Axis & Allies Global Confict - 3rd Edition Released

I don’t know who won yet because we haven’t finished!  We play on Tuesday nights, so we continue the battle this week.

How many turns do your games normally last?  Our other “Big World A&A” variants usually last 5 to 7 turns before someone surrenders.  We are guessing this game will last 10 to 12 turns before we agree on a victor.

I agree with you on supply tokens, it is interesting enough to justify the extra time.

When a Aircraft Carrier is destroyed in a kamikaze attack, I recommend putting the aircraft on CAP to allow them 2 moves to land.  This should probably be covered in the rules not only for Kamikaze, but for retreats as well.  While defending in a naval battle, if you lose an Aircraft Carrier, then the attacker retreats, you may be in the same position of needing to land fighters somewhere new.  It seems simple to put them on CAP then the player lands them as according to the rules.  It also seem to be the ‘minimalist’ rule in that you simply leave the fighters in the sea zone then then move them on your turn in the Land CAP Phase.  With only 1 space, the defender may often lose the fighters due to lack of location to land the fighters.

I like your change in convoy rules.  I’m guessing the income will be the same 90% of the time.

NEUTRAL TERRITORIES - My first thought was to make the Neutral setup consistent with the “Unlikely Alliance” optional rule.  South America should be very weak as well because they relied on their distance from Europe and Japan for defense.  Here is my first guess at a neutral setup:
Venezuela - 1 Infantry and 1 artillery
Peru - 1 Infantry
Argentina - 1 Infantry
Rio de Oro - 1 Infantry
Afghanistan - 2 Infantry
Mongolia - 2 Infantry
Ireland - 1 Infantry
Sweden - 5 Infantry
Switzerland - 9 Infantry (Its rough terrain)
Angola - 1 Infantry and 1 artillery
Mozambique - nothing.
Turkey - 1 fighter, 4 Infantry, 1 artillery
Western Turkey - 1 Infantry.
Spain - 4 Infantry, 1 artillery, 1 bomber, 2 blockhouses.
Spanish Morocco - 1 Infantry
Portugal - 3 Infantry

Perhaps neutral do not need to ‘auto heal’ as suggested.  It might be more interesting to to have the enemy of the attacker choose who they ally with on an unsuccessful attack, and immediacy put their control marker in the territory and replace the neutral units with their own.  For example, if Germany unsuccessfully attacks Spain, the allies get to choose who Spain will ally with.  If the Allies choose the UK, during Germany’s turn, after the failed attack, the UK changes out all Spanish units with UK units, puts a UK control marker on Spanish Morocco and Spain, and increases the UK income by 2.

Craig

Night 2 playing!  We completed turn 5 tonight. The game went much faster after the first round.  A few rules questions came up.

USA developed Strategic Rail Movement.  When it says you can move 2 spaces during non-combat in “territory you controlled” during since the beginning of your turn does that mean any allied controlled territory, or native and conquered territory?  As written, I would say only in native or conquered territory.  But it seems odd the Italians could use this across conquered North Africa, but the USA could not use it in Russia or India.

Battleships seem way too cheap at $20.  One persons opinion is that they should be $25.  I think maybe even $30.  After a slow opening, the USA is now on a Battleship binge, and has 8 battleships in the Pacific.  There is nothing that can even damage the USA fleet.  Another thought was to keep the price at $20 and have them not auto-heal, but require the battleship to end a turn at a friendly navy port and pay $5 for repairs.  Kamikaze attacks are somewhat futile because it takes 2 hits to sink a Battleship, this would statistically be 4 Kamikaze’s x $8 = $32 to sink a $20 Battleship.  Its not that the USA fleet is unstoppable, thats expected given their income.  Its that the USA fleet is undamagable.  This problem is not unique to Global Conflict, but to the self-repairing Battleship unit.

We expect the USA to end the game in 4 or 5 turns with the axis peaking at 18 or 19 victory cities.  We will continue playing to see what happens.

There was one small preference to reduce the naval units by 1.  I tend to agree.  I think between the cruiser, destroyer, and escort, one of these could be eliminated.  But this was a very minor point.

Overall this is a great game.  It is very well balanced with a huge variety of strategies to try out.  I can’t wait to finish the game next Tuesday.

Craig

Battleships should take 2 turns to build along with carriers.

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

OH yeah,

NEUTRAL TERRITORIES - my group had the same sediments as your. They also mentioned that they would prefur neutral powers with actual unit setup.  I think i will have to revise the rules to include neutral setup.  (if the attacker loses, the netural will automatically rebuild any destroyed units)  do you have any ideas for a neutral setup?

yeah, make your Neutrals large enough that if some one wanted to attacke them, they would need More then a couple guys and A fighter to be succesful.

Spain,  and Sweden, should have 4 inf, 1 tank and a fighter

Turkey should get, 5 inf, 2 tanks and Fighter

Switzerland 4 Inf, and Fighter,

S. america.
Argintina, 4 inf, 1 tank and 1 Bomber
Brazil, 4 inf. and a tank,
the rest of S. Amerika gets 2 inf and an Arty in each Neutral space.

The african Neutrals also give them 2 inf. and 1 Arty

Any other Neutrals, 1 inf and 1 arty will be Sufficient.

My 2 cents.

ps  Neutrals rebuild if they are not Conqured when Attacked.

My neutrals countries I use the White British Peices from D-Day.  The Bomber is in Argintina for the fun of it.  :)

Nice try, Deaddyhead, but in real world Sweden was the strongest of the neutrals. They mobilized 360 000 men of high quality, made their own Saab fighters, and after WWII ended had the nr 3 largest airforce in the world, after USA and USSR. The Bofors industrial complex also made a lot of 88.flak, heavy artillery and tanks. Sweden also had the strongest fleet in Baltic sea in 1939 before Bismarck and Tirpitz came.

So I would give Sweden 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1AA-gun,1 fighter, and 1 destroyer.

Turkey mobilized 400 000 men on horseback, but of low quality.
So I would give Turkey 4 inf because mountains favour the defender.

Spain was just finished with 3 years of civil war and almost every man in age 16 to 50 dead and had a very little army of 30 000 men during WWII
I would give Spain 4 inf, because the mountains favour the defender.

Switzerland cant be invaded in real world because the Alps. They would just block the passes, and nobody come in or out.

The rest of minor neutrals get 1 inf, no more

I agree with what u say completly.

But for game play, I made mine large so that the Attacker would have to think twice about their decision to attack a Neutral.  I wanted the Attacking player to ask him/herself the Question, Do I reallly Need/want to expend the resources required to Conquer that territory.

or are the Casualties I will take worth the new territory.  I am trying to prevent people from invading Neutral Countries Just on a whim or cause there is nothing else for them to do.

I have also toyed with the Idea if a Neutral is Invaded and that invasion fails, the Opposite Powers would take control of said Nation.

ex.  Britain Invades Spain and Fails.  Since UK is an Allied player, the Axis Powers would take countrol of Spain and there Starting Military.

I love the Idea Of Neutral ships, or even a Vichy French Fleet.

We decided to call our first game and start a new one.  This was everyone’s first game of Global Conflict, and as expected, we did some crazy things while learning to play.  It was a close game, but it is likely the Allies would win.  We’ll start game #2 tomorrow.

I really like the individual and team victory condition for the Axis.  In the last game, if we had continued, Germany would have taken the 4 Victory cities in Russia, and Italy would have taken the 3 British victory cities in Africa.  The totals would have been Germany 8, Italy 5, and Japan 5 or 6 but falling rapidly.

There was a realization that the Axis could have won if Italy had allowed Germany to take the Tobruk and Egypt victory cities.  This seemed awfully “cheesy” to everyone.  Italy could attack and destroy most of the units, then retreat, and allow Germany to “walk-in”.  This would have given Germany the 2 more victory cities it needed to meet the victory condition.  Is it really different for Germany to control a Victory City instead of Italy?  We didn’t have any great ideas on how to “fix” this, or if it even needed “fixing”.  It just seemed like an unsatisfying way to win or lose the game.

Being unfamiliar with the map, some of the guys marked all the victory cities with wooden spools to make them easier to spot on the map.  I made little flags to put in the spool to show who owns the victory city.  I’m not sure how useful it is to game play, but is sure looks cool.

We started our second game.  Two rules questions came up regarding submarines:

#1:  One USA and one UK bomber attack a German sub.  The allies choose the USA to attack first.  The USA bomber misses and the German sub submerges.  Does the UK bomber get to shoot at the sub?

#2: One USA bomber attacks a German sub.  The USA bomber misses and the German sub submerges.  The USA fleet can now move through the sea zone with the submerged German sub during non-combat movement.  Can the UK fleet also move through the sea zone with the submerged German sub during non-combat movement?

We are all playing much better.  This is by far the best large map A&A game our group has played.

Craig

I’d be happy to add a Neutral setup chart.  I can probably get to it this weekend.

I like the change and clarification to the submarines and battleships.  The repair for battleships is appropriate for a $20 cost.

Komakazi’s are fun as they are without the ability to defend.  They are a challenge to position.  They were used in our games to play ‘chess’ with the American fleet.  While the economics might not look good, the ability of a Komakazi to choose its target is very powerful.  I’m not sure any change is needed.  I’d have to try the change to be certain.  I’ve previously posted that Komakazi’s might be over priced or under powered.  I’ve changed my mind since playing the Japanese.  :-D

All 5 of us really like the technology development how it is now.  Everyone enjoys the roll and watching their country advance.  In all other Axis and Allies games we have chosen to play without technology development.  Global Conflict is the first game we actually liked the technology development process.  In our first game three countries developed a technology by the 5th turn.  Two of them were useful, and the players had a fun time adjusting his play around the new development.  It is fun advancing the 5 stages to completion for a technology.  Once you develop a technology it takes a turn to adjust purchases, then a turn to exploit the technology.  This allows all the players time to adjust.

The reason we don’t like technology development in other games is that it can make or break a game with a small roll.  A player may choose to ‘bet the game’ on their first technology roll.  Here is an example.  Say the German player believes he can win the game if he gets super submarines on the first turn.  Whether he gets them or not, or even whether he is correct on his thinking or not, the game will be over by turn 2.  The German player will ‘bet everything’ on getting super submarines; perhaps by purchasing all submarines on the first turn.  If he doesn’t roll super submarines he is screwed.  If he gets that 42% chance and develops super submarines he wins.  At least he wins if he is correct on the technology being too strong.  Or he loses if he was wrong about the technology.  Either way the game is over by the second turn.  We prefer the strategic play, not the gamble play.

If you do keep the change in technology, you might have to lower the odds of developing a technology a little.  As they are, there would be an average of over 2 technologies developed each turn.  Thats a lot to digest and might make a radical change in the balance of the game.

I’m not too worried about the change in technology.  We can always play with it as is, or we can do what we normally do and play without technology.  Global Conflict will still be an awesome game without technology.

I really appreciate all the effort that has gone into making Global Conflict.  It shows it the excellent balance and depth of play.  I look forward to its evolution.

Craig

Oh yea.  And I withdraw my previous comments on Blockhouses.  They are very balanced at $5.  The UK has used them to great effect to defend islands in the South Pacific.

Craig

So how does this Blockhouse unite work ?

cost 5, defend on 4 ?

On the first round of combat, the blockhouse hits on a roll of 3 or less and can choose its target among enemy units that just got off a transport.  Other than that it defends on a roll of 1.  This is an especially effective defense for islands.

I think Blockhouses should target ships, like AA-guns target aircrafts.

Maybe roll dice in Opening Fire phase ?

Amphibous Assaults would go like this:

1. Opening fire.
   AA-gun roll one dice to each aircraft, every 1 is a hit, target aircrafts, remove casualties
   Blockhouses naval bombard,  every 3 or less is a hit, target ships, remove casualties
   Battleships shore bombard, every 4 or less is a hit, target land units, remove casualties

2. Attacker roll dice as usual

3. Defender roll dice as usual

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

Blockhouses were essentially heavily fortified pillboxes. There purpose was to target enemy units in the process of landing.

In that case Blockhouses sure must roll dice during Opening Fire Phase, because after the landing the attacker have moved far behind the remaining Blockhouses. So Blockhouse defend on 3 or less in Opening Fire Phase, and are later taken as first casualty and used as fodder.

1. Opening Fire Phase:
   Defending AA-guns roll dice against aircrafts
   Attacking Battleships shore bombard, every 4 or less is a hit, target land units
   Defending Blockhouses barrage the landing crafts, every 3 or less is a hit, target amphibious landet land units

2. Attacker roll dice (defending Blockhouses are used as fodder)

3. Defender roll dice

an so on as usual

This is how we use block houses.

BlockHouse cost is 5
Can be placed in any Territory u controled at turns begining.
Max per territory is = to IPC value

Att. @ 0
Defend @ 2 (3 if there is a defending Arty in same space )
Move 0
2 Hits to kill

Preliminary Bombardment of a 2 during Amphibious assaults