if you want to be completely historically accurate, you should just have Russia alone, but of the “minor powers” to choose from, the one that makes the most sense to pair with Russia from a purely political position would be China. What fire knight says is true about Russia having a non-aggression pact with Japan, but that wouldn’t necessarily prevent Russia from covertly helping China as the US had a complete non-aggression mindset all around and yet there are still the Flying Tigers and such with the US.
As far as I think their are some clear groupings-
UK (inc. India, Canada, SA) and France
Germany and Italy
USA and ANZAC (The ANZAC was under MacCarthers control, not churchills)
Japan (loner in the Pacific all war)
That leaves just China and Russia (the communists)
This means the game is perfect for 5 people.
but i would prefer having a small house rule where Russia can attack China. “The War Game” had that, and i think its a great idea!
but i would prefer having a small house rule where Russia can attack China. “The War Game” had that, and i think its a great idea!
What would be the point of that? Russia getting extra IPCs?
realize im only typing a full sentence so this comment isnt deleted.
but if i could i could just post the word
yes
but i would prefer having a small house rule where Russia can attack China. “The War Game” had that, and i think its a great idea!
They are on the same team in the game, so I am totally opposed to this.
realize im only typing a full sentence so this comment isnt deleted.
but if i could i could just post the word
yes
Ok, that’s what I figured, but my point is that it would be counter-productive for Russia to waste IPCs in risking their own units to waste IPCs to kill units of a country that is on the same side to gain some territories worth 1 IPC…
