Now this game is based on A&A Pacific, right ?
A new game, A&A Guadalcanal, have some new rules, like Hidden Sea Movement and subs on station. Now this rules will fit in Pacific too, I think honestly jes. So how about including this in this game ? Any feedbacks ?
The Gameboard and most of the setup is based on Europe and pacific. The rule book is the revised rulebook with some changes added. I want people to be able to play it without much relearning. Thats why its the revised rule book. Any changes have been highlighted in red so someone doesn’t have to read the whole book if they are familiar with the revised edition. If i did my job right the rule book should read very fluidly from beginning to end.
aboslute0233
One more thing when you played with the “transports in the convoy rule” did that mean that starting income was lower for allied players?
I’m actually surprised that people cant overcome the economic differences in gameplay. Mathematically The incomes are actually more favorable to the axis than Europe and pacific were. From my experience, its not the income that the problem its the fact that nations can build so many places. (Using supply tokens in the revised edition addresses this issue, though it probably wont be enough)
tekkyy
Do you mean that i should publish a printable/playable map with units on it? Because I found that some of the territories don’t have enough room to do this and still look good. My current thought is releasing a National Production Chart/Tech Chart that has a shrunk map on the reverse with units on it. This small map would replace the setup charts, and i believe speed up set up time.
I think you may want to make a set up that has a picture of the nations territories and the icons on that and make them on 8.5x11 sheets
In USA/ UK case, you can make a unique sheet that has all the different territories and the icons on them arranged in more or less west to east order its easy.
Yes that would be great.
It’ll be faster than table look up for new players.
Ok some calrifications on the “transport in the convoy” rule variant that I have been using.
Starting incomes are reduced. For example the USA would start with 80IPC’s instead of 100 IPC’s. (They begin with a transport in the Eastern USA seazone convoy.)
A nation must have its own transport in its own convoy zone to generate the income. Example: A british transport must be located in a british convoy to generate the convoy IPC’s.
I found that without varying the starting incomes and convoy rules that Germany was never able to take a single Russian VC, the Russians stockpileded a huge number of guys in Belo-Russia and pushed the germans back without difficulty. With the new convoy rule I am in my third game and both times germany has been able to take the VC’s at Kiev and Leningrad, (once took Stalingrad also). The result being that Germany would be able to eliminate Russia if the Allies did not invade Normandy.
In all of my games I have found that Japan is a lot more powerful than Germany with a much greater chance of winning. With the convoy rule in place the axis were able to get very close to victory. They controlled 18 VC’s total and Japan controlled 9 VC’s before being pushed back. The USA and UK must both concentrate on Japan to prevent them from getting 10 VC’s while still putting mild preassure on Germany to prevent Russia from being defeated.
Ok, I thought that for anyone who is interested in discussing balance of play that I would give a quick rundown on the strategies that I have been using so far and their results. These strategies are mostly axis based as it appears that they are in the most need of definite strategic help if they are going to win.
German Strategy
Simple. There is only one strategy that I can see as being effective. Attack Russia with everything that they have got as often as possible. Build inf with a few tanks or artillery and pound away at Russia till the Allied fleets starts knocking. Then turtle and buy inf and hope that Japan can come through with the win. The Germans are never in a position to buy fleet or air units, and simply need to field as many ground troops as possible. On the G1 turn, the German fleet and air force should be able to eliminate nearly the entire UK fleet in the atlantic, of course the German fleet is then almost destroyed and will be by air counterattack on UK1. That does it for the naval strategy and the rest is up to the Allies.
Italy Strategy 1: Into Egypt
The Italians do not start with enough to pose any serious threat to the UK, however, if the UK does not reinforce Egypt it will fall to Italy around Italy turn 3-4. Italy buys another transport on turn one and just ferries troops across to north africa. Once Egypt falls, about 4-5 Italy tanks should subdue Africa in another turn or too. By this stage the UK or USA must respond, but by now Germany is usually colonized and the Allies have plenty left to deal with Italy.
Italy Strategy 2: Support Germany in Russia
This strategy was not very effective. Italy is able to supply a few inf and the occasional tank, but not enough to do much attacking, and not much use unless the Russians are going for the Bulgarian IC and South-Eastern Europe. Again, Italy can pretty much be ignored until Germany is taken care of.
Japan Strategy 1: Island occupation
This strategy was based on the need for IPC’s to fuel Japan’s march into Asia. The fleet on J1 and J2 is capturing all of the british islands and nearly doubles the Japanese IPC’s, which go to buying inf and a few tanks to march through China and into Russia. The strategy worked well for killing China and getting into Russia, but did not capture enough VC’s to come close to win. Australia and New Zealand are so far that the fleet is effectively immobolized for a few turns in capturing them, but are necessary for win.
Japan Strategy 2: All out for Australia
The need for VC’s is great for Japan as they have the best chance of winning for the axis. So I went all out for Australia and New Zealand to capture the IC and VC’s. This however put my fleet too far from Japan, and took too long to recover, the USA was able to build fleet and by USA3 was well established in Northern Pacific threatening the transports landing troops in Asia. Also, British got too strong in Indian Ocean.
Japan Strategy 3: All out for India
The factory at India is key to not only southeast Asia but also to Africa and up into southern Russia. This is the game I am currently playing, and though it appears to be effective, I am afraid that the USA left without much resistance will be too strong and threaten the Pacific before Japan is well enough established.
So I would love to hear criticism of these strategies, and/or other strategies for the game. In all of my strategies the USA went pretty much all out on Japan, with the British split between harassing Germany and fortifying the India IC and navy.
aboslute0233 and everyone else
I will be more than willing to implement your new transport convoy rule if someone can give me a reasonably justifiable explication for why the allies aren’t collecting them on the first turn. (especially USA and russia which arnt at war yet) I realize the rule works practically, but i would like to have a historical purpose for it.
if not i suggest we implement the transport convoy rule under these conditions:
1.Add or move a transport into each convoy zone at the start of the game. To represent undisrupted trade, (UK would have its Atlantic convoys without transports, due to the proceeding U-boat war)
2.Give Germany five more fighters, one in Normandy, Germany, Austria, Hungry, and Bulgaria
This is Why…
Currently there are 10 convoy spaces without transports in them. That totals $50. Germany gets 5 new fighters ($50 value) which will be needed badly in Russia, plus it GIVES GERMANY ITS TEETH BACK! I figure that Germany should be able to destroy the three extra transports added in the Atlantic first turn without a problem. Japan should also be able to easily destroy England’s two pacific convoys, Russia’s pacific, and one of USA on the first turn too. This means that turn two should look like your game’s turn two, with the exception of the five extra fighters which Germany could use to attack and defend on the Russian front / and or the atlantic .
Five fighters may be too much, but if it wouldn’t break the game, i think we should do it. Germany need the Luftwaffe.
Here’s the “working” updated version of the rule book. It replaces IPCs with supply tokens, sides move (but dont resolve combat) at same time for shorter game time, Phases have been reordered, and CAPs removed. IT does not have the updated TECHNOLOGY rules i have mentioned, nor does it include in it any of the comments above.
rulebook
http://www.mediafire.com/?7zmsddm4tbz
setup with supply tokens
http://www.mediafire.com/?ahqrzrdw0zv
Considering all the feedback I have received from my first public release of Global Conflict on this form and other outlets, **I have now released my third edition of Global Conflict. **
It is much more balanced than before. Minor changes to setup makes Germany be a more threatening adversary. The Allied economic dominance has been addressed with modified convoy rules and also the edition of supply tokens. Long game play time has been addressed with a new turn sequence which should keep all players more involved with very little idle time. A close competitive game with five players can now be completed in less than six hours. (This does not including setup). Technology rules have also been modified. Three new units have been included. They are Mechanized Divisions, Air Transports, and Cruisers. (If you don’t have these units, replace all cruisers in the setup with destroyers, and ignore mechanized devisions and air transports. Play will still be balanced)
I hope all of you enjoy the game. And as always all comments, suggestions, and game reviews are welcome.
This is the link to all the files you need
http://www.mediafire.com/?2gmbdgml0zy
