4 players

@Uncrustable:

Yes on the surface atleast it would seem to benefit the allies the most.
Maybe make a rule, No allied units may enter any original soviet territory.
This would tone down the advantage.

But right now (OOB) the axis are favorites, so it may not unbalance as much as one might think.

On the other hand, it removes the possibility for USA to open sea lanes for ANZAC forces to take islands, which helps out Japan a lot. And removes the possibility of USA grabbing Denmark and then UK hitting Germany right after it, which helps Germany defend western Europe more easily. I think overall it greatly strengthens the allies on land, but makes them a bit weaker on the ocean. Would be really interesting to see how these changes play out.

So in this variant, Germany and Italy would move at the same time? Same with USA, UK, ANZAC, China and France? I know they would all have separate incomes and therefore make purchases separately, but what about combat movement, combat and non combat movements?
Basically, would they be able to make combined attacks? Like German and Italian units both moving into France to attack Paris. Or USA and ANZAC ships combining to attack a Japanese fleet.
If so, that would be really cool. Also, it could be devastating to the European Axis if the USA and UK can combine their forces.

Well, making the India IC a minor, makes it even more trivial for Japan to take.
No allied units in Russia going to make it very difficult to hold Moscow. Can Russian units enter allied territory? With no retreat from Moscow option, I can definitely see it being more difficult for the allies to win.

I am liking the sound of this. If for no other reason, I like the idea of two or more countries’ units being able to attack together. We could get some really cool battles going on.

One other question: Since we are using the Global 1940 setup, are Russia and the US still neutral for the first 3 rounds (or until Axis attacks them)?

Hey all,
Not to offend anyone, but I am vehemently against this type of game. The historical reliability of the game would become too compromised. The US and UK would be limited in their strategic points of attack, for instance: The US in our games aims for territories in which ICs can be placed, and the UK uses transports and bombardment to attack the axis. The UK sends as many men as possible to Russia for defense, and the US aids Britian out by producing tanks and land forces with their ICs.
Tis kind of corporation is (for me) what makes A&A cool, that all these powers have to work together to defeat the axis. The axis have an advantage as they can (for the most part) attack as one group. All the allies attacking at once would prove devastating for the axis as well as a-historical.
Sorry uncrustable, but I just don’t think that this variation adds to either the balence or playability of the game. Again, I’m not trying to offend anyone, just inputting my opinion.
Thanks,

Hey Unscrustable, I thought I’d let you know about a post I put up in a thread a little while ago about implementing Canada.  You’ll obviously have to adapt it to your idea here, but otherwise I think it would work.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=29640.15

My posts are on the second page.

As for your idea itself, if I were to use it, I’d leave all the specific colours for each nation the way it is (not that it truly matters in the end).  I’d also leave all territorial gains to the country that actually did the work to get it.  I have no idea what that does for balance however, so I think I’d have to try both your style and OOB if I wanted to determine that.

I agree that this way of doing it is more historically accurate as well.

@Uncrustable:

Updated OP
Changed Allies to:

Allies. USAPac + USAEur + UK + France + China + Common Wealth Dominions (ANZAC, SAfrica, SWAfrica, Canada)
All South American gains go to Atlantic USA.
All Pacific islands gained go to Pacific USA, with the exception of all the Dutch islands and New guinea. (both to UK)
All other Pacific gains go to Pacific UK
All other Europe gains go to Europe UK
Movement restrictions for China does not change from OOB

Okay, I’m getting confused again. I see that you are combining UK Europe and UK Pacific into a single UK, and you are adding the new Commonwealth (ANZAC, South Africa, SW Africa and Canada). However, you didn’t change where the gains go to.
Wouldn’t any Pacific gains go to the Commonwealth now?
Perhaps any gains on the mainland go to UK, and the Dutch islands go to Commonwealth.
What about gains in Africa?

Also, this is just a comment, I think it’s weird that you split the US economy. That will take some getting used to. What about the US NOs? I would guess that the $10 for controlling EUS, CUS and WUS would go to US Atlantic, and the one for Mexico, SE Mexico, Central America and West Indies also go to US Atlantic.
The one for Philippines and the one for Alaska, Aleutians, Hawaii, Line and Johnston Islands would both go to USA Pacific, right?

We started a game using this idea yesterday. Got through the first round. Very interesting concept.
Japan DOW J1 so the US is in the conflict along with the rest of the Western Allies. Russia is still neutral on both boards right now.
For the Allies, it got a little confusing moving all of them at the same time. However, there were definite benefits in certain battles. They were able to hit the Axis in a number of places that weren’t wholly expected. One particular battle involved a Commonwealth (ANZAC) destroyer, British planes and US planes and cruiser attacking 2 German subs in SZ 91. It was really neat having all those different Allied pieces in the same attack.
The biggest winner with this new style was definitely Italy. Since they now move with Germany, and BEFORE the UK, Italy managed to sink the French and British fleets in the Med, wiped out the Alexandria force, took Egypt and has a strong grasp in Central Africa. They lost their sub and 2 destroyers but still have their battleship, both cruisers and all their air left. I think they will be able to grow through Africa pretty quick unless the Allies can do something to check them.
Most of the rest seems to be going just about the same as most regular games of Global. Of course it’s just the first round. Look forward to seeing how things work out in later rounds.

By the way Uncrustable, I know you said to have the US split 50/50 but I altered that a little. The Pacific side gets all the IPCs from that side of the board plus 1/2 of Central US. The Europe side gets all the IPCs from that side minus 1/2 of Central US. That leaves the US Pacific starting with 23 and US Europe starting with 29. However, the US Pacific actually has more NO money available so it about evens out.

I’ve been advocating this 4 power split for years now.

I would add that China should be split between Communist (USSR), Nationalist (western Allies) and Collaborationist (Japanese) forces, with only infantry ever being built in China.
Incidentally, the “red”, & “green” Chinese can fight each other (within China) without causing war between the Western Allies and the Soviets. Similarly they can each fight the Japanese without causing war with that block.

USSR and Japan were not at war until after Hiroshima; it could be argued that the USSR and the Axis were allies until June 1941. But there need be no official alliances between the 4 blocks. Maybe something to prevent a 3 on 1 ganging up? Also, a power cannot call off a war with another block once fighting has started; it is still always a fight to the finish.

@Flashman:

I’ve been advocating this 4 power split for years now.

I would add that China should be split between Communist (USSR), Nationalist (western Allies) and Collaborationist (Japanese) forces, with only infantry ever being built in China.
Incidentally, the “red”, & “green” Chinese can fight each other (within China) without causing war between the Western Allies and the Soviets. Similarly they can each fight the Japanese without causing war with that block.

USSR and Japan were not at war until after Hiroshima; it could be argued that the USSR and the Axis were allies until June 1941. But there need be no official alliances between the 4 blocks. Maybe something to prevent a 3 on 1 ganging up? Also, a power cannot call off a war with another block once fighting has started; it is still always a fight to the finish.

Two parties can always call an agreed upon truce.  Or you could call and agree to limited wars.  (I will only fight your troops in these territories,  and you can fight mine in them, if it spills over there are repurcussions).  Global 39 has a proxy war over finland that is cause for entertainment.

As for 3 ganging up on 1, it doesn’t happen,  because chances are that 1/3 will become so powerful, that 2/3 and 3/3 will want to prevent 1/1 from being eliminated to keep the balance of power.

FFA games, tend to balance themselves to a degree.  The only requirement is that you impost a time limit (20 turns)  so as to force players to fight, hungergames style.

If you allow 2 powers to call a truce, isn’t there a danger it will just become a game of gang up on the leader to stop any one player becoming too powerful?

Stalin toyed with the idea of an armistice with Hitler at one point, but the nature of the regimes involved was such that its really unhistorical.

Also needed:

If A is at war with B and C then B & C cannot declare war on each other until A is eliminated.

So that, for example, if the Western Allies had sent troops to fight the Soviets in Finland (which very nearly happened) then Germany would not be allowed to attack Russia (or visa versa) until the Western Allies had been defeated.

You can easily improvise Chinese pieces; you really only need infantry for the Communists (Russian pieces from another version). For collaborationists just treat them like any other Japanese infantry piece once placed.

Treating China as a united country makes it more of a problem for the Japanese than it really was; but if only infantry can be raised then of course the warfare is pretty static as it should be.