Power Groupings - Global Game

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.

@Fishmoto37:

WOTC does sell extra pieces! Very reasonable too. Its called Axis & Allies 1942.

That won’t help me get bunkers and Italian pieces.

@Brain:

@Fishmoto37:

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

@mike55:

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:

@idk_iam_swiss:

Divorces are never cheap

Actually the divorce was cheaper than staying married.

@WILD:

Rival AA cities I like it :evil:

We’ll show them what to do with those Canadian roundels.

Greetings,

A small historical issue I’d like to address. Many people have been saying that China should not be grouped in with the Soviets, based on the fact that the Soviet Union was a communist state and was backing their communist Chinese comrades. In fact, when the war between Japan and China broke out in 1937, the Soviets were the first ones to offer direct aid the the Nationlists. It was called operation Zet, and provided material aid in the form of guns, tanks, rifles, machine guns, and other general infantry equipment. This led to the creation of the first ever Chinese mechanized unit, the 200th division in 1938. Also, the Soviet Union sent a number of fighter aircraft, and Soviet pilots to fly them, to aid the Nationalists.

Stalin saw Chiang Kai-Sheks Nationalist regime as his best bet to tie down the Japanese and keep them from attacking him in siberia. Stalin didnt trust the Chinese communists, who had turned away from his form of communism. He once called Mao and his followers “cream of wheat” marxists. Stalin put more importance on the Soviet Unions relationship with Nationalist Chinese then he did on supporting his fellow communists, sacraficing their needs time and again, to better his relations with Chiang. Earlier in the 30’s, Stalin had the Chinese communist party banned from the comintern (international communist orginazation of the day) for adopting Maoist ideals.

Stalin also sent a number of officers to advise the Nationalists in field operations and set up training schools for officers and for new recruits. Most notable was the man who later became the famed defender of Stalingrad general Vasily Chuikov, who was still in China when the Germans invaded.

Interesting article, but you are trying to make a point that China and Russia should be grouped together? Or is it the other way around?

I was giving evidence to support the idea of the Soviets being grouped in with the Chinese. I realised after the fact I hadnt made that clear.  :-P  oops  :-D

I see……makes sense to me.

Soviets should focus their attention on the European theatre.

@Brain:

Soviets should focus their attention on the European theatre.

I couldnt agree more, I have always felt that sending any Soviet units to China was a waste. However for simplfying turn order, having one player as both China and the Soviets would make sense. I personally like the idea of grouping the Soviets with the French, just to give that player something to do as they wait for their showdown with Germany.

Score 1 for the outspoken USSR+China team!
Join the squad, Clyde85