Global Team game when it comes out!

@seancb LoL just give me the state , date, place and time. That sounds amazing.

I think four player is the best.  As the Allies it’s easier to be on the same page and everyone has a more to do.

The setup I prefer:

Germany & Italy
Japan

Russia, UK, France
USA, China, Anzac

The USA player should control Anzac since they’ll be working closely with them.

@IKE:

Another option in a 2v2 live game is to split the Allies up by theater, which we like to do.

Allies player 1: US (Atlantic), UK (London), Russia, France
Allies player 2: US (Pacific), UK (Calcutta), Anzac, China

Ofcourse this involves heavy coordination in strategy of spending US $.  It’s give and take.

We have done this in the past, and it is pretty cool. The 2 US players lobbying for income/units is kinda what happened historically (which theater gets a boost?). Does the Pac player allow the Siberians to march home? Dose India give up some air/fleet to Egypt? This gives the Euro and Pac allied players something to do throughout the game, and coordination is a must. Some of their powers are in the fight from the get go, some are dwindling, and others are ramping up.

On the Pac side, US controlling Anzac seems right because they need to work together once the US gets into the game. As China/India looses ground the US picks up steam so that player is involved throughout.

On the Euro side the UK gets a lot of action as do the French (turn one). The US/Russia comes into play slowly, and you don’t want someone to have only the US/Russia because of that.

In our group Russia is an inept power to play because it can be very boring unless there is a Sea lion. There is nothing good about playing the US/Russia, waiting for 3 rounds to go by, and the game is paused until the next day lol. Even when we split the allies up differently, Russia is a bit of a question. Sometimes we alternate Russia’s turn between both allied players.

You can also speed the game up drastically by starting everyone at war including the USA. Yes everyone at war.

@Make_It_Round:

I think it is possible, however tedious, to count the number of meaningful choices that players have in any given game, and to guess at one’s enjoyment threshold in terms of these.

It is utterly impossible to count the number of meaningful choices that players have in any given game because each “meaningful choice” is a product of the other “meaningful choices” that were made previously. Furthermore, each “meaningful choice” is then subject to all of the possible dice outcomes, and thus multiplied by all of those possibilities and then multiplied by all of the “meaningful choices” offered by the various non-combat possibilities as they are determined by the dice outcomes. As you can see we get into these massive factorial situations where we are multiplying massive exponentials by even more massive exponentials until what is essentially infinity.

To make a comparison: In chess there are only 20 possible moves to make on the first turn. (16 pawn moves and 4 knight moves) The opponent is faced with the same. So the possible combinations for the opening 2 moves (1 each) in chess is 400. None of which are absolutely stupid. there are 8,902 possible moves by 2 each and by move 7 there are almost eleven MILLION possible positions. That’s without dice, with only 2 players, with a much much much more limited scope for unit movement, no scope for adding units and far far fewer spaces.

Now you asked about the “meaningful choices”. Some work has been done in this regard in chess and it seems that in the average game of about 30 moves (moving a single piece at at time. There are over 4.5 MILLION games outcomes in smart competitive situations. Now, multiply that by the factor of dice, multiple movement of units, game spaces, purchases and the fact that most AA games will see over 100 times that 60 units move factor and you have an utterly infinite combination of outcomes.

Which is part of the reason it is so much more entertaining than chess.

…or maybe just because we get to play with little tanks and planes.

As for my most epic comeback. I was axis. Berlin was turtled up with allies surrounding it in aa50. Japan was ready to attack moscow next round, I just had to survive berlin one more round. Rome was American

Allies all in berlin, uk goes first with about 60% odds. uk fails, usa goes with about 80% odds… fails. Germany scores improved artilly and blows up taking back territories. Japan goes to hit russia to end the game, with 1.5 tanks for every russian inf and 6 fighters for his 2… Japan loses hard.

Anyway 5 rounds later the game is still going the battles still raging. Germany blew up in europe to make 10 inf/arty a turn. italy only made 3 inf.

Japan with armor units to match infantry just couldn’t take russia every round 14 armor coming in hot, just no dice. Then the all in on berlin happens one more time… back to back uk / usa. usa draws with germany, berlin was empty.

then finally Japan took russia. uk failed berlin, usa got it. Meanwhile in the pacific. Japan in desperation attacked hollywood 1 armor and LRA that it discovered and took hollywood. USA had two armor on east usa, and japan defended.

that was epic.

I was rolling 3 tech rolls for about 10 rounds with japan and finally got something lol, perfect timing cos I just bought bombers on japan last turn.

17, the bid follows classic bid. you can go 20-13… jeez

STOP MAKING THIS MORE COMPLICATED. HE ASK SIMPLE QUESTION AND YOU MOCK HIM. THEN WONDER WHY FORUM HAS ONLY THE SAME PEOPLE.

But yeah I’d house rule against japan cheese and give axis a bid. It’s simple, you move in allies sz territories you declare war. thada!

I might peek in.

Too bad twitter doesnt have a dice roller lol