It has been confirmed on Larry Harris’ site. It is as we saw earlier in this thread:
1 Germany 2 USSR 3 Japan 4 UK 5 ANZAC 6 Italy 7 China 8 USA 9 France
I checked Larry’s site and could not find it:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2079
Can you please provide a link?
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2101&start=16
Thank you. You’re right it has been decided.
So UK gets anzac…obviously
US gets China…semi-obviously
Russia “could” roll for france, the 3 turns that it exists that is…just to give that player something to do while he is neutral
So UK gets anzac…obviously
US gets China…semi-obviously
Russia “could” roll for france, the 3 turns that it exists that is…just to give that player something to do while he is neutral
Well, that would be the traditional “obvious” way, but that’s the entire point of this thread: there are other ways to split it and what would be the pros and cons of splitting it differently?
4 Player Game
Japan
Germany - Italy
US - USSR - China
UK - France - ANZAC
If I ever play more than a two-player game (which sounds like a ton of fun but the first and last time i did it we only finished one turn and then everyone got distracted and it dissolved. It being one players first time did not help either.) then i will group it like this assuming six players…
Player 1- Germany
Player 2- Italy
Player 3- Japan
Player 4- U.S. and China
Player 5- Russia
Player 6- U.K., Anzac, France, and Canada (with whatever individualness it has or does not have)
I will do this for playability and historical accuracy. Each player will receive a power to play that will have plenty to do but not too much (Italy might be the weakest but there always fun to play and they will definitely help out with Germany who will have the most to do). Also, it makes sense (at least to me) when you think about influence. the U.K. was very closely tied with Canada and Anzac, and with France also (they were the first to declare war together against Germany). They may seem like they have a lot of countries, but the U.K. quickly becomes very weak (I find) if Germany begins to win. The U.S. gets China because (they always have) and although I suppose you could make a claim for Russia, it just makes more sense this way since the U.S. player will be far more bored (if you ever get bored playing a and a) than the Russian player who will be trying to frantically set up his defenses against the upcoming onslaught. Thoughts?
Here is my vote:
2 player game 1. Axis 2. Allies
3 player game 1. Axis 2. UK,ANZAC,France 3.USA,China,USSR
4 player game 1. Germany,Italy 2.Japan 3.UK,ANZAC,France 4.USA,China,USSR
5 player game 1. Germany,Italy 2.Japan 3.UK,ANZAC 4.USA,China 5.USSR,France
6 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK,ANZAC 5.USA,China 6.USSR,France
7 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC,China,France
8 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC 8.China,France
9 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC 8.China 9.France
10 player game ADD CANADA
My Original Thoughts
1 Player game: I’m the only person who is a big enough loser
2 Player game: Allies v. Axis
3 Player Game: Axis, Eastern Ally, Western Allies
4 Player Game: European Axis, Japan, Russia, Western Allies
5 Player Game: European Axis, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK/ANZAC/France
6 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK/ANZAC/France
7 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK, ANZAC/France
8 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US, China/France, UK, ANZAC
9 Player Game: Each for himself
This way is most historical
Now I’m with the “7th player gets all minors” Theory, however. I do also think still, that for 8 ANZAC goes free
1 Player game: I’m the only person who is a big enough loser
This is where I have the biggest disagreement with your thoughts.
silly rabbit. more people makes it more fun! plus your powergroupings sounds pretty fair
My Original Thoughts
1 Player game: I’m the only person who is a big enough loser
2 Player game: Allies v. Axis
3 Player Game: Axis, Eastern Ally, Western Allies
4 Player Game: European Axis, Japan, Russia, Western Allies
5 Player Game: European Axis, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK/ANZAC/France
6 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK/ANZAC/France
7 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US/China, UK, ANZAC/France
8 Player Game: Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, US, China/France, UK, ANZAC
9 Player Game: Each for himselfThis way is most historical
Now I’m with the “7th player gets all minors” Theory, however. I do also think still, that for 8 ANZAC goes free
Which countries are you including in your Eastern and Western Allies?
Eastern allies-Russia, China (as seen here, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_1940_06.png the chinese had no western components until december 1941
Western- All else
Eastern allies-Russia, China (as seen here, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_1940_06.png the chinese had no western components until december 1941
Western- All else
I disagree with your pairings for the 3 player game. One player gets Russia and China, and the second player gets USA, France, UK, and ANZAC. That pairing seems odd and imbalanced.
I think France will be with the ussr because Russia can’t attack till turn four if I’m not mistaken. Everything else would be the same as Anniversary with Anzac with Britian.
France will almost undoubtedly be controlled by the UK. There will be a French Navy on the board after the German invasion that will have to have a little synergy with the UK to keep the UK’s NO.
I think France will be with the ussr because Russia can’t attack till turn four if I’m not mistaken. Everything else would be the same as Anniversary with Anzac with Britian.
Russia can’t attack until turn 4 unless it is attacked by the Axis, kinda like the US, however, that doesn’t mean that it won’t end up being better for Germany & Italy to attack Russia sooner, so we’ll have to see how that turns out.
France going with UK is probably going to be the best as far as coordinating the navies, as Titus stated; so (assuming 3 Allied players) to give the US and USSR players something to do until they can join the game in full it should be a US/China - USSR/ANZAC pairing or a US/ANZAC - USSR/China pairing.
Okay I agree with the UK/France thing.
My new vote:
2 player game 1. Axis 2. Allies
3 player game 1. Axis 2. UK,ANZAC,France 3.USA,China,USSR
4 player game 1. Germany,Italy 2.Japan 3.UK,ANZAC,France 4.USA,China,USSR
5 player game 1. Germany,Italy 2.Japan 3.UK,ANZAC,France 4.USA,China 5.USSR
6 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK,ANZAC,France 5.USA,China 6.USSR
7 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC,China,France
8 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC 8.China,France
9 player game 1. Germany 2.Italy 3.Japan 4.UK 5.USA 6.USSR 7.ANZAC 8.China 9.France
I want it politically historical, with Russia/China, and the others
As far as China goes, there’s just as much historical politics supporting US/China as USSR/China. The US has the most political ties with the incumbent government at the time (UK had a good amount of influence as well, what with Hong Kong being considered a British colony and all), hence the usual A&A pairing of US/China; what you’re talking about as far as USSR political ties would be with the insurgent communist forces on the other side of the civil war; these forces ended up winning, bringing about the communist China we have today.
If your only consideration is the political aspects of China during WW2, it could be paired with any of the 3 major Allies.
