Posts made by CraigBee

Special Cash Advance:  I would be very interested to hear where the special cash advance has been spent by those who have played this game.

For the Axis, it makes a lot of sense to give it to the Japanese.  All units, except Russia and China, defend on a 1 against the Japanese the first turn.  That extra 12 production in the Japanese hands should be able to do the most damage.

For the Allies, it would make sense to avoid putting the extra 12 production where the Japanese can kill it.  I am guessing that the best places to put the extra 12 production is in either the Russian front against Germany, in Northern Africa for the UK, or in China.  For Russia, 4 infantry could really slow down the Germans.  For the UK, North Africa is nice because its hard to get units there and it will slow the Italians down significantly.  In China, 4 more infantry would significantly slow down the Japanese.  Perhaps even buy 2 tanks in China to give all that Chinese infantry some offensive power.

How have you seen the 12 extra starting production used?

Craig

On page 14 of the rules, under “Submarines” it states “Die rolls of two and three for fighters and two, three, or four for bombers must be assigned to surface naval vessels.”

I assume if the defender has fighters on an aircraft carrier, those fighters could also be chosen as casualties instead of only surface naval vessels as written.  I suggest re-writing this sentence to “Die rolls of two and three for fighters and two, three, or four for bombers may only be assigned to defending units other than submarines.”  I recommend changing the word ‘must’ to ‘may’ because it is possible that three aircraft all roll 2, but the defender only has 1 sub and 2 transports defending.  There is to unit to assign the third hit, therefore it ‘must’ not be assigned.

Bob. Thanks for the updates.  I like the change made where players collect income at the before combat.  This means they must hold a convoy box to collect its income.  I think that will make play much more interesting.  Now you have to hold territory to get the income, not just conquer it.

I really look forward to playing in a few weeks.  I pick up the map at the printers tomorrow!

Craig

The rules for Transports on page 8 states:
Transporting Multinational Forces
   Transports belonging to a friendly power can load and offload your land units. This is a three-step process.
1. You load your land units aboard the friendly transport on your turn.
2. The transport’s controller moves it (or not) on that player’s turn.
3. You offload your land units on your next turn.

When playing simultaneous movement, does this mean the German transport that starts in sea zone 38 can move to sea zone 39, pick up an Italian infantry and tank in Northern Italy, move to sea zone 30, and drop off the Italian infantry and tank on Malta to attack the British fighter?  Can the Italian battle ship provide shore bombardment for this amphibias invasion?  Is this previous three step process now a one step when playing with simultanous movement?

Craig

Yet another question  :-D  I am just so excited to play this big Axis and Allies variant.

The victory conditions seem incredibly for the axis to meet.  To get 10 victory cities, Japan would have to take everything from China to India, to Australia, to New Zealand.  That certainly seems like a large task.  Germany can take the entire Soviet Union, and that only gets them to 8.  I’m guessing 9 and 10 come from India, or China, or England.  That’s seems very difficult indeed.  To get a combined 20, I’m guessing Italy takes all of Africa for 5, Germany takes 2 in the Soviet Union for 6, and Japan takes 9?

From people that have played, have you seen an Axis victory?  How did it happen?  Which victory condition was met?  What victory cities were conquered?

Thanks again for you commentary!

Craig

OK, I got to ask.  What did you order and how do you see it being used?

I’ve searched the site, and only found the dice as being useful.  I am probably not thinking creatively enough to figure out what cool things you are buying and using.  What are they?

Historical Reason: The Dardanelles straight connects the Sea of Marmara to the Agean Sea, and the Bosphorus strait connects the Sea of Marmara to the Black Sea.  Both straights require submarines to surface due to the shallow depth, and both have bridges over them.  With even the most primitive weapons, those on shore could prevent a boat from traveling through if they so desired.

Game Play Reason:  By calling the Dardanelles and Bosphorus a ‘canal’, it gives an additional strategic reason for Germany to invade Turkey.  In the Global Conflict rules of neutrality violation, Turkey should be an easy conquest: 0 value for Western Turkey and 1 for Turkey.

My opinion: I slightly favor making it a canal, but do not have a strong opinion either way.  My most important goal is to understand the rules so when we play on the 4 Tuesdays starting May 20th I know the rules and can explain them ahead of time.

BTW, in reading through the rules today, you have done a spectacular job in writing very clearly and organizing the rules overall.  I think you have done a great job combining well known rules into a huge game.  The more I tell my friends, the more all of us are looking forward to playing.  Thanks for all the hard work you have done so far, and for taking the time to answer all my questions.

The rulebook discusses the Panama and Suez canal on page 3 and 4.  Is the Dardanelles straight between Sea Zone 43 and 44 considered a canal?  Does one need Turkey’s permission to move boats between these two sea zones?

Are the Blockhouses worth purchasing for Germany?

To answer this question, I devised an experiment.  What would be the best 30 IPC defense against an allied amphibious landing of 4 infantry and 4 tanks?  For 30 IPCs, I tried the following defensive purchases and ran a simulation to check the odds of a successful defense:

10 infantry defend 77% of the time.
6 tanks defend 24% of the time.
6 blockhouses defend 41% of the time.
3 blockhouses and 5 infantry defend 70% of the time.  This mix has a huge variance.  If the 3 blockhouses get 2 preemptive hits, they defend 85% of the time, but if they only get 1 preemptive hit, they defend 56% of the time.

My conclusion is that infantry is a better defense than blockhouses on a cost basis.  The benefit of the blockhouse is that it can be built in place, where the infantry have to be built at a factory and moved.  However, this is offset by the fact the infantry have the flexibility to be redeployed if Germany determines that a shore defense is no longer wanted.  The blockhouse cannot be moved.  The inability to move is a significant deterrent to the blockhouse purchase.  For example, if the allies land in Normandy, the blockhouses in the Netherlands and Germany become mostly worthless fodder.

I ran the same experiment with blockhouses costing 4 IPC instead of 5.

7 blockhouses (28 IPC instead of 30) defend 78% of the time.
4 blockhouses plus 6 infantry defend 98% of the time.

At 4 IPCs the blockhouses become about equivalent of infantry defense on their own, but become a great defense when added with infantry.

We will start playing Global Conflict on May 20th, so I am preparing all the game components and carefully reading the rules.  I’m guessing at a cost of 5 IPC, Germany won’t buy any blockhouses, but at 4 IPC, Germany may be enticed into purchasing some.

It would be pretty awsome to have a world map at this scale  :-D :-D

Cruisers:  The rulebook says “cruisers attack and defend at 4 or less during the first round of combat in battles in which your offensive units consist of two or less cruisers.”

Does “offensive units” mean you must be on the attack?  Or do you receive this bonus on the defence also?

Does “units consist of two or less cruisers” mean that you ONLY have 1 or 2 cruisers in the fleet?  e.g. would you recieve the bonus if your fleet consisted of 3 destroyers and 2 cruisers?

Is Western Turkey a seperate territory from Turkey?

Can an Axis tank blitz through a neutral territory with a zero value?  (e.g. Afghanistan)?

Gramatical error: The first sentence under “9 Naval Production” on page 10 says “Although small and scattered throughout the world, your naval bases have managed to proved their worth.”  This would sound better if the world “proved” was changed to “prove”.

Thanks for the clairifications.

I found the section in the rules that covers the Berlin-Rome and Burma road.  They both appear in Appendix 2: Nation Specific and Optional Rules section.  I am used to Appendix being used for to clairify rules, give examples, or have optional rules.  This made be think this entire section was optional, but upon closer reading it appears that the Nation Specific rules are mandatory, but each nation has a few optional rules.

If I read Appendix 2 again for Germany, Wolf Packs are mandatory, but Impenetrable U-Boat Bunkers, Atlantic Wall, Panzerblitz, Swiss Railroads, Luftwaffe Dive-Bombers, and Unholy Alliance are optional.  Is this correct?

The Unit Profiles in Appendix 1 fit very much what I normally expect in an appendix.  In this case unit explaination.  I would recommend moving Appendix 2 in front of Appendix 1 and not calling it an appendix.  Perhaps leave the optional Nation specific rules in the appendix and the mandatory rules before the appendix.

I also spotted some odd fonts in the document.  For example, on page 17 under the “Doolittle Raid” section, the font is a mix of size 8 and size 9.  I see this in several sections.  Is this intentional?  If so, what does it indicate.  If not, can it be corrected to use one consistant font size?  Or the third option, is my old version of Word displaying these fonts incorrectly?

Craig

I can’t wait to try this game!  The five of us in Kansas City will be playing in late May.  To prepare, I’ve started reading the rules carefully and have a few questions.

1. What is the road between Berlin and Rome used for?  Same with the road from Chungking and Calcutta?

2. There is a missing word in the sentence on page 16, under “Optional Rules”, section “4. Unlikely Alliance”.  The first sentence currently reads “During the 1930s Spanish civil Mussolini”  The word “war” should be inserted between “civil” and “Mussolini”.

3. To play without Mechanized Divisions and and Air Transports, do we just setup without them and play normally?  Or is there some compensation for any country that should have them?

Craig

The new setup charts refer to India, yet the map has split India into 3 pieces (Northern India, Southern India, Calcuta).

I’ve also got a finished draft of some attractive setup charts I’d like to email to you for approval and posting.

One aesthetic suggestion on the Neutrals: Make the impassible a different color from the neutrals that can be invaded or flown over.  Perhaps use sandy yellow or orange for the impassible and the same white for neutrals that can be invaded.

Also, is there a setup chart for the neutrals?  The rules say they can be invaded by the Axis, but I can’t find what units start in the neutral territories that can be invaded.

Thank you for all the additional information and explanation.  A great deal of though has obviously been put into this game.  There are 5 of us that regularly play games together.  It will be my choice of game in May.  We’ll try this game in May and post some feedback.    Even with play testing already being done, it is always a surprise what a new group of people find :)

We have tried simultaneous movement in Axis and Allies variants and found it created some new dynamics to the game that were not anticipated.

For example, with regular turn order, the British may liberate France and then the Americans would reinforce.  This generally meant that the British needed the strength to capture the territory, and the Americans would move it behind the British with a more defensive force.  With simultaneous movement, the British and Americans could both attack simultaneously.  This meant the Germans needed a stronger defense and the Allies individually could be weaker as long as the combined force was enough.

There were also some odd movement scenarios.  For example, with separate movement, the Americans might clear a sea zone with a Japanese transport in it, then the British could move through the sea zone to attack an adjacent territory.  With simultaneous movement this was not possible.

Overall, we found simultaneous movement to be a completely different game than the turn based game.  It required significant new rules and balance.  In the end we decided to stay with a turn based game.  I am very interested to hear about the simultaneous movement experience tried with this game!

Also, can you please PM me with your email address.  I’ll put the setup charts into a nice format.  I’d prefer to email them to you for approval so that you maintain control of the ‘look and feel’ of the game and it meets the objectives you have for quality and appearance.

Craig

I have enjoyed playing 3 different large map Axis and Allies variants.  This one looks exciting.  I have some feedback, questions, and suggestions:

1. Victory condition.  I love the Axis victory conditions that allow for an individual axis to get victory or for the combined forces to gain victory.  This will certainly accomplish the goal of preventing the allies focusing exclusively in one theater.  One point of feedback: The victory condition is 10 victory cities for either Axis power, or 20 total.  If the axis have a total of 20 victory cities, doesn’t that mean Germany or Japan must have 10?  (Is the 20 total mathematically redundant?)  i.e. if Germany has 10 and Japan has 10 victory cities, that is 20 combined.  Should the individual number be raised or the total number be lowered?

2. German Blockhouse.  Would Germany every buy these?  At 5 IPC, wouldn’t a tank just be a better defense?  What advantage is there to a Blockhouse that would make it preferable to a tank in defense?

3. 2-hit tank for Germany.  While 99% of the time I favor the simplicity of fewer unit types over the complexity of many unit types, I am very intrigued at the 2-hit tank suggestion for Germany.  Especially with a production limit of 1 per turn or something similar.  This would create a most interesting combat option for Germany.

4. Balance.  Our group has played many games of the Global War large map that is somewhat similar to this one.  We found the Axis to be extremely overpowered.  This was primarily caused by an unstoppable Japanese Navy.  On the surface, this map seems to suffer the same overly huge Japanese navy.  Howeever, it does seem to be offset by a low Japanese starting income and difficult situation in China.  How much play testing has been done?  Am I incorrect in my initial assessment of the Japanese navy?

5. May I help out by making the setup charts?  I have made some rather nice looking ones for one of the other large Axis and Allies variants.  I am not proposing to change the set up, rather make some attractive looking set up charts that are easy to use and assist game play.

Craig

@Deaths:

I do not think that taking 2 Tanks and 100 pts of Jap Navy away will help.
If you are using Posi’s set up charts, you should be using his IPC values also. the allies make WAY more then the Axis. I have played around 25 games on this map now and itr plays pretty even, The axis have won almost half of our games.
Besides the Axis should steam roll the allies for a couple of turns, then get thrown back, It’s all about the Dice. :p

I am interested in what rules you have used.?
If you are interested I will post what rules we use.

We are playing 100% positronica’s original map, rules, and IPC values as posted in the start of this topic.  I’d love to play you (Deathhead) to see what you do with the allies.  Your play experience must be very different than the games we have played.  We’ll be at the Board Game Geek Convention in Dallas November 15 to 18.  That would be cool if you were able to make it.

Craig

I will have 3 big map Axis and Allies variants at board game geek:
Jeff Stein’s “The War Game”, Positronica’s “Global Conflict”, and TripleA’s “Big World: 1942”.  It will be open gaming Thursday with scheduled games at 8am on Friday and Saturday.  I’ll have a display and signup sheets somewhere in the convention hall.

Hope to see you there.

Craig

@Marquis:

We used Positronica’s set up and we arn’t sure if it’s balanced or not - the Axis won but it might have been more to the ineptness of the Allies.

We have played 4 games and found the Axis to be far too powerfull.  Our current guess to try and balance the game is to remove 2 German tanks about 100 IPCs of Japanese Navy and Airforce.

I would be very interested in other peoples opinion of balance.  Perhaps we are stuck in some sort of ‘group think’.

Once balanced, I think this map will be the best of all A&A variants.  It is just awsome and well thought out with the navy bases, convoy boxes, and airbases.  I think just the initial set up needs to be modified.

Craig