Looking at the map of Africa, I think my opening move as Germany will be to seize Nigeria with the Inf from Togoland, French Equatorial Africa with the Inf from Kamerun, Belgian Congo with the Inf from German East Africa, and Angola with the Inf and Art from South West Africa. It will add 4 IPCs to spend on turn 2, though I expect to lose German East Africa to the British on their first turn and probably will be subject to a British attack in Angola from the combined forces of the Union of South Africa and Rhodesia (no blitzing so the British will have to leave South West Africa German in order to bring the maximum force against Angola in order to prevent me from having 3 Inf and 1 Art in Belgian Congo on my second turn).
On Germany’s second turn, Angola will be contested (with luck), but I’ll still have Nigeria and French Equatorial Africa, but have lost German East Africa, so I’ll be 2 IPCs up on the deal. I can move my Inf in Belgian Congo to contest Angola or combine my Inf from Nigeria, French Equatorial Africa, and Belgian Congo to have a 3 Inf force in Kamerun. It depends on what the British did with their Infs in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and British East Africa. Did the BEA Inf drop down and steal GEA or did the British player combine the AES and BEA Infs to contest Belgian Congo with my GEA Inf. Either way, I’m sure I got Britain’s attention and may have forestalled an aggressive offensive against the Ottomans.
All of which is a bit of a crazy runaround.
Too much tt, too few units.
BUT
If we allow powers to recruit Askaris in their originally owned African tts then we’ll have more units to go round, as well as giving players an incentive to defend their own colonies rather than just marching around grabbing any empty tt they can reach.
Player will be encouraged to hold on to their regular units (to lead Askari stacks) rather than throwing them away in silly 1 vs 1 skirmishes.
Add a German cruiser in SZ 26 and give big ships commerce raiding abilities and Africa might just get a little more interesting.
Game would’ve been so much better with just Europe and North Africa, no United States, and about 8-13 territories for each power. Africa is mainly just a waste of space.
Well the scale of combat is entirely different. What each unit represents could not be sustained in that continent.
But if another game was made covering the scramble for colonies, say circa 1800’s…. this would prove very interesting.
What could be done is a global diplomacy game where everybody starts out with the goal to grab colonies…adding in Spain and Japan as major powers.
You could have the war with Mexico, War with Spain, and the European wars… And taking colonies could be like taking NO’s with immediate cash bonus, but unknown resistance.
But what year would it begin? 1850? 1870? 1880? 1895?
1870/71
Unification of Germany and Italy; fall of the French Empire; Suez Canal just opened; America looking to expand after getting over a civil war; Spain still a reasonable but fading world power; most of Africa still up for grabs.
Each African colony would be a 2-stage process: first establish a trading base and fort on the coast; then find a pretext for invading and taking over the interior.
Note that this was after the slave trade was abolished by westerners; one of the objectives would be to close down the trade where it still existed within Africa.
By the way, the fact that I suggest introducing Askaris does reflect that armies raised in Africa were on a tiny scale compared to Europe. These units would be less powerful than “regular” infantry, and under the command of European regulars.
As long as that difference in scale is understood, I don’t think it seriously breaks the game, indeed it enhances the action in a large area of the board.
After the US civil war IL. Unless you go all the way back to 1812.
I wonder if it makes any sense to sacrifice the Austrian/Ottoman Navy to land troops in North Africa (If this is ever possible due to where the Allied fleets are). Even 3-4 Infantry in North Africa will force the allies to ship their own units down there, or risk losing income. Would that force Britain to spend a lot more in India and help Germany out in the western front? Would Italy or France have any troops available to send to Africa if Germany/Austria hit Switzerland and try for Paris and Rome?
I think i will redo my Global 40 maps to reflect the world 1870 using the same sea zones, but obviously new control of areas.
Players will need a second copy of AA14 for Japan, Spain, and a few other new nations.
So Global 1870 it is. One issue is the lack of technology: No planes, No gas, Not even ships that look even remotely like the sculpts…this means not fun.
Hmmm. Perhaps another start date? one closer to the use of planes at least.
IL you could just do turn of the century- 1900
Well I’d like to be before the Spanish American War which is 1898, and the Second Boer War of 1899. if it was 1900, Spain would be too weak and the Pacific map needs something interesting to fight over. Japan and Russia would be at war as well. That makes alot of action in the Pacific.
And players turns would be in order of economics, which means it could change any turn.
Plus this incident in 1898 almost led to England and France fighting each other…
I want a Spanish Civil War one, then Axis and Allies would have covered my two favorite military conflicts.
I think Germany could make Africa to be much more than just a small time IPC grab. If Germany were to group its forces in either Belgian Congo or Angola it would become a set back for the Allies. France certainly wouldn’t have enough forces to make any feasible attack so Britain’s Egyptian stack is now wedged between the Ottomans and the Germans, unable to attack one as the other would come in from behind and attack, forcing the Egyptian army to wait till reinforcements from India can arrive in order to do both. This could delay the fall of the Ottoman Empire for a turn or 2 giving Germany & Austria-Hungary time to deal with the continental Allied Powers without worrying about the Balkan front getting reopened
@Imperious:
Well I’d like to be before the Spanish American War which is 1898, and the Second Boer War of 1899. if it was 1900, Spain would be too weak and the Pacific map needs something interesting to fight over. Â Japan and Russia would be at war as well. That makes alot of action in the Pacific.
And players turns would be in order of economics, which means it could change any turn.
Plus this incident in 1898 almost led to England and France fighting each other…
Sounds a lot like Pax Britanica
A multi player game of empire, diplomacy, and global confrontation. The Great Powers of Great Britain, France, the US, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Russia, and Japan vie throughout the world for the wealth and esteem conferred by vast colonial holdings in the far-flung corners of the Earth. Each player maneuvers his administrative and military assets to establish control over the choicest and most strategic areas, keeping a wary eye toward encroaching opponents whose colonial ambitions are every bit as great. Conflict between national wills is more often resolved through peaceful negotiation than through war; but when national honor is too severely tried, war can occur- on a scale that threatens to evolve into the War to End All Wars!
Time scale = 4 years per turn; Map scale = abstract; Unit scale = Corps/Fleet, Division/Task Force, Regiment/Squadron; Playing time = approx 4 to 7 hours
Includes 666 counters, 2 22" x 32" mapsheets, 8 player sheets, 1 administrative pad, 2 six-sided dice, 1 counter storage tray, and rules booklet
We play it with sculps from War:Age of Imperialism.
IL why don’t you make a game set in the fictional far future of the year 2400?
@Hitlers:
I think Germany could make Africa to be much more than just a small time IPC grab. If Germany were to group its forces in either Belgian Congo or Angola it would become a set back for the Allies. France certainly wouldn’t have enough forces to make any feasible attack so Britain’s Egyptian stack is now wedged between the Ottomans and the Germans, unable to attack one as the other would come in from behind and attack, forcing the Egyptian army to wait till reinforcements from India can arrive in order to do both. This could delay the fall of the Ottoman Empire for a turn or 2 giving Germany & Austria-Hungary time to deal with the continental Allied Powers without worrying about the Balkan front getting reopened
My thought exactly, it all, however, hinges on how the British react with their forces in the Union of South Africa and Rhodesia (which can catch the Germans from SWA in Angola) and their forces in British East Africa and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, which can combine and counter any move into Belgian Congo. The tie breaker could be the German Infantry from Togoland, but he’ll take 3 turns to get into the action.
So, the best move by Germany might be SWA force to Angola, Kamerun and GEA Infs combine in Belgian Congo, and Togoland Inf moves to Nigeria. This gives the Germans 1 Inf and 1 Art in Angola and 2 Inf in Belgian Congo. The British then have to decide what to do with the Inf in Rhodesia: move it north to make a 3 on 2 Inf fight in the Belgian Congo or move it west for a 2 Inf, 1 Art vs. 1 Inf, 1 Art fight in Angola. Then it’s up to the dice.
I want a Spanish Civil War one, then Axis and Allies would have covered my two favorite military conflicts.
Hehe… reminds me of a bit from Frasier where Niles and Daphe are arguing in the coffee house about whether the US or English Civil Wars were better. Then Frasier walks in and when they solicit his opinion, he says Spanish! But I don't have time to prove it...
Nothing to do with the OP but just a random thought popping into my head.
