So I know most of the games online here are 1 on 1, but for those of us who still play in real life and play with multiple players, what do you think about who should control what powers since the Allies will now have 6 to choose from?
I know Revised had rules concerning which player controlled which powers (4 players = 1 to each w/ 4th player getting US/USSR), and AA50 stated that China was controlled by the US player, but 1942 doesn’t have rules regarding who controls which, and as far as I can remember Pac40 says that China can be controlled by whichever of the 3 (possible) Allied players. I’m assuming Eur40 will be similar with 3 possible Allied powers plus France being controlled by whoever wants to control it, in which case it doesn’t matter so much who controls it.
However, I anticipate the Global Game will probably be 2-6 players as AA50 was, since I imagine anyone just playing ANZAC in the Global Game would be kind of bored (though 7 players may be possible), so you have a balance of 3 Axis players max (one each controlling Germany, Italy, and Japan) with 3 Allied players max. The question is, which 2 powers should each player control?
One could go with the “traditional” pairings of China/US-ANZAC/UK, leaving France/Russia as the third (rather strange bedfellows, but France should usually be out of the game r2 at latest…).
A second option could be a “regional” pairing of European France/UK, Asian China/Russia, and Pacific ANZAC/US (a set I tend to prefer as of now).
The third option would be an “oddball” pairing of China/UK, ANZAC/Russia, and France/US.
What do you think?
Or in the global game Germany could control Italy while UK gets Anzac and possibly Canada, the US would get China leaving France and Russia alone.
What do you think.
Of the options presented, I actually prefer the ‘oddball’ option, for two reasons:
(1) ‘Geographical’ distance. Each Allied player gets a power on a different continent, which means a fuller involvement in the unfolding of developments in secondary theatres of combat. This also ensures a diversity of strategic options and input in a given area, making Allied moves less predictable for the Axis player.
(2) Balance of unit types and purchasing options. UK, ANZAC, and US all need to buy naval units to participate fully in the war. Russia, France, and China, on the other hand, will largely be buying infantry and trying to check aggression on the mainland. So distributing the partnerships between these two sets ensures that each player has access to buying and using the full range of land, air, and naval units, resulting in a more satisfying play experience for all.
The other options are all playable, of course. Ultimately, we’ll just have to do some field testing to resolve this question… literally dying for this bloody Europe game to come out!
Or in the global game Germany could control Italy while UK gets Anzac and possibly Canada, the US would get China leaving France and Russia alone.
What do you think.
That sounds like my “traditional” pairing, but I was assuming 3 Axis players. Of course, if there are only 2 Axis players, it makes the best sense to have one player play both Italy and Germany.
Of the options presented, I actually prefer the ‘oddball’ option, for two reasons:
(1) ‘Geographical’ distance. Each Allied player gets a power on a different continent, which means a fuller involvement in the unfolding of developments in secondary theatres of combat. This also ensures a diversity of strategic options and input in a given area, making Allied moves less predictable for the Axis player.
(2) Balance of unit types and purchasing options. UK, ANZAC, and US all need to buy naval units to participate fully in the war. Russia, France, and China, on the other hand, will largely be buying infantry and trying to check aggression on the mainland. So distributing the partnerships between these two sets ensures that each player has access to buying and using the full range of land, air, and naval units, resulting in a more satisfying play experience for all.
The other options are all playable, of course. Ultimately, we’ll just have to do some field testing to resolve this question… literally dying for this bloody Europe game to come out!
That’s a good point as far as diversity goes; if each player has a power in each of the regions, it keeps everyone involved in the big picture possibly providing for better teamwork.
I also realize there are other combinations other than these three, but those combinations would have to involve some “mash-up” of these three I guess you could say “themed” groupings…
You must take into account wainting times. Since both USSR and USA will start at peace, you should give at least another country to prevent them getting bored. Soviets will be attacked probably round 2, so they should receive France, that is going to fall early. USA will be attacked round 2 or more probably 3 (I don’t see much games attacking J1, this is not AAP40), so they should receive China that is going to hold at least until USA enter war
If waiting time is not issue, then you should play proximity teams, specially if you have few physical room: soviets with China, UK+France and USA+ANZAC
And for on-line game you need consecutive turns palyed by the same or games will get too slow, since we have:
1 Germany
2 USSR
3 Japan
4 UK
5 ANZAC
6 Italy
7 China
8 USA
9 France
Then the pattern is clear: soviets alone, then UK+ANZAC and USA recieves USA+Fra+China, this way you can make all the moves in one row
In real life, you can probably mix the teams depending on what people want, no problem
But I agree with Func, for online gameplay, it could be wise to group the nations together to increase the speed
I can see what you mean, Omega, about pairing based simply on what fits your group. I can see a lot of people going with a traditional UK/ANZAC, US/China, and France with whoever since a lot of AA50 strategies could easily be adapted to a spread like that. For my group I was looking at the regional idea because, as Functioneta pointed out, it’s easier to be able to have all your pieces in one general area as a player, plus my group doesn’t seem to get a whole lot of cohesion going together and can end up screwing each other’s strategies up. But for a good group that likes diversity the split groupings might be good.
Definitely the online setup should be as streamlined as possible… I agree with you there, Functioneta.
Another interesting grouping might be to have one player be the UK/US to be able to coordinate the battle of the Atlantic better, while another controls ANZAC/China in the Pacific, and France could go to either of the last two depending on whether the USSR player wants another power or is willing to give the ANZAC/China player a third for the lack of a “major” power. UK/US would have UK immediately in battle with US building up, ANZAC/China would immediately be in the fight, but would have the challenge of low income vs. Godzilla Japan, and USSR would have France for a little bit while they’re still preparing.
well how many players would be playing? We have 3 people. My group was thinking of splitting it up. Axis, then half and half allies
I was assuming the maximum number of players, assuming that’s 6.
I had been assuming the Max number of players to be 7
The three axis, Germany, Italy, Japan
The three allied, US, UK, USSR
And a fourth allied player, who controls France (the early powerhowse under threat), China (the caged animal by turn 3), and ANZAC (The power that doesnt do much of anything untill after turn 3)
This minor power player would have enough to do throughout the game that it would be almost worth playing
France will still be a power after paris falls, we just arent sure how much of a role it can/will play after turn 3
China will be more resilent in the global game because Japan wont be able to empty manchuria and Korea with russians on the border, even if there is a pact, you have to at least leave a token force i hope to enforce the pact. Also the US can dip into its European money if the going gets tough in the pacific. So china, if played well, might live on in a limited role for the entire game
And ANZAC is distant enough from Japan that they wont be under siege untill some time after turn 5, so that player has at least untill then to fool around on that front
The important feature of a 4th allied player is so the major players dont get to use the minor powers as their lap dog, there is a seperate commander, and a separate definition of victory. ANZAC wont just funnel units to India, China wont make suiciadal attacks for the US and France will try to hang on as long as it can, rather than inflict the most pain on germany.
I think Italy and the ANZAC should be played by the same person.
I think the turn order is going to make a difference on how the pairings should go.
I think Italy and the ANZAC should be played by the same person.
there on different sides
Germany and China should go together then.
I hadn’t really considered 7 players… :-o
Germany and China should go together then.
there still on different sides
the only axis nations are Italy Germany and Japan
I like to hedge my bets.
I think Italy and the ANZAC should be played by the same person.
there on different sides
Execute the traitor.
Germany and China should go together then.
there still on different sides
the only axis nations are Italy Germany and Japan
He’s messing with you, finnman, it’s not a serious suggestion.
