Axis & Allies Global Confict - 3rd Edition Released

I found 3 very minor errata in the v3.2 rule book:

1. In the area describing the Kamikaze Plane and Air Transport plane on pages 12 and 13 some text is mis-placed.  The text saying “Weapons Development - Long Range Aircraft:  If you have the Long-Range Aircraft development, all your kamikaze planes can move 4 instead of 2” is after the Air Transport description, not the Kamikaze description.  Perhaps intentional or over site, the the description of Air Transport does not say the range is increased due to long range aircraft.

2. In the Optional Nation Specific rule for Japan on page 16, the Tokyo Express talks about using destroyers for transporting units and shore bombardment.  This should be changed to Cruisers, not destroyers.

3. In the Optional Nation Specific rule for the USA on page 18, Unprecedented Production talks about the “Purchase New Units & Collect Supply Tokens phase”.  This should be changed to the “Purchase Units phase”.  The index on page 1 also incorrectly refers to phase 1 as “Purchase New Units & Collect Supply Tokens”.

Craig

Opening:
We played the first turn and a half with 5 players last night.  We will continue the game with starting with the Allies second movement next Tuesday.  Here is our first play report:

Questions that arose during play:
Can Russia use its Nation Specific power to convert naval units?  The argument in favor was that Archangle and Leningrad have Industrial Complexes and should be able to convert 1 sea unit in the adjacent sea zone.  Especially Archangle that also has a port.  The argument against was that the rules specifically state the unit must be in a maroon colored location.  Only the land spaces are maroon.  We rules that Russia could not convert naval units.  The unit that was to be converted was the French destroyer.

If Japan attacks Hong Kong on the first turn using air units, do the British AA guns hit on a 1 or a 2?  Japan’s nation specific rule on the first turn causes all British units to defend on a 1.  However, the UK nation specific rules says their AA on tan territory (Hong Kong) hit on a 2.  We ruled that that the AA guns hit on a 1 the first turn.

If a Kamikaze only attack sinks a Carrier, what happens to the airplanes on the Carrier?  We ruled that the airplanes from the carrier are now on CAP and must land on the allies turn according to CAP rules.

Feedback and Concerns:
In a 5 player game, the rules suggest that the Russian player also play China and the French.  I suggest that the British play the French.  The reason is that most of the French units are located near the British and move in conjunction with the British.  In our game the Russian player kept asking the British player “Where would you like this French boat?”  While we ended up dividing China and French how we liked, I recommend the rules put the French with the British in a 5-player game.

There is concern about the Rocket technology being too powerful.  The Germans advanced 1 step on the Rockets in the first 2 turns of the game.  This put them 1 roll away from developing rockets.  The concern is that the amount of damage is limited to the territory value per rocket attack, not for the turn.  This means if the Germans develop rockets, they can buy 9 rocket enabled AA guns per turn.  This could remove 9 x 3.33 (average roll against Moscow and England) = 30 income per turn.  Then the next turn they buy more, and not its 60 income per turn.  By 3 turns, the majority of Russia and UK income is eliminated every turn by the rockets.  It appears the Axis would simply win the game with German rockets.  I recommend that rocket attack damage is limited per territory per turn, not per rocket attack.  Or allow only 1 rocket attack to be launched from each German territory so you don’t have 20 rockets in Germany pounding England.  This change would put the rocket technology development advantage in line with the other powers.

There was some concern that the simultaneous play was not any faster than going in order and might even be slower.  When playing in turn order each player may actual move faster because they have down time to think.  For example, after the Japanese move, the American, British, and Chinese players have some time to study the effects and develop their Pacific plan.  On their turn, they already know what to move, and therefore do it quickly.  With simultaneous move, after the Japanese move it is now the American, Chinese, and British turn.  They need some time to study the effects in the Pacific, but also the effects of Germany and Italy’s turn in Europe.  On the other hand, all the allies are moving simultaneously.  It may be that our first turn and a half was slow because it was our first play at this game.  We will know better after next week’s continuation.

Game play summary:
$12 Opening spend - The Axis put 4 Japanese infantry in French Indo China.  The goal was to ensure the Burma road was cut on the first turn to eliminate USA support of China.
The Allies put 4 Chinese infantry in Szechwan to prevent a quick defeat of China.

Germany - Germany moved everything to the Baltic states in turn 1 to prepare for an attack on Leningrad.  Unfortunately, they also exposed some hardware on the central eastern front, allowing Russia to kill 4 pieces of German hardware on turn 1.  They also destroyed most of the Allied Atlantic fleet.  They also landed 2 units on northern UK along with 4 aircraft from Germany to destroy the fighter and bomber in northern UK.  On turn 2 they consolidated their entire fleet in sea zone 17: Battleship, destroyer, 2x Escorts, Transport, and 11 submarines.  The USA and UK are in a quandary to figure out how to destroy this and get much needed relief to Russia.  On turn 2, the Germans reinforced the Baltics and are now in a position to destroy any Russian troops in Leningrad on turn 3.  Russia will likely retreat from Leningrad to preserve their troops.

Italy - Italy bought 2 transports on the first turn for a total of 3 transports in the Mediterranean.  They have used this to move Italian forces to Africa.  Italian advancement in Africa is slow, but steady.

Japan - Japan stretched itself thin on the first turn trying to maximize their first turn national advantage.  The focus was on destroying USA and UK navy.  They took about 6 income the first turn from Hong Kong, the Philippians, and other small locations.  On turn 2, they changed their focus to the Islands in South East Asia and boosted their income another $10 to about $33.  Do to unfortunate placement, the Japanese lost a Battleship on the first allied turn.

USA - On the first turn the USA moved everything possible to Hawaii to prevent any Japanese advance.  USA moved air units and bought bombers in the Atlantic to prepare to clear the Germany navy.

UK - On turn 1 the UK built 4 blockhouses on islands near south east Asia.  This assisted in their defense, and reduced the amount of income Japan could conquer the first two turns.  In the Atlantic, the UK retreated its surviving navy towards Canada to eventually be rebuilt.  UK built strong on India and is planning to continue to build tanks and infantry to defend their only Asian strong hold.

Russia - Move everything to Leningrad to defend it the first turn.  It will likely have to retreat out of Leningrad the second turn or suffer the loss of a majority of their units.

China - China slowly retreated in an attempt to preserve units for the eventual defense of Szechwan.

French - On turn 1 they flew the fighter in England to Leningrad to assist in the defense.  It will be converted to Russian on the second turn.  The rest of the French units moved in conjunction with the British.

Humor:
China’s first technology development roll scored an advancement on Super Submarines.

Other Feedback:
New Units - Everyone liked the new units, especially the mechanized infanty and air transport.  They are unique and have a purpose as opposed to many other variants where its difficult to figure out why they have so many units.  The mechanized infantry and air transports add a very unique strategic and tactical depth to the game.  There were minor grumblings that the USA really didn’t get to use the new units.

Convoy boxes - Everyone really liked the functionality of the convoy boxes.  They are unique and challenging to the Allies, and provide increased strategic options for the Axis.  This might be one of the most new fun features of the game.

Placing income on the Industrial complex - this is another popular feature.  It creates an an enjoyable planning challenge as well as providing your opponents an indication of what is being produced at each industrial complex.

Air only attacks hitting subs on a 1 - A good rule, but probably the most confusing.  I got the most questions on this subject during game play.  It just seemed challenging to remember.

Supply - Supply rules were popular, but viewed as slightly time consuming and cumbersome.  So far the supply rules have had minimal impact on the game other than for convoy boxes.  I’m wondering if removing the supply rules would change the game at all?

Neutral territories - This rule was not popular.  Our gaming group has a strong preference to putting neutral units on the neutral territory.  It is viewed as easier to analyze a stack of neutral units than to remember the math formula for attacking.  It also allows for neutral territories of the same value to have different defenses.  Another A&A variant had the unique idea of placing an AA gun in Spain to increase the risk of air flight between France and Gibralter.  I think this is a good example of some of the unique game play effects that putting units in neutral territories can provide.

Craig

I don’t know who won yet because we haven’t finished!  We play on Tuesday nights, so we continue the battle this week.

How many turns do your games normally last?  Our other “Big World A&A” variants usually last 5 to 7 turns before someone surrenders.  We are guessing this game will last 10 to 12 turns before we agree on a victor.

I agree with you on supply tokens, it is interesting enough to justify the extra time.

When a Aircraft Carrier is destroyed in a kamikaze attack, I recommend putting the aircraft on CAP to allow them 2 moves to land.  This should probably be covered in the rules not only for Kamikaze, but for retreats as well.  While defending in a naval battle, if you lose an Aircraft Carrier, then the attacker retreats, you may be in the same position of needing to land fighters somewhere new.  It seems simple to put them on CAP then the player lands them as according to the rules.  It also seem to be the ‘minimalist’ rule in that you simply leave the fighters in the sea zone then then move them on your turn in the Land CAP Phase.  With only 1 space, the defender may often lose the fighters due to lack of location to land the fighters.

I like your change in convoy rules.  I’m guessing the income will be the same 90% of the time.

NEUTRAL TERRITORIES - My first thought was to make the Neutral setup consistent with the “Unlikely Alliance” optional rule.  South America should be very weak as well because they relied on their distance from Europe and Japan for defense.  Here is my first guess at a neutral setup:
Venezuela - 1 Infantry and 1 artillery
Peru - 1 Infantry
Argentina - 1 Infantry
Rio de Oro - 1 Infantry
Afghanistan - 2 Infantry
Mongolia - 2 Infantry
Ireland - 1 Infantry
Sweden - 5 Infantry
Switzerland - 9 Infantry (Its rough terrain)
Angola - 1 Infantry and 1 artillery
Mozambique - nothing.
Turkey - 1 fighter, 4 Infantry, 1 artillery
Western Turkey - 1 Infantry.
Spain - 4 Infantry, 1 artillery, 1 bomber, 2 blockhouses.
Spanish Morocco - 1 Infantry
Portugal - 3 Infantry

Perhaps neutral do not need to ‘auto heal’ as suggested.  It might be more interesting to to have the enemy of the attacker choose who they ally with on an unsuccessful attack, and immediacy put their control marker in the territory and replace the neutral units with their own.  For example, if Germany unsuccessfully attacks Spain, the allies get to choose who Spain will ally with.  If the Allies choose the UK, during Germany’s turn, after the failed attack, the UK changes out all Spanish units with UK units, puts a UK control marker on Spanish Morocco and Spain, and increases the UK income by 2.

Craig

Night 2 playing!  We completed turn 5 tonight. The game went much faster after the first round.  A few rules questions came up.

USA developed Strategic Rail Movement.  When it says you can move 2 spaces during non-combat in “territory you controlled” during since the beginning of your turn does that mean any allied controlled territory, or native and conquered territory?  As written, I would say only in native or conquered territory.  But it seems odd the Italians could use this across conquered North Africa, but the USA could not use it in Russia or India.

Battleships seem way too cheap at $20.  One persons opinion is that they should be $25.  I think maybe even $30.  After a slow opening, the USA is now on a Battleship binge, and has 8 battleships in the Pacific.  There is nothing that can even damage the USA fleet.  Another thought was to keep the price at $20 and have them not auto-heal, but require the battleship to end a turn at a friendly navy port and pay $5 for repairs.  Kamikaze attacks are somewhat futile because it takes 2 hits to sink a Battleship, this would statistically be 4 Kamikaze’s x $8 = $32 to sink a $20 Battleship.  Its not that the USA fleet is unstoppable, thats expected given their income.  Its that the USA fleet is undamagable.  This problem is not unique to Global Conflict, but to the self-repairing Battleship unit.

We expect the USA to end the game in 4 or 5 turns with the axis peaking at 18 or 19 victory cities.  We will continue playing to see what happens.

There was one small preference to reduce the naval units by 1.  I tend to agree.  I think between the cruiser, destroyer, and escort, one of these could be eliminated.  But this was a very minor point.

Overall this is a great game.  It is very well balanced with a huge variety of strategies to try out.  I can’t wait to finish the game next Tuesday.

Craig

Battleships should take 2 turns to build along with carriers.

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

OH yeah,

NEUTRAL TERRITORIES - my group had the same sediments as your. They also mentioned that they would prefur neutral powers with actual unit setup.  I think i will have to revise the rules to include neutral setup.  (if the attacker loses, the netural will automatically rebuild any destroyed units)  do you have any ideas for a neutral setup?

yeah, make your Neutrals large enough that if some one wanted to attacke them, they would need More then a couple guys and A fighter to be succesful.

Spain,  and Sweden, should have 4 inf, 1 tank and a fighter

Turkey should get, 5 inf, 2 tanks and Fighter

Switzerland 4 Inf, and Fighter,

S. america.
Argintina, 4 inf, 1 tank and 1 Bomber
Brazil, 4 inf. and a tank,
the rest of S. Amerika gets 2 inf and an Arty in each Neutral space.

The african Neutrals also give them 2 inf. and 1 Arty

Any other Neutrals, 1 inf and 1 arty will be Sufficient.

My 2 cents.

ps  Neutrals rebuild if they are not Conqured when Attacked.

My neutrals countries I use the White British Peices from D-Day.  The Bomber is in Argintina for the fun of it.  :)

Nice try, Deaddyhead, but in real world Sweden was the strongest of the neutrals. They mobilized 360 000 men of high quality, made their own Saab fighters, and after WWII ended had the nr 3 largest airforce in the world, after USA and USSR. The Bofors industrial complex also made a lot of 88.flak, heavy artillery and tanks. Sweden also had the strongest fleet in Baltic sea in 1939 before Bismarck and Tirpitz came.

So I would give Sweden 4 inf, 1 art, 1 tank, 1AA-gun,1 fighter, and 1 destroyer.

Turkey mobilized 400 000 men on horseback, but of low quality.
So I would give Turkey 4 inf because mountains favour the defender.

Spain was just finished with 3 years of civil war and almost every man in age 16 to 50 dead and had a very little army of 30 000 men during WWII
I would give Spain 4 inf, because the mountains favour the defender.

Switzerland cant be invaded in real world because the Alps. They would just block the passes, and nobody come in or out.

The rest of minor neutrals get 1 inf, no more

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