Yes, they can do that even if the powers are at war. The presence of a sub belonging to an enemy power does not block movement.
Marsh
Power Groupings - Global Game
-
Is that near Lake Woebegone?
Does that show still air on NPR? I haven’t heard it in a while…
-
@Yoper:
This is my guess:
Two player game: One player controls all Axis powers (Germany/Japan/Italy) and the other controls all the Allies (the remaining powers).
Three player game: Each player controls one of the following powers or group of powers - all the Axis powers, United Kingdom/ANZAC/ France, and the United States/Soviet Union/ /China.
Four player game: Each player controls one of the following powers or group of powers - all the Axis powers, United Kingdom /ANZAC, Soviet Union/France, and the United States/China.
Five player game: Each player controls one of the following powers or group of powers- Germany/Italy, Japan, United Kingdom/ANZAC, Soviet Union/France, and the United States/China.
Six player game: Each player controls one of the following powers or group of powers- Germany, United Kingdom /ANZAC, Italy, Soviet Union/France, Japan, and the United States/China.
Is this what you want or what you think will be in the rulebook?
-
I really think the power groupings will be optional.
-
@Yoper:
Four player game: Each player controls one of the following powers or group of powers - all the Axis powers, United Kingdom /ANZAC, Soviet Union/France, and the United States/China.
No, I don’t think so. For 4 players, you want a 2vs2, so it’s:
- Japan
- Germany+Italy
- UK+Canada+France+USSR (assuming FTF, is better having the one dude at each side of the board)
- India+ANZAC+China+USA (same reason. You can split the UK income as you wish, OOB or not, you can guess what I’ll do :-P)
For online, allied split should be, for saving time reasons:
- UK+USSR
- USA+China+France
-
@Yoper:
WotC has a way of changing things after it leaves our hands.
Is that when they insert all the typos, broken rules, and slash the amount of pieces down.
Can anyone give me a good reason why they don’t sell extra pieces?
-
Do you want the real reason or a good one.
-
So since the UK income is going to be split to India (OOB at least) I can see a much better case for UK/ANZAC than I was originally going off of since India may need the help from ANZAC being closest in the Pacific. However, would it be more important to have US/ANZAC working together and have the UK/France navies paired in the Atlantic? How greatly will the India split affect groupings?
-
I definitely don’t see USSR player taking on France roll as well. The USSR player should be alone as soon as there are enough players.
-
Or with china
-
@Brain:
@Yoper:
WotC has a way of changing things after it leaves our hands.
Is that when they insert all the typos, broken rules, and slash the amount of pieces down.
Can anyone give me a good reason why they don’t sell extra pieces?
WOTC does sell extra pieces! Very reasonable too. Its called Axis & Allies 1942.
-
WOTC does sell extra pieces! Very reasonable too. Its called Axis & Allies 1942.
That won’t help me get bunkers and Italian pieces.
-
@Brain:
WOTC does sell extra pieces! Very reasonable too. Its called Axis & Allies 1942.
That won’t help me get bunkers and Italian pieces.
So sorry Brain. I guess you rill have to rait on FMG.
-
The ideal game I think is 2 vs 2. When we play AA50, we would choose sides, then powers.
Player 1 Germany/Italy
Player 2 Japan
Player 3 Russia
Player 4 US
We would then split the UK to theaters, or share them every other turn. At times the UK would be assigned to one person, and the US was split/shared. Seemed to work, and gives the Russian player a little sea action.In the global 40 game I think there may be suggestions oob, but I think that will be left to the players, as it should.
I would think that 4 players (2 vs 2) or 5 players (2 axis vs 3 allies) would be awesome. You really need a partner to talk things out, or make sure your not missing something. This will be a very intense game and simple mistakes will be costly. 4-5 players should keep everyone’s interest as well. If Italy is more of a major power this time then a sixth would be ok, but even that is stretching it IMO w/down time.
For the axis its obvious, one gets Euro axis (G & I), one gets Japan. Although I think Japan and Italy may find them selves working together more in Mid East, Africa, and Indian Ocean then before.
The allies could be split into theaters as well. The UK already has a split income between both theaters, and China/Anz are on the Pac side, France would just be tossed in w/Euro side. It would be more life like to have the US split in two as well, and see the two US players negotiate a strat.
With that said it will be tough to get 2 players to play just the Pac side once Europe comes out. Everyone will want a hand on the Euro side. Maybe a theater split would be better played later once the dust settles.
I will try to put together a 5 player game for our first global 40 game:
Axis - G & I / Japan
Allies - Russia & China / US & Anz / UK, France & India
(might allow US player to control France 1st two rounds, then turn over to UK, so US has something to do)This way at least all three allies are involved in both sides, and one person in my group doesn’t like sea battles to much. I also think Russia has a good chance at keeping China in the game a little longer, while the US & Anz will need cooperation just like in the war. Whats left of the French fleet will end up merging w/UK fleet, and the same will go for French units in Africa. India will give the UK player a little flavor in the Pac side as well, although it will be an A$$ Whipping.
If we only get 2 allied players I think it would be:
Allies - Russia, China, India & France / US, UK, & Anz, (maybe get France after round #2 is complete)
As I said one person doesn’t like sea battles much, and he will be able to control the continental minors around him. (France may start w/Russia player then be given to UK player rd #3 to control) -
2 players playing the same country could become an issue.
-
Hey BD, I just read this thread ( I don’t follow all of them; I actually have a life, unlike some who seem to be on this forum all of the time.) and I’m responding to an old point you made. Who says the city of AxisandAllies has to be in the US? I think it should be in Canada. Just think of the advantages: we have universal health care, so if people got into an argument and a fist fight broke out, the injuries would be repaired regardless of your rank or stature. However, health care doesn’t cover dental work, which means we would have to make a Canadian house rule on no punching in the mouth. Kicking or gouging anywhere else would be fine, well, except eye damage, which may or may not be covered depending on the type of corrective procedures. Furthermore, putting AxisandAllies City in Canada would be a clear recognition of the important role we play in the global gaming community. AxisandAllies, Canada has a certain ring to it!
@Brain:
@Krupp:
I know what you’re saying maverick :-P
We need to get some new friends or maybe we can all move to the same city. Hell, let’s start our own city called Axisandallies, USA
-
Boy these Canadians are sure getting pushy. First they want to be there own power, then they want to steal your A&A USA city BD. Too bad you can’t have it :-P
-
Hey BD, I just read this thread ( I don’t follow all of them; I actually have a life, unlike some who seem to be on this forum all of the time.)
I guess you figured out that I don’t have a life which is pretty much true for the moment. (Still recovering from an expensive divorce.)
@WILD:
Boy these Canadians are sure getting pushy. First they want to be there own power, then they want to steal your A&A USA city BD. Too bad you can’t have it :-P
I don’t see why we couldn’t have one in each country.
-
Divorces are never cheap
-
Rival AA cities I like it :evil:
-
Suggested Topics
