Question: Number of Players in AAE/AAP40 World Game

my guess is 6 players

1. United States & China
2. United Kingdom, ANZAC, France
3. USSR
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Italy

China is a independent power this time, so:

• Germany
• Italy
• Japan
• USSR
• UK
• ANZAC
• France
• China
• USA

9 independent powers … however, France will be toasted round 1 so I guess the max will be 8 players. For the optimal amount, from 4 to 6. I’ll guess for 4 players:

• Germany & Italy
• Japan
• UK, ANZAC, USSR
• France, China, USA

My understanding is that the game will recomend the six allied powers be controlled by three players, but for all practical purposes it appear their will be nine different powers, all with their own turn and IPCs, so their could be a nine player game if some people wanted to do that.

@Funcioneta:

9 independent powers … however, France will be toasted round 1.

I thought Italy was bad but it looks like a godsend next to France. China is even preferable as it may last for several turns. This game may be tricky for multis as some players may get blisters on their hands waiting for an act of war so they can move. The US player may be blind by the time  they can get into the game. I say roll the game back to '39 so I can pay 4 zlotys for some fine Polish cavalry.

China is a independent power this time, so:

• Germany
• Italy
• Japan
• USSR
• UK
• ANZAC
• France
• China
• USA

9 independent powers … however, France will be toasted round 1 so I guess the max will be 8 players. For the optimal amount, from 4 to 6. I’ll guess for 4 players:

• Germany & Italy
• Japan
• UK, ANZAC, USSR
• France, China, USA

i understand they are independent, but each power will not be cotrolled by a seperate player.  they will have their own turn and economy, but will be controlled by the same player

my guess is 6 players

1. United States & China
2. United Kingdom, ANZAC, France
3. USSR
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Italy

Considering that the Allies (US, UK, USSR) will be doing very little during the first few game turns, it might be wise to give each of them a pawn to control during the global game to keep everyone rolling dice.

USSR, should control France
US, should control China
UK, should control ANZAC

In practical terms, you could divide the minor powers up and disth them up any way you wish, even adding a 7th player if you wanted to

my real question is what will the turn order be in the global game? will france even get a turn?

1. Germany?
2. Russia?
3. France?
4. Japan?
5. UK?
6. ANZAC?
7. Italy?
8. China?
9. USA?

@oztea:

my real question is what will the turn order be in the global game? will france even get a turn?

1. Germany?
2. Russia?
3. France?
4. Japan?
5. UK?
6. ANZAC?
7. Italy?
8. China?
9. USA?

Based on AAP40 this is my guess, the turns should alternate between sides evenly.

1.Germany
2.Soviets
3.France
4.Japan
5.US
6.China
7.Italy
8.UK
9.ANZAC

I think IL had mentioned in a different post that the US could even be played by 2 people. Both sides will have large incomes, and it is believed those incomes will be ear marked to a specific theater. I think it would be cool. It could even be comical if they don’t agree on certain strats.

yea but you know if the game needed 50 players, some people would still just play 1 vs 1, because no matter what they can’t get the concept that the key dynamic in these games is the idea of having a team of different strengths and loose coordination, rather than these home preparation of exact machine like coordination of pieces. It is more fun to have competing strategies just like in the real war.

In my games it will be 2 players: Germany, Italy and Japan against USSR,France,UK,ANZAC,China and US.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@oztea:

my real question is what will the turn order be in the global game? will france even get a turn?

1. Germany?
2. Russia?
3. France?
4. Japan?
5. UK?
6. ANZAC?
7. Italy?
8. China?
9. USA?

Based on AAP40 this is my guess, the turns should alternate between sides evenly.

1.Germany
2.Soviets
3.France
4.Japan
5.US
6.China
7.Italy
8.UK
9.ANZAC

No, the one smart thing that they did with the pacific, that most people don’t even realize, was eliminated the can opener crap.  With the US being the first allied power to go, UK and ANZAC cannot can opener for them.  This is the #1 reason in my mind why aa50 '41 is bugged.  Ideally, it would either be Germany/UK/Italy/Russia.  Any other order is just asking for trouble.  But no matter what, germany must go before Italy in relation to russia’s turn.

Six.

UK Gets ANZAC what other combonation could there possibly be, i mean really, it is the ONLY possible combination

3 major allied powers, vs 3 major axis powers, divide the 3 minor allied powers amongst the allies (ANZAC, China, France)

It isnt going to be……

Germany + Italy
Japan
Russia
USA + China
UK + France
ANZAC

Italy is a major player this time around

Order of Start, Global Game 1940:

Germany
Russia + France
Japan
UK +  ANZAC
Italy
USA + China

This is what I was told from some inside person.

@Imperious:

yea but you know if the game needed 50 players, some people would still just play 1 vs 1, because no matter what they can’t get the concept that the key dynamic in these games is the idea of having a team of different strengths and loose coordination, rather than these home preparation of exact machine like coordination of pieces. It is more fun to have competing strategies just like in the real war.

I totally agree with you, but you know how it is. It is extremely difficult to find more than 3 or 4 buddies that volunteer to play with plastic soldiers a whole weekend. Not to say 50. The local gaming club where I live only have like 12 memebers, and they prefer to play Euro-trash. So if you want a multi-mulit-player game you 'll need to to online, and you know how it is online, after turn 3 half the players dont show up.

But to our amusement lets say you actually find 6 volunteers, just what does it take to awoid the 1 leader against the other leader ? The answer is simple. We need individual Victory Conditions. And that will never happen as long A&A is considered to be a Team Effort game. The Community will have to change that by start Tournament Play with Individual Victory Conditions, and change the nature of the game step by step. Either that or mail WOTC.

You could try victory aims.

UK-Italy
USA-Phillipans/Paris
Russia-Warsaw

Germany-Starlingrad
Italy-Cairo
Japan-Honolou

We could have 2 easy, 2 medium, and 2 hard; depending on how long you want to play for

@Imperious:

yea but you know if the game needed 50 players, some people would still just play 1 vs 1, because no matter what they can’t get the concept that the key dynamic in these games is the idea of having a team of different strengths and loose coordination, rather than these home preparation of exact machine like coordination of pieces. It is more fun to have competing strategies just like in the real war.

You of all people should know that A&A is very, very, extremely and immensely far from the real world.

And it is very difficult to get more than one person to commit to more than 3-4 hours of play, but if I play 1vs1, it’s much easier to get that single person to resume the game the next day, or at least pretty soon. More than that, and it’s not gonna work, resulting in an unfinished game, that’s my experience.

No pun intended, I’m just stating facts :-)

I for one, would like to see the implementation of individual victory conditions. That way, you’re still trying to stop the other faction from winning in general but you have your own concepts of what is required for victory. It could mean less coordination between the powers in either faction - we could see belligerence and greed, and that would be nice! The spoils of war.