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.
Ok, so the GLOBAL game will be 6 players standard.
But I see no reason why you could not make it 7 if ANZAC can hold their own in the Pacific version.
Thanks for the Answer!
It could be 9 if you wanted, as well, with France and China.
I think ANZAC forces will be replaced with UK units.
There is no reason to keep ANZAC as a separate force in a global game.
…or canadians. :-P
6 players:
-Japan
-Russia
-Germany
-UK/France
-Italy
-USA/China
That is pure speculation
That is pure speculation
isnt it all?
That is pure speculation
Sorry, I’m unemployed and can’t pay for insider tips. :-D
…but but a voice whispered to me, thet there will be another global game setup, too.
I think ANZAC forces will be replaced with UK units.
There is no reason to keep ANZAC as a separate force in a global game.
…or canadians. :-P
6 players:
-Japan
-Russia
-Germany
-UK/France
-Italy
-USA/China
Larry Harris has said the ANZACs will be in the global game and they will start with forces in egypt.
I think ANZAC forces will be replaced with UK units.
There is no reason to keep ANZAC as a separate force in a global game.
…or canadians. :-P
6 players:
-Japan
-Russia
-Germany
-UK/France
-Italy
-USA/ChinaLarry Harris has said the ANZACs will be in the global game and they will start with forces in egypt.
Well then that would make 7 at least.
Larry Harris has said the ANZACs will be in the global game and they will start with forces in egypt.
That is awesome! Even if there is an alternate set-up with UK player controlling ANZAC, I see no reason why ANZAC could not successfully play alone if another wanted to jump in on the fun.
Playing FRANCE would be a short game so I don’t think that is viable… unless more “Free French” troops could be gathered throughout the game.
As for CHINA, I have had a player control it in AA50. Better to have seat at the table with a small power than no seat at all!
You could have that 7th person play Anzac, China and France (regardless of turn order or turn sharing). That should keep his interest. At some point the Allies might lose say China/Anzac, but could liberate France. It would be a game with in the game to see if you could keep that 7th person alive as F Marshal mentioned earlier. The one thing I don’t see happening in the game that happens a lot in AA50 is trading France. I hope (Larry hinted) that France gets an influx of units when liberated to stop the trading. It could actually be cool to play the French if they get back in the game. Kinda like it was cool to play Italy (minor power) in AA50.
I would go as far as saying AA40P is really a 3 player game for best enjoyment (other then one on one). Jap vs the US/China then Anzac/UK. In AA40p the Anzac and UK seem to be about the same size, but you could split them if you have an extra person. I think that the six player suggestion for the global game is because the UK will obviously be much larger. The Anzac will be about the same (about 1/4 the size of UK) which will make it just a minor power or extension of the UK.
I think it would be cool if the Anzac could actually do combined attacks with the UK and maybe even the US. Do you hear that all you National Advantage guys out there. I know combined attacks are off limits with major powers, but the Anzac I don’t think would rock the boat to bad.
@Brain:
And it will be even better with FMG pieces. Oh yeah! :-)
I saw a picture of an italian tank.
Will FMG produce japanese tactical bombers, too? :?
I like this 7th player idea, controlling France, China and ANZAC.
But I don’t believe that there will be ANZAC playing pieces in AA Europe 40.
This is the complete list of what FMG will produce for each country.
Naval Units:
Transport
Submarine
Destroyer
Cruiser
Carrier
Battleship
*Task Force Marker (Similar to AAP)
Air Units:
Fighter
Bomber
Dive Bomber (TAC Bomber)
*Air Transport
Army Units:
*Infantry (Two Sculpts each)
*Armour (Two Sculpts each)
Artillery
Half Track
*Truck
*Commander Unit
Other Units Bonus:
*Major Factory
*Minor Factory
*AA Gun
*Bunker Unit (fortification)
*Naval Base Unit-Marker
*Air Base Unit-Marker
*Army HQ Unit-Marker
*units are those which are not currently found in AA40
Separate ANZAC command is ridiculous in Global.
All such forces were completely under UK command until Spring 1942, when they were handed over to the USA under the SWPA command of MacArthur, who based his HQ in Australia. There is at least as good a case for India being a separate power as the ANZACS.
One idea I’ve considered for simple individual victory conditions is “Best of Enemies”.
This separates the war into it’s 3 core conflicts; Germany vs USSR in Europe, Italy vs UK in the Mediterranean, and Japan vs USA in the Pacific.
Each player gets an “honourary” individual win if his core enemy is defeated first; e.g. the British will always argue for an invasion of Italy rather than Germany.
Wind the clock back to 1940 and it becomes a little more complex; France would probably see Germany and Italy as equally dangerous; the USSR would regard the western capitalists as the main enemy rather than their German socialist brothers.
However the ultimate objective will always be to defeat the enemy alliance, and there will inevitably be an optimum means of achieving this; in Global this will probably still be the Moscow tank magnet, regardless of any obstacles the designer throws in it’s path. Only a rock solid Russo-Japanese NAP will prevent this, and for 1940 the timing is wrong.
Separate ANZAC command is ridiculous in Global.
It is not needed, but if you wanted to add a seventh player it would be nice.
Only a rock solid Russo-Japanese NAP will prevent this, and for 1940 the timing is wrong.
You seem to forget that there was also a no-attack-treaty or alliance, between Germany and Russia. Guess what happened?
In A&A we can do different things than the real WW2 commanders did. If you disagree with this, then you are advocating for a completely different game than A&A has been from Classic to AAP40.
