There are 9 nations, 3 axis and 6 allied. How will you divide them if there are 6 players? Obviously 3 players per side, each ally getting two powers.
I would also say that there are 5 major powers and 4 minor powers. So this really means you’d want a minimum of 5 players. 2 are Axis, and 3 are allied. So each allied player gets one of the major powers, the US, UK, and USSR. Then each one also gets a minor, ANZAC, France, and China. How would you pair them?
Also, if a 5 player game, and two are axis, who gets Italy, the German or Japanese player?
I can see arguments for any division, how will you all play it and why?
Also, do you think a 8 or 9 player game is feasible, or is it too boring for the players who are the minor powers?
I’d give ANZAC to the US, China to Russia, and France to Britain
Italy depends on whether you prefer it to coordinate with Germany in Russia or Japan in Middle East
This is just my opinion, but since you asked…
I’d give Italy to Germany since both have interests in Europe and the Mediterranean
I’d pair USSR with China since both are land based in Asia
I’d pair U.K with ANZAC since ANZAC is British Commonwealth, you have ANZAC units side by side with Brits in Malaya and Egypt, and both are naval powers in South Pacific.
I’d pair US with France since their units share the same box and setup card and it gives the US some action for the first 3 rounds, and it will probably be the US that liberates France.
Makes sense to me.
Well I honestly think that China should be with UK, India does more in Asia then Russia.
I’m not really concerned since the rulebook will undoubtedly have that sorted out.
5 Player:
Germany/Italy, Russia, USA/China, Japan, UK/France/ANZAC
6 Players:
Germany, Italy, Russia, USA/China, Japan, UK/France/ANZAC
7 Players:
Germany, Italy, Russia, USA, Japan, UK, China/France/ANZAC
5 Player:
Germany/Italy, Russia, USA/China, Japan, UK/France/ANZAC
6 Players:
Germany, Italy, Russia, USA/China, Japan, UK/France/ANZAC
7 Players:
Germany, Italy, Russia, USA, Japan, UK, China/France/ANZAC
Compare me with him.
3 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. US, UK, USSR, France, China, and ANZAC
3. Japan
4 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK, France, USSR, China
4. US and ANZAC
5 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK, France, and China
4. USSR
5. US and ANZAC
6 Players
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK, France, and China
5. USSR
6. US and ANZAC
7 Players
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK, France, and China
5. USSR
6. US
7. ANZAC
5-7 Player China can be with the Russians
@Dylan:
5 Player:
Germany/Italy, Russia, USA/China, Japan, UK/France/ANZAC
6 Players:
Germany, Italy, Russia, USA/China, Japan, UK/France/ANZAC
7 Players:
Germany, Italy, Russia, USA, Japan, UK, China/France/ANZAC
Compare me with him.
3 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. US, UK, USSR, France, China, and ANZAC
3. Japan4 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK, France, USSR, China
4. US and ANZAC5 Players
1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK, France, and China
4. USSR
5. US and ANZAC6 Players
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK, France, and China
5. USSR
6. US and ANZAC7 Players
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK, France, and China
5. USSR
6. US
7. ANZAC5-7 Player China can be with the Russians
I’d do it a little differently, but for the most part, the same.
3 Player:
1. Germany, Italy and Japan
2. US, China and ANZAC
3. UK, France, USSR
4 Player:
1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK, France, USSR
4. US, China and ANZAC
5 Player:
1. Germany and Italy
2. Japan
3. UK and France
4. USSR and China
5. US and ANZAC
6 Player:
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK and France
5. USSR and China
6. US and ANZAC
7 Player:
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Japan
4. UK
5. USSR
6. US and France
7. ANZAC and China
As for the 8 player, I’d do it (with France/China) if I had a beginner who was willing to be a very minor player, and if everyone was roughly on the same level. However, I definitely wouldn’t do 9, as France is bound to fall.
Is ANZAC big enough to stand alone? In Pacific I didn’t think so….don’t know if that will change in global…what say you?
It stands on its own even less in global. There’s a bigger war, and its the same size, except one extra inf.
It stands on its own even less in global. There’s a bigger war, and its the same size, except one extra inf.
I’ve foolishly had the Australians take Siam from that infantry in Malaya, because of my terrible positioning
@Dylan:
It stands on its own even less in global. There’s a bigger war, and its the same size, except one extra inf.
I’ve foolishly had the Australians take Siam from that infantry in Malaya, because of my terrible positioning
Why is that foolish? ANZAC gets its NO?
@Dylan:
It stands on its own even less in global. There’s a bigger war, and its the same size, except one extra inf.
I’ve foolishly had the Australians take Siam from that infantry in Malaya, because of my terrible positioning
Why is that foolish? ANZAC gets its NO?
I think he means that he was Japan, and because of his positioning the Australians took Siam.
@Dylan:
It stands on its own even less in global. There’s a bigger war, and its the same size, except one extra inf.
I’ve foolishly had the Australians take Siam from that infantry in Malaya, because of my terrible positioning
Why is that foolish? ANZAC gets its NO?
I think he means that he was Japan, and because of his positioning the Australians took Siam.
Yes.
When I play with my group of 5… we rarely ever play with less than that… we each pick or roll for one of the major powers. Having 5 people makes it nice because you each get something worthwile to play with. As for the lesser powers, it is generally conidered joint control. For example if I were Germany and my cousin was Japan, we take Italy’s turn together, more or less. Typically, the Japanese player loses interest in Italy and just lets the German handle them… but it is generally discussed together what should be bought and how the units should be used.
This joint control extends to your allies too. The German player and Japanese player will usually examine each others situation and give suggestions or ideas, sometimes involving a “do this” type of order… many of which are implemented as they benefit both teammates. Sometimes this extends to private meetings to discuss strategy. Same goes for the Allies. Obviously each player retains final authority and veto ability over their respective power.
Is this what generally occurs in everyone elses playing… or is my group different in its constant collaboration between allies?
When I play with my group of 5… we rarely ever play with less than that… we each pick or roll for one of the major powers. Having 5 people makes it nice because you each get something worthwile to play with. As for the lesser powers, it is generally conidered joint control. For example if I were Germany and my cousin was Japan, we take Italy’s turn together, more or less. Typically, the Japanese player loses interest in Italy and just lets the German handle them… but it is generally discussed together what should be bought and how the units should be used.
This joint control extends to your allies too. The German player and Japanese player will usually examine each others situation and give suggestions or ideas, sometimes involving a “do this” type of order… many of which are implemented as they benefit both teammates. Sometimes this extends to private meetings to discuss strategy. Same goes for the Allies. Obviously each player retains final authority and veto ability over their respective power.
Is this what generally occurs in everyone elses playing… or is my group different in its constant collaboration between allies?
What’s your plan for a 5 player game?
@Dylan:
What’s your plan for a 5 player game?
For a Global 40 Game of 5 people I’d say this:
1. Germany/Italy
2. Japan
3. USSR
4. UK: Britain/ANZAC
5. USA/France/China
Typically.
Italy may be more or less a joint Axis operation. I can see how we might also do this:
1. Germany/Italy
2. Japan/Italy
3. USSR
4. UK/France/ANZAC
5. USA/China
Since France is so much nearer to Britain and more spread around the world like Britain.
@Dylan:
What’s your plan for a 5 player game?
For a Global 40 Game of 5 people I’d say this:
1. Germany/Italy
2. Japan
3. USSR
4. UK: Britain/ANZAC
5. USA/France/ChinaTypically.
Italy may be more or less a joint Axis operation. I can see how we might also do this:
1. Germany/Italy
2. Japan/Italy
3. USSR
4. UK/France/ANZAC
5. USA/ChinaSince France is so much nearer to Britain and more spread around the world like Britain.
US does more with ANZAC
China does more with the UK alliance and the USSR.
No one gets it!!!
ANZAC SHOULD NOT BE WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM IT MAKES YOU HAVE MORE TO FREAK OUT ABOUT!!!
SAME WITH CHINA AND US
US AND ANZAC WORK!
@Dylan:
US does more with ANZAC
China does more with the UK alliance and the USSR.No one gets it!!!
ANZAC SHOULD NOT BE WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM IT MAKES YOU HAVE MORE TO FREAK OUT ABOUT!!!
SAME WITH CHINA AND US
US AND ANZAC WORK!
Geez… settle down man.
I considered putting ANZAC with the US and China with Russia… but I didn’t like the thought of doing so. I’d prefer to keep the UK as the UK (UK, India, ANZAC… even Canada if they were a power). I like the Britain having her global presence… and that can only be reduced if ANZAC is given to the US player. Even if the US player will be in that theater more than the UK player will be. It is just a preference.
As for China… they were more US allied during the war than they were USSR allied… so that, plus because I have gotten used to having the US player control them.
France: Even though France is in the US box, they are physically closer to England, worked more closely with Britain durning the was and their units in Africa will be more of a British concern than an American one.
I’d like to think my system works logically well.
I know that is how group games go, we all table-talk and if we are trying to hatch a devious plan, we text each other, lol :lol:.
