Question: Number of Players in AAE/AAP40 World Game

China is a independent power this time, so:

• Germany
• Italy
• Japan
• USSR
• UK
• ANZAC
• France
• China
• USA

9 independent powers … however, France will be toasted round 1 so I guess the max will be 8 players. For the optimal amount, from 4 to 6. I’ll guess for 4 players:

• Germany & Italy
• Japan
• UK, ANZAC, USSR
• France, China, USA

i understand they are independent, but each power will not be cotrolled by a seperate player.  they will have their own turn and economy, but will be controlled by the same player

my guess is 6 players

1. United States & China
2. United Kingdom, ANZAC, France
3. USSR
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Italy

Considering that the Allies (US, UK, USSR) will be doing very little during the first few game turns, it might be wise to give each of them a pawn to control during the global game to keep everyone rolling dice.

USSR, should control France
US, should control China
UK, should control ANZAC

In practical terms, you could divide the minor powers up and disth them up any way you wish, even adding a 7th player if you wanted to

my real question is what will the turn order be in the global game? will france even get a turn?

1. Germany?
2. Russia?
3. France?
4. Japan?
5. UK?
6. ANZAC?
7. Italy?
8. China?
9. USA?

@oztea:

my real question is what will the turn order be in the global game? will france even get a turn?

1. Germany?
2. Russia?
3. France?
4. Japan?
5. UK?
6. ANZAC?
7. Italy?
8. China?
9. USA?

Based on AAP40 this is my guess, the turns should alternate between sides evenly.

1.Germany
2.Soviets
3.France
4.Japan
5.US
6.China
7.Italy
8.UK
9.ANZAC

I think IL had mentioned in a different post that the US could even be played by 2 people. Both sides will have large incomes, and it is believed those incomes will be ear marked to a specific theater. I think it would be cool. It could even be comical if they don’t agree on certain strats.

yea but you know if the game needed 50 players, some people would still just play 1 vs 1, because no matter what they can’t get the concept that the key dynamic in these games is the idea of having a team of different strengths and loose coordination, rather than these home preparation of exact machine like coordination of pieces. It is more fun to have competing strategies just like in the real war.

In my games it will be 2 players: Germany, Italy and Japan against USSR,France,UK,ANZAC,China and US.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@oztea:

my real question is what will the turn order be in the global game? will france even get a turn?

1. Germany?
2. Russia?
3. France?
4. Japan?
5. UK?
6. ANZAC?
7. Italy?
8. China?
9. USA?

Based on AAP40 this is my guess, the turns should alternate between sides evenly.

1.Germany
2.Soviets
3.France
4.Japan
5.US
6.China
7.Italy
8.UK
9.ANZAC

No, the one smart thing that they did with the pacific, that most people don’t even realize, was eliminated the can opener crap.  With the US being the first allied power to go, UK and ANZAC cannot can opener for them.  This is the #1 reason in my mind why aa50 '41 is bugged.  Ideally, it would either be Germany/UK/Italy/Russia.  Any other order is just asking for trouble.  But no matter what, germany must go before Italy in relation to russia’s turn.

Six.

UK Gets ANZAC what other combonation could there possibly be, i mean really, it is the ONLY possible combination

3 major allied powers, vs 3 major axis powers, divide the 3 minor allied powers amongst the allies (ANZAC, China, France)

It isnt going to be……

Germany + Italy
Japan
Russia
USA + China
UK + France
ANZAC

Italy is a major player this time around

Order of Start, Global Game 1940:

Germany
Russia + France
Japan
UK +  ANZAC
Italy
USA + China

This is what I was told from some inside person.

@Imperious:

yea but you know if the game needed 50 players, some people would still just play 1 vs 1, because no matter what they can’t get the concept that the key dynamic in these games is the idea of having a team of different strengths and loose coordination, rather than these home preparation of exact machine like coordination of pieces. It is more fun to have competing strategies just like in the real war.

I totally agree with you, but you know how it is. It is extremely difficult to find more than 3 or 4 buddies that volunteer to play with plastic soldiers a whole weekend. Not to say 50. The local gaming club where I live only have like 12 memebers, and they prefer to play Euro-trash. So if you want a multi-mulit-player game you 'll need to to online, and you know how it is online, after turn 3 half the players dont show up.

But to our amusement lets say you actually find 6 volunteers, just what does it take to awoid the 1 leader against the other leader ? The answer is simple. We need individual Victory Conditions. And that will never happen as long A&A is considered to be a Team Effort game. The Community will have to change that by start Tournament Play with Individual Victory Conditions, and change the nature of the game step by step. Either that or mail WOTC.

You could try victory aims.

UK-Italy
USA-Phillipans/Paris
Russia-Warsaw

Germany-Starlingrad
Italy-Cairo
Japan-Honolou

We could have 2 easy, 2 medium, and 2 hard; depending on how long you want to play for

@Imperious:

yea but you know if the game needed 50 players, some people would still just play 1 vs 1, because no matter what they can’t get the concept that the key dynamic in these games is the idea of having a team of different strengths and loose coordination, rather than these home preparation of exact machine like coordination of pieces. It is more fun to have competing strategies just like in the real war.

You of all people should know that A&A is very, very, extremely and immensely far from the real world.

And it is very difficult to get more than one person to commit to more than 3-4 hours of play, but if I play 1vs1, it’s much easier to get that single person to resume the game the next day, or at least pretty soon. More than that, and it’s not gonna work, resulting in an unfinished game, that’s my experience.

No pun intended, I’m just stating facts :-)

I for one, would like to see the implementation of individual victory conditions. That way, you’re still trying to stop the other faction from winning in general but you have your own concepts of what is required for victory. It could mean less coordination between the powers in either faction - we could see belligerence and greed, and that would be nice! The spoils of war.

For a competitive game, it can be a pain individual victory conditions. But for a narrative campaing, it can be good: imagine scenarios of Cold War or Alternate Cold War (Germany vs Japan after winning WWII). It can suit for a 1939 campaign or even a 1936 one, but it would need way time and diplomatic rules so I think that is best for online play

Axis and Allies is a 2 player game. Always has been and always will be. It may be more fun for some with additional players but then it is a team effort not an individual one required to play the game. It would be like watching a baseball game and trying to pick an individual winner. It ain’t gonna happen.

I think 4 players would be ideal for the global game that way you don’t have players losing interest. Axis is obvious G & I, then Jap by itself. Pretty much splits were the maps come together. Allies might be cool to split the two theaters also. 1 play Euro side (Russia, England/Canada/Africa, France, E US. The other play China, W US, India, Anzac. Of coarse you can work together but have your own agendas (NO’s).

Even AA50 is fun this way, and it keeps it more of a global game. I would not treat it as totally separate theaters, you still need a certain amount of cooperation. Russia will find itself aiding China/India (protecting its interest), or given the chance Jap will still invade Africa/Russia etc.

I’m not sure if each power will still have its own turn in the global game, or if there will be powers taking their turns together like China/US in AA50. Larry has hinted that the UK player will most likely play France I thought talking about its fleet and what not? Maybe the rules will be somewhat vague (imagine that) and allow players to do as they feel fit, as long as each power still gets its own turn.

By the way if you can find more then 6 to play (and stick with it) more power to you. I have a hard enough time getting 3-4 at a time, especially if the game has to be played in more then one sitting. I would think the six max is more of a suggestion, you can do what you want. Adding that 7th person will give you more standing around though.
On another note my son and I were playing a 1 on 1 (AA40P) last night and a college friend of his stopped by. After a rd or two (newbie) he jumped in and took over the UK. Of coarse I (as Jap) finished him off, but I think he will play again. One thing to say that because of the political situation in this new game the first few rds can be a little boring, especially for a newbie. I waited til 3rd rd to attack w/Jap. Plus the political rules are a little over whelming. I would suggest a first rd attack with Jap if playing with newer players, even if it is detrimental to Japan (although I don’t think it handicaps Japan that much anyway). That way there is more early battles to keep interests stronger.