Axis & Allies Global Confict - 3rd Edition Released

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

UPDATED 11/02/08

Version 3.3 Complete Packet with improved and updated Graphics (graphics require Power Point 2007)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/gime0wygmau/Global Conflict 3.3.zip

New Screenshots of Axis & Allies Global Conflict Setup

Another picture of the board set up, compliments of craigbee. http://www.craig-bartell.com/images/map.jpg

In a nutshell Global Conflict is a game that combines the best from A&A Europe and Pacific on a large 30’ X 60’ modified Europe-Pacific world map.  Elements from other A&A versions have been added as well, though they are not nearly as extensive. A 5 player game can be completed in six hours! due to Global Conflict’s simitanious movement system. (The rulebook is a carbon copy of the Axis & Allies Revised Edition rulebook with any changes, additions, or deletions highlighted in red for your convience.) All Global Conflict Versions use Global Conflict Map 3.1

Changes include but are not limited to:
Mechanized Division unit
Blockhouse unit
Air Transport/Paratrooper unit
Japanese Kamikaze unit
Cruiser unit
Escort unit
New Technologies and Tech Rules
Revised Convoy rules to stimulate more naval battles
Supply Tokens used instead of traditional IPC’s (does a lot to to balance gameplay)
Optional National Advantages for each nation.

Previous Versions
Version 3.2 Complete Packet with New Graphics (graphics require Power Point 2007)
http://www.mediafire.com/?scnjytnzhnd
Version 3.1 Limited Graphics
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ehbczz4au54

And once again, thanks for everyone here and elsewhere that helped with the project.
-Bob A Mickelson-

Post any questions, suggestions, or game reviews here.

[CraigBee]

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

[Imperious Leader]

Yes this is very interesting!

It will take time to digest however.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

1. What is the road between Berlin and Rome used for?  Same with the road from Chungking and Calcutta?
Rome-Berlin Road
  If the German-Austrian-Roman Road is open at the start of Germany’s turn, the German player may purchase and build one unit at the industrial complex in Northern Italy during Germany’s turn. Once mobilized, this unit immediately becomes Italian controlled.
  The German-Austrian-Roman Road is considered open as long as none of the following territories are under Allied control: Germany, Austria, and Northern Italy.
Burma Road
  If the Burma Road is open at the start of the USA’s turn, the USA player may purchase and build one unit at the industrial complex in Szechwan. This unit immediately becomes Chinese controlled.
  The Burma Road is considered open as long as none of the following territories are under Axis control: Calcutta, Northern India, Burma, Yunnan and Szechwan.

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”.
Thanks

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?

To play without Mechanized Divisions
Simply omit them from the setup.

To play without Air Transports
Simply omit them from the setup

To play without Cruisers
Replace all cruisers with destroyers (destroyers get combined bombardment tech instead of cruisers)

To play without blockhouses
(i dont know, never tried it that way)

To play without supplies
not recommended cuz it gives an unexpected advantage to the allies.

The game setup will be altered slightly before May, to help give Germany better chance in Europe, as they appear to struggle against russia a bit too much.  This is the result of further play testing. The new setup will include a new naval unit called an escort. To play the game without escorts, simply omit them from the setup.  We found that the mechanized divisions were a bit bland the way the rule stands. they have now been revised as a 4ipc unit that attack 2, defend 2, move 2, can carry one land unit, and cant blitz.  it makes a more interesting and useful unit.

I would highly recommend playing with the air transport unit.  They are unexpectedly fun to play with and add alot of depth to the game, without dominating it.  It would be very much worth it to paint up some original a&a bombers (with two of the four engines cut off) to use in the game.  you can usually find them cheap on ebay.  Of the newer units i think that they are the most interesting and encourage more unique strategies, albeit they are not necessary to have in the game.

I also recommend playing with each alliance going at the same time, as recommended in the rulebook.  It keeps you much more involved in the conflict and less board, plus it speeds the game up alot, without breaking the game.

[Imperious Leader]

Can you please recolor the nations is the same colors we have in revised.

Medium grey for germany rather than blue

Burnt orange for japan

Drab olive for usa

Khaiki for uk

Red brown for USSR

It looks like the frenchies took over the world with all the french blue.

Also, the German Roundels are something from ww1. need the + icon.

everything else is fine, except the sea zones need a thicker line, and the font used for the sea zones is not readable…at least not easily especially 3, 6,9,and 8

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

The way I created the map does not allow for easily changing the nation colors, as a result I do not have the time required to make such artistic changes.  Please feel free to make any color changes you wish to the map.

[CraigBee]

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

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

@CraigBee:

Thanks for the clairifications.
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?

That is correct.

@CraigBee:

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 consistent font size?  Or the third option, is my old version of Word displaying these fonts incorrectly?

This is intentional.  The size 8 font is simply historical commentary. In a sense the size 8 text is not necessary at all.  It simply provides a reason for the optional rule.  And in case you are wondering all of the size 8 text has been carefully researched and is true. Fell free to change the font and style of the rule book if it is difficult to read for you.

I hope this helps.

[CraigBee]

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”.

[CraigBee]

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?

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

Offensive units mean that the unit does not have an attack value (a.k.a. the attack value is 0)  This bonus is applied to attaking and defending units, notice the astrics.  Therefore for cruisers to recieve the bonus your units (and your  allies units on defense) must consist of 1 or 2 cruisers and any number of transports, as they dont have an attack value.

[CraigBee]

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.

[CraigBee]

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?

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

No.  It is not a canal, however i have toyed with the idea before, but decided that gameplay and stratigies are more instresting with it being a regular seazone.  Do you have a specific reason why it should be considered a canal, other than its a narrow strait? Because I dont feel that that alone is sufficient, given that passage through gibralter and past denmark is allowed.

[CraigBee]

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.

[CraigBee]

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

[CraigBee]

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

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

Version 3.1 with updated set up has been posted
http://www.mediafire.com/?xlox1uvu2tw

Once again this is a balancing of rules.
Basicly the phase sequences have been tweaked to stimulate battles in convoys.
CAPs have also been reinstated.

Craig bee your victory conditon assumptions are correct.  It will be real hard, as it should be, for any single axis player to win individually.  Basicly impossible for italy.  As far as transporting multinational forces is concerned.  follow the spirit of the origional a&a rules.  when using siminitanious movement. load you troops onto your ally’s transport on turn 1 (either before or after it moves) then unload it on on turn 2 (either before or after the transport moves again)  a careful reading of the rules will support this point of view.

Also this point is crucial for game balance.  you are never allowed to have two attacking powers in the same battle.  if both UK and USA invades normandy on the same turn.  The allies decides who invades first.  Lets say thats the UK.  The UK then conducts combat with germany. If uk wins then the american force will never even fight the germans, they simply offload in a noncombat supporting role.  If the uk loses the americans will then fight a battle with the germans.  Nomatter who goes first you may never use say an american battleship to bombard during the UK invasion. Just like the UK is not allowed to use USA fighters in its invasion of normandy.  doing so would completely destroy the intergity of the game, as each country would be able to specialize in building one type of unit.  This would result in a 2 nation game, not a 8 nation game.

[CraigBee]

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

[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