Europe Requests

@Omega:

we’ve played games of AA50 for over 10 hours and haven’t been able to finish. 5 hours or so in Pacific 40 before someone concede, but never with a clear victory

Say you give someone uk and he gets crushed by Japan early. You have to understand that person that he doesn’t want to continue to play…

So how long does everybody think a global game will take?

With the little free time most of us have; about 3 weeks.  :-P

@adam.hall:

With the little free time most of us have; about 3 weeks.  :-P

For me, right now, it could take longer.

We very rarely finish a game in one day/night.
As far as if we’ll play the Euro game or go straight for global, not sure. We may play a quick test run 4-5 rd Euro game, just to see how the mechanics and political rules work, then put them together for a complete game. Time will be a big factor, as I would think global will take much longer.

If I get the game a few days before we will actually play, I might play through a solo Euro game. Passing on any info to my potential enemies to be determined  :-D

I don’t mind long games as long as I don’t have to put the game away in between sessions.

I am really only expecting for France/Dutch to be the only new power.  We will still have Italy, but I would bet that Canada will be part of the commonwealth, part of the Anglo’s control.

@spectre_04:

I am really only expecting for France/Dutch to be the only new power.  We will still have Italy, but I would bet that Canada will be part of the commonwealth, part of the Anglo’s control.

You’re only going to get France and nothing else.

neutral africa.

south africa and egypt would be british empire, north africa would be axis, sahara impassable, but the rest of africa neutral.

so if one side wants to spend the resources to grab the cash they can. but if you want to ignore it you can, without the penalty of the other side making a fortune.

in the early designs of revised they toyed with the idea of a neutral africa. i remember seeing a picture with africa a different colour from everything else. i thought it was a good idea then, but now that there will be more neutrals it just makes sense to have africa neutral aswell

@allweneedislove:

neutral africa.

south africa and egypt would be british empire, north africa would be axis, sahara impassable, but the rest of africa neutral.

so if one side wants to spend the resources to grab the cash they can. but if you want to ignore it you can, without the penalty of the other side making a fortune.

in the early designs of revised they toyed with the idea of a neutral africa. i remember seeing a picture with africa a different colour from everything else. i thought it was a good idea then, but now that there will be more neutrals it just makes sense to have africa neutral aswell

Most of Africa was colonized by beligerents in the war: Italy, Britain, France, and Belgium all had colonies which made up most of Africa

@allweneedislove:

in the early designs of revised they toyed with the idea of a neutral africa. i remember seeing a picture with africa a different colour from everything else. i thought it was a good idea then, but now that there will be more neutrals it just makes sense to have africa neutral aswell

This wouldn’t be very realistic, North Africa was important for controlling the Mediterranean.

@Brain:

@allweneedislove:

in the early designs of revised they toyed with the idea of a neutral africa. i remember seeing a picture with africa a different colour from everything else. i thought it was a good idea then, but now that there will be more neutrals it just makes sense to have africa neutral aswell

This wouldn’t be very realistic, North Africa was important for controlling the Mediterranean.

you did not quote my whole post. you missed a very important part.

south africa and egypt would be british empire, north africa would be axis, sahara impassable, but the rest of africa neutral.

Sorry about that.

See how easy it is to twist someone’s words.

But, I still disagree. The winner of the struggle for North Africa should be richly rewarded by land-grabbing the rest of Africa.

@Brain:

Sorry about that.

See how easy it is to twist someone’s words.

But, I still disagree. The winner of the struggle for North Africa should be richly rewarded by land-grabbing the rest of Africa.

no problem. it is good you agree. allies should not start out with all the income of africa. they should have to win the battle of north africa and then move units south to gain the ipcs for africa.

But now Africa holds many reasons to capture

Gave you control of the Suez
Gave you acess to central and southern Africa
Middle East (which is spose to be worth about 10 IPCs
Cacacus (another 5-10IPCs)
1-2 victory cities
Italian NOs

@democratic:

But now Africa holds many reasons to capture

Gave you control of the Suez
Gave you acess to central and southern Africa
Middle East (which is spose to be worth about 10 IPCs
Cacacus (another 5-10IPCs)
1-2 victory cities
Italian NOs

For me Africa was always important just for all the extra IPC’s.

I know, but now it is impossible for the axis to win without taking Cairo (unless they invade UK, US). Also, the middle easts income is now a factor and UK would be limping without Middle East/Africa income. Italy would also be earning 40+.