I have not yet bought AAP because I couldn’t care less about the Pacific battle. I was always more interested in the European theater part of the games. And now that AAE will be huge and include all the major players except Japan, is it really necessary to buy AAP?
I think that the reason AAP seems flawed is that Japan has to be strong enough in AAP to defend itself against the full force of America when it gets its other half. Becuase if America adopted a Kill Japan First strategy, and the AAP game were perfectly balanced, then the Allies would probably kill Japan with enough time left to defend themselves from the European Axis powers.
And with AAG being so big I’m not sure Japan can influence the European theater at all (which is historically accurate). The only thing Japan could do is try to divert US resources to the Pacific (historically accurate). And Russia will not do much against Japan again, probably. I just think the Pacific will be a neglected theater when combined to make AAG.
I guess my point is only that, I think that AAG will have, essentially, 10 turns per round, America, Britain, India, France, Russia, China and ANZAC for the allies, and then Germany, Italy, and Japan for the axis. So, wouldn’t the game move quicker and be more enjoyable if you could just skip the Pacific’s 4 turns all together and focused on the good stuff?
I have not yet bought AAP because I couldn’t care less about the Pacific battle. I was always more interested in the European theater part of the games. And now that AAE will be huge and include all the major players except Japan, is it really necessary to buy AAP?
I think that the reason AAP seems flawed is that Japan has to be strong enough in AAP to defend itself against the full force of America when it gets its other half. Becuase if America adopted a Kill Japan First strategy, and the AAP game were perfectly balanced, then the Allies would probably kill Japan with enough time left to defend themselves from the European Axis powers.
And with AAG being so big I’m not sure Japan can influence the European theater at all (which is historically accurate). The only thing Japan could do is try to divert US resources to the Pacific (historically accurate). And Russia will not do much against Japan again, probably. I just think the Pacific will be a neglected theater when combined to make AAG.
I guess my point is only that, I think that AAG will have, essentially, 10 turns per round, America, Britain, India, France, Russia, China and ANZAC for the allies, and then Germany, Italy, and Japan for the axis. So, wouldn’t the game move quicker and be more enjoyable if you could just skip the Pacific’s 4 turns all together and focused on the good stuff?
UK and India take the same turn. If America goes all out on Japan(it only gets 80 ipcs), Germany and Italy will easily kill Russia.
ok, so 9 turns, but since India and Britain keep their money separate, they will feel like separate powers to a certain degree
… but still, you see what I mean? Isn’t AAG going to play really slow? And I think that sitting around watching someone decide what to do with China and ANZAC is going to be really boring compared to when Germany is trying to push through Russia and all… Do you think AAP will be better than AAE??
I might be talking to the wrong crowd of course, where everyone loves Axis and Allies because it is global. But, imo, this game is going to move really slow with 9 turns.
- Do you think AAG will be better than AAE?, not AAP beter than AAE, I think we all agree AAE is better than AAP.
Not necessarily; we haven’t seen if E40 is “broken.” Minor powers can be played by the same players, and minor powers have short turns. I would prefer a Global game so that the Allies learn to balance both theaters instead of trying to take Berlin before Japan takes Moscow
- Do you think AAG will be better than AAE?, not AAP beter than AAE, I think we all agree AAE is better than AAP.
Not necessarily; we haven’t seen if E40 is “broken.” Minor powers can be played by the same players, and minor powers have short turns. I would prefer a Global game so that the Allies learn to balance both theaters instead of trying to take Berlin before Japan takes Moscow
Agreed.
@skinny1:
- Do you think AAG will be better than AAE?, not AAP beter than AAE, I think we all agree AAE is better than AAP.
Not necessarily; we haven’t seen if E40 is “broken.” Minor powers can be played by the same players, and minor powers have short turns. I would prefer a Global game so that the Allies learn to balance both theaters instead of trying to take Berlin before Japan takes Moscow
Agreed.
I may have to revise that to before Germany/Italy take moscow, since Japan isn’t in E40. However, I’m looking forward to the US actually fighting in the Pacific and Japan not invading deep into Russia(maybe a few tt to cut off the 6 ipc per orig German tt NO).
Thats it, Japan will have to consider the huge russian force in front of manchuria in the beginning. Larry said it…he tried to attack a 18 stack of russian infantry with japan and he lost… this attack killed him as Japan… the whole pacific theater will be change by that…a better india…Japan have to consider USSR has a potential ennemy who can attack him or a potential target to help germany…A USA who can bring more money to the pacific war…Alone the AAp40 is ok…in global the pacific war will be more dynamic!
Thats it, Japan will have to consider the huge russian force in front of manchuria in the beginning. Larry said it…he tried to attack a 18 stack of russian infantry with japan and he lost… this attack killed him as Japan… the whole pacific theater will be change by that…a better india…Japan have to consider USSR has a potential ennemy who can attack him or a potential target to help germany…A USA who can bring more money to the pacific war…Alone the AAp40 is ok…in global the pacific war will be more dynamic!
I doubt all 18 inf can reach the same tt on the 1st turn. I mean just take one of the weak costal tt which are not defended or are defended by 1-3 inf.
- Do you think AAG will be better than AAE?, not AAP beter than AAE, I think we all agree AAE is better than AAP.
I for one (and maybe alone in this thinking) preferred Pacific to Europe. Classic got stale with only buying “men & tanks, men & tanks, men & tanks, …and who can buy the best combo of men & tanks.”
I did buy the old Pacific and NOT the Europe for that reason. With Pacific, the buying was different and not boring and stale.
Maybe number crunchers prefer Europe because there are fewer variables.
I look forward to playing AAG40 and not AAE40.
ok, so 9 turns, but since India and Britain keep their money separate, they will feel like separate powers to a certain degree
… but still, you see what I mean? Isn’t AAG going to play really slow? And I think that sitting around watching someone decide what to do with China and ANZAC is going to be really boring compared to when Germany is trying to push through Russia and all… Do you think AAP will be better than AAE??I might be talking to the wrong crowd of course, where everyone loves Axis and Allies because it is global. But, imo, this game is going to move really slow with 9 turns.
Nine turns, are crazy. It will only be that way for about two turns and then it will be cut down to 7 with the destruction of France and China. Plus the Japanese will easily cripple the Anzac with there navy.
I’m figuring this game will work “best” with 5, maybe 6 people. (countries numbered in brackets by what i consider will be “most involving”.)
Player 1: Germany(1)
Player 2: Japan(2)
Player 3: Britain/India(5), Anzac(7), France(9)(Seems like a lot, but india/anzac are small forces and france won’t last long)
Player 4: Russia(4)
Player 5: USA(3), China(8 )
Player 6: Italy(6) being the lesser of the the “Big 6” the German player could also play it in 5 player games).
note: I admit the “involving” rankings are extremely debatable between 3-5, as the main allied powers have such unique situations. USA=huge economy but isolated, Russia=poor economy but will take part in the most bloody and desperate ground battle in the game constantly, UK= Moderate economy, smaller battles all over the world. It highly up to personal tastes.
breaking it up any further then 6 would lead to a boring game for the poor shmuck(s) stuck with lesser powers. Italy is the smallest power worth playing most likely. As small as it is, It’s still worth playing if you enjoy the unique position to conquer the med/africa and indirectly win the war by keeping pressure off germany/japan so they have less resistance when they go after allied capitals(which will be what really decides the game. I’m guessing the large majority of axis victories will rely on the fall of both moscow and india.)
The French player would be just getting drinks!
For 6 players, I advocate
Germany
Japan
Italy
US/ANZAC(they work together in the Pacific)
Britain/France(they work together in the atlantic and Africa)
Russia, China(China deays Japan’s access to Russia, while Russia keeps Japan from emptying Korea and Manchuria
The French player would be just getting drinks!
For 6 players, I advocate
Germany
Japan
Italy
US/ANZAC(they work together in the Pacific)
Britain/France(they work together in the atlantic and Africa)
Russia, China(China deays Japan’s access to Russia, while Russia keeps Japan from emptying Korea and Manchuria
That certainly doesn’t follow “thematic” tradition, but i can agree with the practical considerations. I’d still stick with my list. I’d still give the british player ANZAC since I feel the US player in your list would have a “more involving” game in the longrun with your setup, and ANZAC would balance it out. USA player should have china just to have something to do for the first of the game if Japan doesn’t do a J1 attack(Not likely to be as common in global as in pacific. The German player is likely to feel the same as their historical counterparts and not be happy with an early Japan attack)
The official game description has listed the game as for 2-6 players. The absolute max number of players that I think might work if your group is willing to do it is 7 with 1 player having France, China, and ANZAC; but again, that player must be willing to have lesser involvement.
I think 5 players will probably be the “optimal” number of players (at least if you want a multiple player game), with 6 possible and 7 as an experimental/optional size.
Nine turns, are crazy. It will only be that way for about two turns and then it will be cut down to 7 with the destruction of France and China. Plus the Japanese will easily cripple the Anzac with there navy.
Let’s hope China (and India) can hold much more than 2 rounds or we are going to have a broken game again
