Yes, they can do that even if the powers are at war. The presence of a sub belonging to an enemy power does not block movement.
Marsh
Power Groupings - Global Game
-
Russia and its allies must stay together! And without the western culture influencing them.
2 players: 1. Axis 2. Allies
3 players: 1. Axis 2. UK, USA, ANZAC, France, Russia 3. Russia and china
4 players: 1 Germany/Italy 2. Japan 3. UK, USA, ANZAC, France 4. Russia and China
5 players: 1. Germany/Italy 2. Japan 3. USA, ANZAC 4. UK, France 5. Russia, China
6 players: 1. Germany 2. Italy 3. Japan 4. USA, ANZAC 5. UK, France 6. Russia, China
7 players: 1. Germany 2. Italy 3. Japan 4. USA 5. UK 6. USSR 7. All Minors
8 players: 1-6. Same as above 7. China, France 8. ANZAC
9 players: Every man for himselfYes, I understand that china had bits to be for each ally. However in 1940(Now where would I get that time?) Its only really active forces were the communist insurgents
-
Yes, I understand that china had bits to be for each ally. However in 1940 (Now where would I get that time?) Its only really active forces were the communist insurgents
This is why the US is typically in charge of China in A&A (specifics like the Flying Tigers come to mind):
During World War II, the United States emerged as a major actor in Chinese affairs. As an ally it embarked in late 1941 on a program of massive military and financial aid to the hard-pressed Nationalist government. In January 1943 the United States and Britain led the way in revising their treaties with China, bringing to an end a century of unequal treaty relations. Within a few months, a new agreement was signed between the United States and Republic of China for the stationing of American troops in China for the common war effort against Japan. In December 1943 the Chinese Exclusion Acts of the 1880s and subsequent laws enacted by the United States Congress to restrict Chinese immigration into the United States were repealed.
The wartime policy of the United States was initially to help China become a strong ally and a stabilizing force in postwar East Asia. As the conflict between the Kuomintang and the Communists intensified, however, the United States sought unsuccessfully to reconcile the rival forces for a more effective anti-Japanese war effort. Toward the end of the war, United States Marines were used to hold Beiping (Beijing) and Tianjin against a possible Soviet incursion, and logistic support was given to Kuomintang forces in north and northeast China.
This is the part the Soviets played:
The situation was further complicated by an Allied agreement at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 that brought Soviet troops into Manchuria to hasten the termination of war against Japan. Although the Chinese had not been present at Yalta, they had been consulted; they had agreed to have the Soviets enter the war in the belief that the Soviet Union would deal only with the Kuomintang government. After the war, the Soviet Union, as part of the Yalta agreement’s allowing a Soviet sphere of influence in Manchuria, dismantled and removed more than half the industrial equipment left there by the Japanese. The Soviet presence in northeast China enabled the Communists to move in long enough to arm themselves with the equipment surrendered by the withdrawing Japanese army.
I personally like the idea of grouping Russia and China together for game purposes and because they did play a critical part in China, but it still was nowhere near the role that the US played.
While you are right that the communist insurgents were more active than the nationalist military, especially at first (“internal unity before external danger”), that was the communist insurgents, which is not to be confused with the communist Soviets since they are not necessarily the same. Communism in China has always been different than communism in Soviet Russia, and they didn’t always get along or work together just because they were both “communists”.
-
@The:
@Brain:
The nine player game would quickly become an 8 player game with the inevitable elimination of France.
Well, if you had a good group (like the dream a and a group) you would take a full day and make it like an event, with drinks, meals, all sorts of stuff. Role for powers, and then kind of make it so that an eliminated power b/c an advisor/co-controller with someone (a good example being France and Britain).
Or the eliminated french player could make lunch for everyone :-D
-
If I remember reading somewhere (I can’t remember) correctly, the global game will consist of up to seven players. My guess would be that UK/Anzac will be seperate but controlled by the same player. And France/Russia would also be controlled by the same player as well. Again all of this is according to somewhere I read that Harris was only going to make the global game 2-7 players, I could be wrong though.
-
@Brain:
@The:
@Brain:
The nine player game would quickly become an 8 player game with the inevitable elimination of France.
Well, if you had a good group (like the dream a and a group) you would take a full day and make it like an event, with drinks, meals, all sorts of stuff. Role for powers, and then kind of make it so that an eliminated power b/c an advisor/co-controller with someone (a good example being France and Britain).
Or the eliminated french player could make lunch for everyone :-D
In that case, I vote that my grandma plays as France :lol:
-
If I remember reading somewhere (I can’t remember) correctly, the global game will consist of up to seven players. My guess would be that UK/Anzac will be seperate but controlled by the same player. And France/Russia would also be controlled by the same player as well. Again all of this is according to somewhere I read that Harris was only going to make the global game 2-7 players, I could be wrong though.
Larry probably intends for some players to play 2 countries, however they will have seperate economies, so with 9 countries, there could be 9 players.
-
Yeah that is true but I don’t think anyone would actually want to just play as France, or even ANZAC for that matter……
-
It will be best playing with 4-6 players, however 7-9 players can be possible for some newbies to team up with the expert players.
US,UK,USSR, GER, JAP- expert players
ITA, ANZAC, FRA, CHINA- newbie players. A ten year-old could play China.
7 maybe the best in this case though with 5 exper players and 2 newbie (one plays ITA and the other plays ANZAC, FRA, CHINA)- this keeps the newbie from being bored I think.
You can play with 9 but you will have a couple people drop out possibly because of the long turns. I think 7 is the BEST you may have for people to commit to a full game all the way through.
-
It will be best playing with 4-6 players, however 7-9 players can be possible for some newbies to team up with the expert players.
US,UK,USSR, GER, JAP- expert players
ITA, ANZAC, FRA, CHINA- newbie players. A ten year-old could play China.
7 maybe the best in this case though with 5 exper players and 2 newbie (one plays ITA and the other plays ANZAC, FRA, CHINA)- this keeps the newbie from being bored I think.
You can play with 9 but you will have a couple people drop out possibly because of the long turns. I think 7 is the BEST you may have for people to commit to a full game all the way through.
If you have that many people wanting play with half of them being newbies, I say reverse what you’re suggesting and give the “major” powers to the newbies and let the experts play the “minor” powers. Then when some of the “experts” get knocked out, they can help out the newbies as teammates/advisers/co-captains, at least for one game.
And hey, with the UK Pacific having a separate economy, why not have 10 players? :-P
-
Very true, The most I’ll play with is 6. 4 will still be the usual though. :-)
-
I usually play just 2 player games, sometimes three. I just have trouble getting my friends into playing it.
-
I usually play just 2 player games, sometimes three. I just have trouble getting my friends into playing it.
You have to let them win every once in a while.
-
I am proud to say that I have quite a few friends who are willing to play, so much that one has to be left out for now. He gets to play settlers of catan on the other months though. I could muster seven up probably twice or thrice a year, but no more
-
I am proud to say that I have quite a few friends who are willing to play, so much that one has to be left out for now. He gets to play settlers of catan on the other months though. I could muster seven up probably twice or thrice a year, but no more
Well count your blessings, I have a hard time finding one opponent these days.
-
I am proud to say that I have quite a few friends who are willing to play, so much that one has to be left out for now. He gets to play settlers of catan on the other months though. I could muster seven up probably twice or thrice a year, but no more
you have ten friends. Well like Silverangelsurfer said india can be a power
-
@Brain:
I usually play just 2 player games, sometimes three. I just have trouble getting my friends into playing it.
You have to let them win every once in a while.
Well it’s not that, we can’t even play a full turn most of the time because they get bored and want to play PS3 or something.
-
I know what you’re saying maverick :-P
-
@Krupp:
I know what you’re saying maverick :-P
We need to get some new friends or maybe we can all move to the same city. Hell, let’s start our own city called Axisandallies, USA
-
Is that near Lake Woebegone?
-
Suggested Topics
