Axis & Allies Global Confict - 3rd Edition Released

I agree with what u say completly.

But for game play, I made mine large so that the Attacker would have to think twice about their decision to attack a Neutral.  I wanted the Attacking player to ask him/herself the Question, Do I reallly Need/want to expend the resources required to Conquer that territory.

or are the Casualties I will take worth the new territory.  I am trying to prevent people from invading Neutral Countries Just on a whim or cause there is nothing else for them to do.

I have also toyed with the Idea if a Neutral is Invaded and that invasion fails, the Opposite Powers would take control of said Nation.

ex.  Britain Invades Spain and Fails.  Since UK is an Allied player, the Axis Powers would take countrol of Spain and there Starting Military.

I love the Idea Of Neutral ships, or even a Vichy French Fleet.

We decided to call our first game and start a new one.  This was everyone’s first game of Global Conflict, and as expected, we did some crazy things while learning to play.  It was a close game, but it is likely the Allies would win.  We’ll start game #2 tomorrow.

I really like the individual and team victory condition for the Axis.  In the last game, if we had continued, Germany would have taken the 4 Victory cities in Russia, and Italy would have taken the 3 British victory cities in Africa.  The totals would have been Germany 8, Italy 5, and Japan 5 or 6 but falling rapidly.

There was a realization that the Axis could have won if Italy had allowed Germany to take the Tobruk and Egypt victory cities.  This seemed awfully “cheesy” to everyone.  Italy could attack and destroy most of the units, then retreat, and allow Germany to “walk-in”.  This would have given Germany the 2 more victory cities it needed to meet the victory condition.  Is it really different for Germany to control a Victory City instead of Italy?  We didn’t have any great ideas on how to “fix” this, or if it even needed “fixing”.  It just seemed like an unsatisfying way to win or lose the game.

Being unfamiliar with the map, some of the guys marked all the victory cities with wooden spools to make them easier to spot on the map.  I made little flags to put in the spool to show who owns the victory city.  I’m not sure how useful it is to game play, but is sure looks cool.

We started our second game.  Two rules questions came up regarding submarines:

#1:  One USA and one UK bomber attack a German sub.  The allies choose the USA to attack first.  The USA bomber misses and the German sub submerges.  Does the UK bomber get to shoot at the sub?

#2: One USA bomber attacks a German sub.  The USA bomber misses and the German sub submerges.  The USA fleet can now move through the sea zone with the submerged German sub during non-combat movement.  Can the UK fleet also move through the sea zone with the submerged German sub during non-combat movement?

We are all playing much better.  This is by far the best large map A&A game our group has played.

Craig

I’d be happy to add a Neutral setup chart.  I can probably get to it this weekend.

I like the change and clarification to the submarines and battleships.  The repair for battleships is appropriate for a $20 cost.

Komakazi’s are fun as they are without the ability to defend.  They are a challenge to position.  They were used in our games to play ‘chess’ with the American fleet.  While the economics might not look good, the ability of a Komakazi to choose its target is very powerful.  I’m not sure any change is needed.  I’d have to try the change to be certain.  I’ve previously posted that Komakazi’s might be over priced or under powered.  I’ve changed my mind since playing the Japanese.  :-D

All 5 of us really like the technology development how it is now.  Everyone enjoys the roll and watching their country advance.  In all other Axis and Allies games we have chosen to play without technology development.  Global Conflict is the first game we actually liked the technology development process.  In our first game three countries developed a technology by the 5th turn.  Two of them were useful, and the players had a fun time adjusting his play around the new development.  It is fun advancing the 5 stages to completion for a technology.  Once you develop a technology it takes a turn to adjust purchases, then a turn to exploit the technology.  This allows all the players time to adjust.

The reason we don’t like technology development in other games is that it can make or break a game with a small roll.  A player may choose to ‘bet the game’ on their first technology roll.  Here is an example.  Say the German player believes he can win the game if he gets super submarines on the first turn.  Whether he gets them or not, or even whether he is correct on his thinking or not, the game will be over by turn 2.  The German player will ‘bet everything’ on getting super submarines; perhaps by purchasing all submarines on the first turn.  If he doesn’t roll super submarines he is screwed.  If he gets that 42% chance and develops super submarines he wins.  At least he wins if he is correct on the technology being too strong.  Or he loses if he was wrong about the technology.  Either way the game is over by the second turn.  We prefer the strategic play, not the gamble play.

If you do keep the change in technology, you might have to lower the odds of developing a technology a little.  As they are, there would be an average of over 2 technologies developed each turn.  Thats a lot to digest and might make a radical change in the balance of the game.

I’m not too worried about the change in technology.  We can always play with it as is, or we can do what we normally do and play without technology.  Global Conflict will still be an awesome game without technology.

I really appreciate all the effort that has gone into making Global Conflict.  It shows it the excellent balance and depth of play.  I look forward to its evolution.

Craig

Oh yea.  And I withdraw my previous comments on Blockhouses.  They are very balanced at $5.  The UK has used them to great effect to defend islands in the South Pacific.

Craig

So how does this Blockhouse unite work ?

cost 5, defend on 4 ?

On the first round of combat, the blockhouse hits on a roll of 3 or less and can choose its target among enemy units that just got off a transport.  Other than that it defends on a roll of 1.  This is an especially effective defense for islands.

I think Blockhouses should target ships, like AA-guns target aircrafts.

Maybe roll dice in Opening Fire phase ?

Amphibous Assaults would go like this:

1. Opening fire.
   AA-gun roll one dice to each aircraft, every 1 is a hit, target aircrafts, remove casualties
   Blockhouses naval bombard,  every 3 or less is a hit, target ships, remove casualties
   Battleships shore bombard, every 4 or less is a hit, target land units, remove casualties

2. Attacker roll dice as usual

3. Defender roll dice as usual

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

Blockhouses were essentially heavily fortified pillboxes. There purpose was to target enemy units in the process of landing.

In that case Blockhouses sure must roll dice during Opening Fire Phase, because after the landing the attacker have moved far behind the remaining Blockhouses. So Blockhouse defend on 3 or less in Opening Fire Phase, and are later taken as first casualty and used as fodder.

1. Opening Fire Phase:
   Defending AA-guns roll dice against aircrafts
   Attacking Battleships shore bombard, every 4 or less is a hit, target land units
   Defending Blockhouses barrage the landing crafts, every 3 or less is a hit, target amphibious landet land units

2. Attacker roll dice (defending Blockhouses are used as fodder)

3. Defender roll dice

an so on as usual

This is how we use block houses.

BlockHouse cost is 5
Can be placed in any Territory u controled at turns begining.
Max per territory is = to IPC value

Att. @ 0
Defend @ 2 (3 if there is a defending Arty in same space )
Move 0
2 Hits to kill

Preliminary Bombardment of a 2 during Amphibious assaults

Hi Everyone, I’m new. Pardon my ignorance, but how do I print this map?

To print, it depends on how much money you want to spend.  I print on a vinyl banner from http://www.123print.com/Banners  It cost about $140.  To print at a minimum cost, break the map up to many 8.5x11 sheets and tape them together.

Craig

Hello,

i’m a newbie and have some questions about Global Conflict:

1. I read that there are new Units in Global Conflict: Mechanized Division unit, Air Transport/Paratrooper unit, Cruiser unit and blockhouses.
Can anybody give me an advice where i can get some additional plastic parts for this units?

2. I think that there is no Problem to print the large map on a vinyl plane or something and the rectangular markers on normal paper and laminate them.
But the circular markers seems to be difficult to cut off accurate.

How do you cut off the markers and on which material do you print the markers?

3. Do i need something more than the original A&A Revised to play Global Conflict?

4. Are the Files actual in the Release 3.2 or should i wait some time for a new Release before i spent a lot of time and energy to organize the additional material?

Thanks a lot?

Oelle

Some of the rules and play aids were just updated, so it might be worth waiting for version 3.3.  I’ve played version 3.2 and it plays very well.

The best way to print circles is to get 3/4" or 1" pre-cut circle stickers at Staples or OfficeMax and format to print on the stickers.  I then put them on bingo chips or something pre-mad.

I used pieces from http://www.tabletactics.com/ to augment my A&A pieces to add Mechanized Divisions, Air Transport units, and Cruisers.

Craig

I think the rule that makes Air only attacks hit submarines on a 1 should be eliminated.

With the current rule, submarines are overpowered.  They are too difficult to eliminate.  Subs have 3 strengths: Attackers (except destroyer) can only roll once to hit a sub (then they can submerge), they are cheap, and air only attacks only hit on a 1.  Air only attacks only get to roll one round of combat, which limits damage.  The problem is that attacking with 12 airplanes will likely only kill 2 submarines.  If you have 12 aircraft, why don’t you build a navy while using CAP to protect the new build?  Now the 12 submarines just move into 12 different sea zones.  Now if any of the subs are attacked by the newly built navy and airplanes, you can’t CAP.  Or if you attack with just the newly built navy, you probably can only attack 1 or 2 locations, only killing 1 or 2 submarines.

Is there an anti-submarines tactic I am missing?  Of primary concern is how long it takes for the allies to clear the Atlantic of German submarines.  How do you do it?  We asked the “What if America only built submarines in the Pacific?”  It seems like it could easily eliminate the Japanese Navy and blockade the Island of Japan quickly.

It is also the most confusing rule for our players in Kansas City.  I’m not sure why its confusing, but it gets asked about every single round in every game.  And then misinterpreted in every other round of every game.

We played again this weekend.  It sure is a fun game.

Craig

just make them hit on a 2 like in AARHE. allow only dedicated ASW units to be able to roll this:
Cruisers
Destroyers
and latter fighters from carriers

but they must roll for search locating at 2 to find subs first, unless subs decide to attack another round (which makes detection automatic)

you can borrow our rules we don’t care.

The reasoning to keep the subs makes sense.  Fighters can get too strong.  I’ll have to try new tactics to clear the Germans in the Atlantic.  I think keeping them as is makes sense right now.  If I have a brilliant idea, I’ll share it ;)

Here are a couple of items for consideration:
Change Strategic Bombing - Our group just doesn’t bomb because its not worth the cost.  Using basic bombing rules, you do an average of $3.5 damage and lose an average of $2.5 (1/6th chance of losing a $15 bomber).  This is slightly worth bombing.  With the extra fighter escorts, there are more loses due to AA guns.  If there are defenses fighters, it tips even more in the scale of the defender.  I love the way the new Axis and Allies Anniversary edition does bombing:

• Strategic bombing now functions drastically differently. Every strategic bombing “hit” reduces the unit production capacity of that industrial complex by 1. Hits are scored in the traditional manner, i.e. each bomber that survives AA fire rolls 1 D6 and applies that many hits. Once the damage to an industrial complex equals the value of the territory it is in, that industrial complex can no longer produce units. For example, if an industrial complex in Germany (a 10 IPC territory) is bombed for 6 damage, it can only produce 4 units a turn until repaired. Damage to industrial complexes can be repaired for 1 IPC per damage point. Each industrial complex can receive damage up to double the value of the territory it is in, i.e. up to 20(!) damage for Germany.

This fits the GW mechanics perfectly.  Money placed on that industrial complex is the only money that can be used for repair to that Industrial complex.  I think this rule change would make bombing more strategic and simplify the rules at the same time.

Weaken Italy - I think Italy is monstrously strong.  They always take Africa without trouble, and often develop a large navy that can be moved out of the Med to protect Fortress Europe.  Reducing their starting units by a tank and artillery would be fair.  This might just be our game group, I would be interested in what others have seen playing Italy.

Shore Bombardment - Some games limit the number of naval ships that can bombard a coast to the number of units landing on the amphibious invasion.  I like this rule, however, we are evenly split in our gaming group.  I like it because it means you can’t just drop off 1 infantry and get 8 Battleship Bombards.  On the other hand, the argument is that if you drop off 1 infantry, they can spot and call in fire for all the battleships, so it should be allowed.  Just a point for thought.

USSR / China liberation - Some games make it so that the USSR and China never liberate territory.  If China or Russia conquer any territory from the Axis it becomes their territory regardless of the original owner.  This is somewhat more historical.  I think its a fun rules.  Again, our gaming group is split on this one.  The argument against is that it is another exception to the rules to remember and doesn’t really change much.  Just a point for thought.

Technology Development - After playing again, I agree the technology development chart gets cluttered.  I really like the mechanic, but haven’t thought of a good way to reduce the clutter yet.