but i would prefer having a small house rule where Russia can attack China. “The War Game” had that, and i think its a great idea!
but i would prefer having a small house rule where Russia can attack China. “The War Game” had that, and i think its a great idea!
What would be the point of that? Russia getting extra IPCs?
realize im only typing a full sentence so this comment isnt deleted.
but if i could i could just post the word
yes
but i would prefer having a small house rule where Russia can attack China. “The War Game” had that, and i think its a great idea!
They are on the same team in the game, so I am totally opposed to this.
realize im only typing a full sentence so this comment isnt deleted.
but if i could i could just post the word
yes
Ok, that’s what I figured, but my point is that it would be counter-productive for Russia to waste IPCs in risking their own units to waste IPCs to kill units of a country that is on the same side to gain some territories worth 1 IPC…
Ok, that’s what I figured, but my point is that it would be counter-productive for Russia to waste IPCs in risking their own units to waste IPCs to kill units of a country that is on the same side to gain some territories worth 1 IPC…
I guess the only advantage would be if you needed more troops in the European theater than in the Pacific theater.
I think they were sorta on the same side…recall that china was going through a civil war at the time. The communists won for a reason. They had help.
US And ANZAC
Germany and Italy
Japan
USSR and France
UK and China
@Dylan:
US And ANZAC
Germany and Italy
Japan
USSR and France
UK and China
Anzac should go with Britain and the US should have China. Plus Italy should be an independent power.
@Dylan:
US And ANZAC
Germany and Italy
Japan
USSR and France
UK and ChinaAnzac should go with Britain and the US should have China. Plus Italy should be an independent power.
Ok, the point of this thread was to discuss reasons and ideas for how to combine the powers between different numbers of people, because there are reasons why someone might want to combine USSR with ANZAC and US with France or something like that.
With the “China can be controlled by whichever of the Allied players” in Pacific 1940 rather than being designated to the US only (as in Ann. Ed.), LH and Co. are recognizing that it isn’t necessary to have specific powers together as long as the turn order is followed, so the players can choose what they want to do; so let’s discuss what we will do with this and give reasons rather than simply stating our opinions without backing them up. There are good reasons why ANZAC should be with UK, but other people may not see them unless you say what they are, or agree even if you do; so let’s have some discussion on the topic.
Also the power groupings would depend upon how many players that you have.
@Brain:
Also the power groupings would depend upon how many players that you have.
Right; with different numbers of people. Obviously that affects how the countries are split up, which also brings up questions of how to split it with different numbers of people.
For Axis it pretty easy:
1 player gets all three Germany, Italy, and Japan
3 players each get one of them
With 2 players you must decide and I think the decision is pretty easy:
One player would get Japan and the other player would get Germany and Italy
So the debate is how to divide up the Allied players when you have 2 through 6 Allied players.
You need to sort if evenly spilt the roles. You can’t have one Person US/RUS and another CHI/FRA.
UK will play a massive role in this game. It will have Africa and the med which I think will be a great battle, India, and Brittan which means the airwar for it along with D-Day sometime+plus the atlantic.
Been that it was in a pact with France and will have units there (BEF) they should be alligned.
Russia will be fun to play now. It will be hard to defend the whold front, but aircraft and where to put them will be important (scambling aginst SBR) and their might also be a tiny naval war for Archangel sea zone. And another fun thing for Russia will be defending aginst the orginal Russian attak. Been that China have a similar thing (land war) they should go togeter.
The leaves the US to go with the ANZACs, who where under use command, and battle together (coral sea).
Uk will be big, but remember they are spread sooo thin
Exactly; meaning they will be making the toughest decisions throughout the entire game. Every UK IPC will have to be carefully considered… :wink:
And also the breaking point of the Axis. If Italy carnt get North Africa of the Middle East, or if Japan cannot get India, or if Germany cannot make an impact on allied shiping (espically UK conveys) in the Atlantic, they carnt win.
Believe me, if the Axis can get on top of the UK, they are well on the way of winning.
Okay back on topic……
How would you break up the Allies for 2 players.
My thoughts were UK, ANZAC, France for one player and USA, China, Russia for the second player.
the global game is going to be awfull for our group, we only got 3 players
that will mean recuiting! :D
but then axis will be played by one, while axis by 2?
or all allies at one player?
@Frontovik:
the global game is going to be awfull for our group, we only got 3 players
that will mean recuiting! :Dbut then axis will be played by one, while axis by 2?
or all allies at one player?
With three players, you almost have to have one Axis player and 2 Allied players so that each player has 3 powers.
