Just Keep Churning Em Out, WoTC, Hasbro

Sounds like in AA40P 2 separate nations :In the global game they take their turn together.

They take their turn together, but are their economies separate.

@Rakeman:

The problem isn’t one of making the game “more historical,” but into a game about World War II in some way.  The fact is, in WWII, the Japanese and Russians were not at war, while in Axis and Allies, if you are playing to win, Japan will likely conquer much of Russia.  This didn’t happen in WWII solely because of a piece of paper, but rather because Japan would not have been able to conquer Russia.

Yes, give the players options.  But why make the BEST option also one that would have been 100% impossible in WWII?

I’m all for abstractions, such as all units costing the same and functioning the same for each nation, units not representing real world units in a 1:1 ratio, etc.  By all means, give the player an option to invade Russia as Japan- but make it so that, like in the real war, this course of action proves to be extremely difficult- NOT the best strategy.

Same thing goes for America and Britain completely ignoring Japan.  That would have been absolutely insane, yet in A&A, it’s the best thing the Allies can do.  Just imagine it… “Well, we got Berlin.  Yeah, Japan owns the entire world outside of North America and Europe, but we have Berlin!”

Maybe we need an altered “Economic Victory” option.  If any one Axis power gets 20 IPC more than they started out with, automatic victory for that Axis power and loss for the Allies (and perhaps the other Axis power, if played by separate players).  Or with victory cities, give Japan and Germany their own unique targets.  If one Axis power gets their targets, they win.

Use victory cities. they add much fun to the gamen especially for shorter games (12VC’s)

At this point we don’t know Larry said he’s not 100% sure how the global game will handle the Anzac (still testing?). Looks like he is leaning towards the UK controlling both. I would sure like separate units (they are given different colors anyway), which would allow for separate  economies, even in a single UK turn. We’ll just have to wait until word comes down.

It should be seperate with lend lease option.
Send it to their factory, they can use it next turn.
Since Britain and US lended so much there shoul be an optiom for this.
This gives ANZAC and Canada a role as a player and force.

@coachofmany:

It should be seperate with lend lease option.
Send it to their factory, they can use it next turn.
Since Britain and US lended so much there shoul be an optiom for this.
This gives ANZAC and Canada a role as a player and force.

Agreed.

Yea lend lease would be good. US is pretty close via transport. The lend lease could also be done with NO’s (like Russia in AA50). The Anzac would most likely need US/UK to reach its goals, just like China will need help keeping the Burma road open.

We will be paytesting that this weekend.
Italy received a lot of hardware from Germany too!

C’mon SgtBlitz, you know you will be buying all these games.

Personally I think the thing that makes this game so good is the fact that you can become cooperative with the Germans as you play with the Japanese. I feel that to make the game play more historically is to still have an incentive system like there was in AA50. Also to help with the Japanese tank push from the East, just make more territories in Russia and make them worthless (fact is that 90% of Russia’s economy was in Europe), and make it more appealing to the Japs by having India and South Asia be wealthy, thus forcing a IPC starved Japan player to have no choice but to push towards Australia or India for the best economic outcome. And finally the biggest thing: the Allies have to lose two nations to lose the game. Historically Germany missed taking Russia by sheer luck and Britain was a massive amphibious assault away from losing it as well. So I think it would be perfect to have Germany, Italy and Japan as the Axis and Britain, ANZAC and India together as one and also Russia and US as the allies. If any two of those fall the Axis win, no victory if Russia falls thus making it much more imperative for the Japan player again to push East and not West so that a quick victory is possible. What do you guys think about having to have two allied powers fall before victory for the Axis can be declared?

All of my games have been played that as long as you can still fight you are still in the game

I like that idea, but since the US was so powerful by itself I think we have it end if two of the four are taken. If Larry wants to make the game accurate he should make the US almost as powerful by itself as the two Axis powers, making it imperative that the Axis focus on Asia, Europe and the Pacific to gain more income because that is exactly what they wanted to do, make it to where they could call the shots at the bargaining table. Germany would work on starving out Britain while conquering Russia. Japan would try to make itself economically self sufficient enough to where they could dictate or at least have a say in all matters in the East, accomplishing this by invading the British and French economic strongholds of South Asia and making Australia a non factor by either invading or starving it out as well. Also eliminating it’s long standing rival China in the process. Make the game real by having little economic incentive to invade Russia so if the Japan player does this it leaves her open from strong attacks by China, Britain (India) and ANZAC, not to mention the juggernaut, USA. Make that tactic virtually suicide, the Japanese commanders considered it, and decided against it because they would gain little and end up losing a lot, something their little economy could not afford to do.

He did. America makes 50 IPC in the pacific alone…thats twice as big as any two Allies put together…and thats just in the Pacific!

That is good then, it seems like he is making the game to where the Axis must try and expand their economies as fast as possible in order to win the war. Cause that was about the only way they were going to win it in the end.

It’s not just economics. Manpower and the national resolve are also critical. If the Soviets lost the Axis would have alot more manpower than our ability to match along with England, which was near the breaking point after many years of war. Thats why Churchill got replaced before the war even ended. The axis exploit its manpower much more efficiently than Western Democracies.

If the Soviets lost and UK was stripped of her colonies, its likely that USA would just be fighting Japan because of the direct threat, but our material advantage is unquestioned, the question is how many lives get lost fighting what becomes a lost war to save Europe with no prospect of hope…. the hope was coming from Soviets eating 85% of the total German military economy and with that removed, a huge problem of how many American lives will pay for Europe?

To me the public would not allow FDR to fight the Germans, but only support the japanese fight. Americans would not be willing to lose 8 million more soldiers just to save france and get back the Russian and British partners.

If you look purely at economics the axis in total were just a tad bit ahead of USA, but that does not count what would be coming in from occupied UK, lost British colonies, and a fallen Soviet Empire. For that i would add in new ratio of 1.4/1 in favor of axis.

Thats assuming the axis are at their apex. This is the 1940 scenerio right? No one major power is beaten yet! If anything its in favor of the allies! there are waaay more of them then there are germans.

I agree with IL on the Europe as a lost cause scenario. That is why if the Allies are going to be comprised of UK, US, USSR, France, ANZAC and India (Joint power like AAP) and China (controlled by the US), then I think to be fair we should have an Axis victory if three powers are taken. Classically that would be France, UK (or Joint powers ANZAC and India) and Russia. If that happened the war would continue but only in the Pacific, but really for gameplay sake I think that should be considered an Axis victory. Since the Axis are going to be comprised of Italy, Germany and Japan, the allies would need a total victory so it would be fair that way: three capitals captured for either alliance equals a victory.

I hope the token symbol for france or anzac isnt going to be ANOTHER bulls-eye! Those are SOOO lame!

I’ll bet France is a bullseye but I have no clue about ANZAC

I would like to see a bullseye for ANZAC and a France flag or Red, White and Blue.