2 v 2 what allies are who?

[oztea]

In a two on two game the axis split is logical, Germany and Italy and the second player is Japan.

But for the allies….who should be who?

US - The Largest power, but out of the war until turn 3-4
UK - The only major power in the war, and controls 2 economies
USSR - Another power that has to wait, little naval action makes this power’s phases limited to the ground war in Europe

France - Starts at war…but will barely see action after G1
ANZAC - Sluggish economy, distant from the action, close ties to the UK
China - Limited units, cant leave its borders, close ties to the US

so it would seem each player should get 3 powers. but control of powers at war and at peace for one player makes for strange movements, if UK controls russia, they might try to agitate germany out of a sealion just to save the UK’s ass.  Or if Russia controls china, they might just hug the border with USSR to be a roadblock instead of protecting their land. If the same player controls US and USSR then US bombers will land in amur maybe, because one player decides to negate the soviet NO, instead of a dedicated soviet player being hesitant to ask for his NO to be negated

So far, my best lineup is.

US, China, France
UK, ANZAC, USSR

Or maybe
US, UK
USSR, China, ANZAC, France

or maybe it needs to be 3 on 2
US, China
UK, ANZAC
USSR, France

[The Fire Knight]

For a two on two, I would make the allies…

player one: UK, ANZAC, China, and France
Player two: US, USSR

reasoning b/c player one would control the powers most politically and militarily tied together at the time. They would all be coordinating with one another, and so it would make sense for them to be played by the same player to coordinate their movements to be the best for all. The U.S. and USSR aren’t really politically and militarily tied together, but are both outsiders from everybody else. And since they really don’t see any military action together (except maybe northern china, which would be historical) then it makes sense to put them together as well. Thoughts?

[Guest]

@oztea:

In a two on two game the axis split is logical, Germany and Italy and the second player is Japan.

Why not Germany……then Japan and Italy?  My point being that Italy may have been in the tank with Germany, but they were 2 seperate powers with seperate interests and acting as such, so seperating a player from controling both might be more realistic. Italy and Japan won’t have conflict of interest issues.

[BadSpeller]

It makes a difference if the game is Face-to-Face or by PBEM/forum.

If by forum I would want UK/ANZAC powers or the US/China/France powers to be the same player. (Faster turn around time for playing).  Either player could play Russia.

[The Fire Knight]

@mwindianapolis:

@oztea:

In a two on two game the axis split is logical, Germany and Italy and the second player is Japan.

Why not Germany……then Japan and Italy? they were 2 seperate powers.

Italy, a separate power? One that can fight on its own? One that can dominate the mediterranean? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: You’ve played too much a and a. Check the history books.

[Seven_Patch]

I was thinking about this the other day and I’ve got two possibilities.

A

Player 1 - US, ANZAC and France
Player 2 - UK, USSR and China

B
Player 1 - US, USSR and China
Player 2 - UK, ANZAC and France

I see pros and cons for both but this is a difficult decision.

I got an idea, why not let the players decide by choosing in an order, flip a coin to decide who picks first.

Player 1 picks first then Player 2 gets the second and third picks, back to Player 1 for pick 4, then Player 2 for pick 5 and Player 1 is stuck with what’s left.  I have a feeling A will be the outcome.

[Dylan the Canadian]

Hmm

P1: US, ANZAC, USSR
P2: UK, France, China

[Noll]

@The:

@mwindianapolis:

@oztea:

In a two on two game the axis split is logical, Germany and Italy and the second player is Japan.

Why not Germany……then Japan and Italy? they were 2 seperate powers.

Italy, a separate power? One that can fight on its own? One that can dominate the mediterranean? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: You’ve played too much a and a. Check the history books.

I’d like to remind you that Italy had colonies in Africa too prior to the end of ww2, and that they had a great fleet, that’s why the UK tried to sink most of the italian fleet in the Taranto attack, that was the inspiration of Japanese’s Pearl Harbor attack.

Italians had less technology than other ww2 powers, that’s true. Also, the Germans splitted the Italian forces too much, what was the point in wasting Italian soldiers in RUSSIA? If they just let the Italians work in Africa and Medi-sea alone, the situation would have been different.

Also, don’t think Americans walked trough Italy in 1 day, it took them 1 year, even with southern Italy support (Americans got logistic support from the Mafia guys that emigrated in the USA), and even with the situation after 8 september 1943. The Royal family betrayed the country, running away with their money, leaving the army without orders. Italian soldiers didn’t know who were the enemies. They had to fight against eachothers, Italian+Germans vs Italian+Americans.

I’m blabbling too much, bye.

[Guest]

@The:

@mwindianapolis:

@oztea:

In a two on two game the axis split is logical, Germany and Italy and the second player is Japan.

Why not Germany……then Japan and Italy? they were 2 seperate powers.

Italy, a separate power? One that can fight on its own? One that can dominate the mediterranean? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: You’ve played too much a and a. Check the history books.

It already is in this game……check the game :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Guest]

@mwindianapolis:

@oztea:

In a two on two game the axis split is logical, Germany and Italy and the second player is Japan.

Why not Germany……then Japan and Italy?  My point being that Italy may have been in the tank with Germany, but they were 2 seperate powers with seperate interests and acting as such, so seperating a player from controling both might be more realistic. Italy and Japan won’t have conflict of interest issues.

I agree with your premise that they are 2 different countries and that 1 person playing both would cause italy to abnormaly do 100% of what would benefit germany.
To take that a step furter, you could seperate the other alliences too……UK/Anzac…France/USSR…and CHINA and USA.

[oztea]

I would like the USA/China  UK/ANZAC and USSR/Fracne    split

but lets say i only have 3 friends coming over and dont want to play 3 on 1

The game should be at best 2 axis on 3 allies, or 3 on 3, or 1 on 1.

[poloplayer15]

USSR/France/UK.
US/ANZAC/China