7 player global game

@stroutqb22:

what if we also have two different games going at the same time that way no one gets too bored

Definitely the second option. Playing France is really sad (even though I love playing France) because there is nothing you can do all game except use one fighter and some infantry.

China is almost the same, except you can at least purchase units and use artillery.

ANZAC is at least an actual power. If you make ANZAC a separate player and let them also control the two weakest Allied powers, they actually have a good amount to do.

@ShadowHAwk:

I dont know personaly i think it is already close when you play 1 vs 1 as the allies have so much more to do then the axis. I did it once with 6 players and half the time we where playing games on our phones because we where bored.

Then why do you play the game? For me, I love A&A, so watching the other players do their turn is fun. To try and discover their strategy, see where they succeed and fail… this is the joy of board games.

I play a lot of 6 player games and a few 7 player games, for us the best thing to do is divide the UK Pacific and Europe into 2 separate nations. This might be difficult if you don’t have custom pieces for France because you will need the French blue for the new UK Pacific nation. This system speeds up the game significantly, as 2 players can be doing their turns at the same time. Russia moves the far east units first, and then both Germany and Japan do their turns together. after Germany and the Soviet Union are finished, the UK Europe nation can start even if Japan, USA, and China are not finished. After UK Europe’s turn, Italy starts and the UK Pacific can go at the same time…. and than finally ANZAC and France… than repeat. you can use almost anything to sub as French units, all you need is enough for the starting setup as new units won’t be spawning any time soon.

As for a 7 player game under this system…

Player 1: Germany
Player 2: Japan
Player 3: Italy
Player 4: Soviet Union
Player 5: United States
Player 6: UK Europe / France
Player 7: UK Pacific / ANZAC / China

@Young:

Player 1: Germany
Player 2: Japan
Player 3: Italy
Player 4: Soviet Union
Player 5: United States
Player 6: UK Europe / France
Player 7: UK Pacific / ANZAC / China

This way makes a lot of sense.

As UK Pacific I would spend more time fighting UK Europe for pieces, than fighting Japan lol

I would suggest using the old Anzacs from 1st edition Pacific 1940.  If you own both copies that is  :-D.  If you only own one or the other you can probably find them online and just buy the “other” Anzacs to act as your Pacific Britsh/Indian forces.

If you have an older version of A&A you could use those brits and just mark them so you can tell the difference.

We have also been playing 6 player games under the same system…

Player 1: Germany / Italy
Player 2: Japan
Player 3: Soviet Union
Player 4: United States
Player 5: UK Europe / France
Player 6: UK Pacific / ANZAC / China

@Young:

I play a lot of 6 player games and a few 7 player games, for us the best thing to do is divide the UK Pacific and Europe into 2 separate nations. This might be difficult if you don’t have custom pieces for France because you will need the French blue for the new UK Pacific nation. This system speeds up the game significantly, as 2 players can be doing their turns at the same time. Russia moves the far east units first, and then both Germany and Japan do their turns together. after Germany and the Soviet Union are finished, the UK Europe nation can start even if Japan, USA, and China are not finished. After UK Europe’s turn, Italy starts and the UK Pacific can go at the same time…. and than finally ANZAC and France… than repeat. you can use almost anything to sub as French units, all you need is enough for the starting setup as new units won’t be spawning any time soon.

As for a 7 player game under this system…

Player 1: Germany
Player 2: Japan
Player 3: Italy
Player 4: Soviet Union
Player 5: United States
Player 6: UK Europe / France
Player 7: UK Pacific / ANZAC / China

Interesting idea. I’ll try this out.

I’d think there’d be some contention between the two UK players on what their units are going to do. There is much that India can do for the middle east.

@teslas:

I’d think there’d be some contention between the two UK players on what their units are going to do. There is much that India can do for the middle east.

It would be just like any other Allied nations working together, similar to the United States working with ANZAC to hold the south Pacific Islands.

If you have players that want to have a Yalta conference before every Russia turn or US/China/UK turns, then that’s one consideration. Put another way, if the US player is going to want to know exactly what China, UK and Anzac will do before it does anything, this could slow gameplay down.

IMO, the game slows down the most between Japan and US, since Japan has so many options and US can’t know what to do and how to split its builds until it sees what Japan does. But while US contemplates, all the rest of the players can be considering their next moves.

So basically I agree with YG except that I think China can be split off from UK Pac just so UK pac can be thinking about its builds after Japan moves, rather than having to plan China. Russia and China can benefit from a bit of coordination, and if the axis are slow to invade, the Russian player is in the thick of the game quicker.

Player 1: Germany
Player 2: Japan
Player 3: Italy
Player 4: Soviet Union / China
Player 5: United States
Player 6: UK Europe / France
Player 7: UK Pacific / ANZAC

Just a question though, since I have never actually played this: when UK is split, could there be a conflict if UK med boats move to the Indian Ocean? Who would control them? Or sending fighters from Africa to India, or vice versa? The split sounds good in theory but does it work in practice?

@freh:

Just a question though, since I have never actually played this: when UK is split, could there be a conflict if UK med boats move to the Indian Ocean? Who would control them? Or sending fighters from Africa to India, or vice versa? The split sounds good in theory but does it work in practice?

The split is less confusing because they are different coloured units with their own nation and turn sequence, so it’s the same as ANZAC infantry in Egypt with UK pieces.

@Young:

The split is less confusing because they are different coloured units with their own nation and turn sequence, so it’s the same as ANZAC infantry in Egypt with UK pieces.

Lol. I do own physical copies of each game but you can tell how often I’ve played them :)