Just Keep Churning Em Out, WoTC, Hasbro

I understand that you are upset by the closure of TripleA and Wizards of the Coast.

That should have read:
I understand that you are upset by the closure of TripleA and that you are upset with Wizards of the Coast.
I’d bet that you would be happy with the closure of WOTC.

@WILD:

Emperor, I don’t think you read all my remarks.
@WILD:

I also hope that by keeping them separate will force the UK to spend the ipc’s generated by the Anzac in Australia, or at least get a large Commonwealth NO that is earmarked for the Commonwealth IC’s. The key is forcing the UK to spend $ in both oceans, but giving it enough money to do so.

If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game. There could also be a NO for commonwealth linked to it. Money talks.
Also it sounds like there will be an IC in some of the commonwealth tt. What stops the UK from investing in those areas is they have to first buy the IC only to see Japan target it. Now that that decision will be made for them I think the UK will invest $ down under (maybe forced to by rule).
I am wondering when/how Anzac will take its turn in the global game.
1)Two separate nations (like Germ & Italy)
2)Separate but together (like US & China)
3)All together, Anzac & Uk separate units but attack/def as one power.
Although the US had command of the pacific the Anzac was still part of the UK commonwealth. However if the Anzac were given option#3 it would be cool if they could give up there part with the UK and attack w/US later in that round. Kind like a joint strike.
I think the allies will try to get the most out of their minor powers Anzac, China and even the French.
I also agree the oob should dictate balance in each theater, not a house rule.

I see what your saying, but i it is my bet that even in the global game they will have sperate turns. If pacfic is being balanced for austrlia and the UK to half seperate turns then it will not change simply because europe is thrown in the game.

I vote for at least separate economies

@Brain:

I vote for at least separate economies

yah defenetly, i dont think anyone disagrees with that

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Brain:

I vote for at least separate economies

yah defenetly, i dont think anyone disagrees with that

Oh I assure you somebody does.

Sounds like in AA40P 2 separate nations :In the global game they take their turn together.

Q  1. Being as Canada is a Commonwealth of UK, and ANZAC is a separate power, how will that play out in the “full” game, both economically and with territories?
Larry:
In the Global game both the ANZAC and Canadian forces will probably be controlled by the UK player.
Q    2. Will ANZAC control all of the UKs territories in the AAP map, with UK controlling the ones on the Europe map?
Larry:
No, again the UK player will control all commonwealth territories in the global game. I’m not 100% sure about this however… In the AAP there will be a dedicated UK player - based out of India and the ANZAC player out of Australia/New Zealand.

Sounds like in AA40P 2 separate nations :In the global game they take their turn together.

They take their turn together, but are their economies separate.

@Rakeman:

The problem isn’t one of making the game “more historical,” but into a game about World War II in some way.  The fact is, in WWII, the Japanese and Russians were not at war, while in Axis and Allies, if you are playing to win, Japan will likely conquer much of Russia.  This didn’t happen in WWII solely because of a piece of paper, but rather because Japan would not have been able to conquer Russia.

Yes, give the players options.  But why make the BEST option also one that would have been 100% impossible in WWII?

I’m all for abstractions, such as all units costing the same and functioning the same for each nation, units not representing real world units in a 1:1 ratio, etc.  By all means, give the player an option to invade Russia as Japan- but make it so that, like in the real war, this course of action proves to be extremely difficult- NOT the best strategy.

Same thing goes for America and Britain completely ignoring Japan.  That would have been absolutely insane, yet in A&A, it’s the best thing the Allies can do.  Just imagine it… “Well, we got Berlin.  Yeah, Japan owns the entire world outside of North America and Europe, but we have Berlin!”

Maybe we need an altered “Economic Victory” option.  If any one Axis power gets 20 IPC more than they started out with, automatic victory for that Axis power and loss for the Allies (and perhaps the other Axis power, if played by separate players).  Or with victory cities, give Japan and Germany their own unique targets.  If one Axis power gets their targets, they win.

Use victory cities. they add much fun to the gamen especially for shorter games (12VC’s)

At this point we don’t know Larry said he’s not 100% sure how the global game will handle the Anzac (still testing?). Looks like he is leaning towards the UK controlling both. I would sure like separate units (they are given different colors anyway), which would allow for separate  economies, even in a single UK turn. We’ll just have to wait until word comes down.

It should be seperate with lend lease option.
Send it to their factory, they can use it next turn.
Since Britain and US lended so much there shoul be an optiom for this.
This gives ANZAC and Canada a role as a player and force.

@coachofmany:

It should be seperate with lend lease option.
Send it to their factory, they can use it next turn.
Since Britain and US lended so much there shoul be an optiom for this.
This gives ANZAC and Canada a role as a player and force.

Agreed.

Yea lend lease would be good. US is pretty close via transport. The lend lease could also be done with NO’s (like Russia in AA50). The Anzac would most likely need US/UK to reach its goals, just like China will need help keeping the Burma road open.

We will be paytesting that this weekend.
Italy received a lot of hardware from Germany too!

C’mon SgtBlitz, you know you will be buying all these games.

Personally I think the thing that makes this game so good is the fact that you can become cooperative with the Germans as you play with the Japanese. I feel that to make the game play more historically is to still have an incentive system like there was in AA50. Also to help with the Japanese tank push from the East, just make more territories in Russia and make them worthless (fact is that 90% of Russia’s economy was in Europe), and make it more appealing to the Japs by having India and South Asia be wealthy, thus forcing a IPC starved Japan player to have no choice but to push towards Australia or India for the best economic outcome. And finally the biggest thing: the Allies have to lose two nations to lose the game. Historically Germany missed taking Russia by sheer luck and Britain was a massive amphibious assault away from losing it as well. So I think it would be perfect to have Germany, Italy and Japan as the Axis and Britain, ANZAC and India together as one and also Russia and US as the allies. If any two of those fall the Axis win, no victory if Russia falls thus making it much more imperative for the Japan player again to push East and not West so that a quick victory is possible. What do you guys think about having to have two allied powers fall before victory for the Axis can be declared?

All of my games have been played that as long as you can still fight you are still in the game

I like that idea, but since the US was so powerful by itself I think we have it end if two of the four are taken. If Larry wants to make the game accurate he should make the US almost as powerful by itself as the two Axis powers, making it imperative that the Axis focus on Asia, Europe and the Pacific to gain more income because that is exactly what they wanted to do, make it to where they could call the shots at the bargaining table. Germany would work on starving out Britain while conquering Russia. Japan would try to make itself economically self sufficient enough to where they could dictate or at least have a say in all matters in the East, accomplishing this by invading the British and French economic strongholds of South Asia and making Australia a non factor by either invading or starving it out as well. Also eliminating it’s long standing rival China in the process. Make the game real by having little economic incentive to invade Russia so if the Japan player does this it leaves her open from strong attacks by China, Britain (India) and ANZAC, not to mention the juggernaut, USA. Make that tactic virtually suicide, the Japanese commanders considered it, and decided against it because they would gain little and end up losing a lot, something their little economy could not afford to do.

He did. America makes 50 IPC in the pacific alone…thats twice as big as any two Allies put together…and thats just in the Pacific!