4 players?

[miragehunter]

Has anyone played with four players yet?  If so, I would be very interested in hearing your comments on how it was with four players.  Also who played with two countries and how that did work out?  I would imagine that that one player would play the UK and ANZAC.  I was hoping to play the new game with a group that I play AAR with but they felt that playing 4 people was not a good idea.  And that one of the players was going feel that the UK/ANZAC was not a fun experience.  Any insite into this topic would be a tremendous help.

[fanofbond]

I have played with four players and i cannot complain about the gameplay.  The fourth person was china and anzac since they are the smallest powers.  Othere wise the game expiernce was great.  The alllies where a little bored until japan attacked, but once japan attacked it took all of the allies working very well together for an eventual allied victory.  In a nutshell don't knock it till you try it.

[miragehunter]

Thanks for the response.  I'm not knocking it at all.  But the other people in my gaming group were apprehensive about trying it with 4 players and we are all seasoned AAR players.  That's why I was asking for opinions on people that have tried it with 4 players.  Now that you mention it.  I guess that having one player the ANZAC and China is a good combination it seems like.

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

I've played with four players (ANZAC & China combined) and also five players once. I cant complain about game play. Its still fun, but more lag time. I think three players plays the best.

[bennyboyg]

I've played with four players (ANZAC & China combined) and also five players once. I cant complain about game play. Its still fun, but more lag time. I think three players plays the best.

Really? I could never imagine that being enjoyable for the China player. I'm skeptical that it would even be very fun playing as just ANZAC. Everyone of my games has only been either 2 or 3 players.

[Mino1124]

I have yet to have a chance to play even though I bought it. I think that I would rather have the China player be UK because the UK player starts with part of Burma Road. Seeing as how Burma Road is so important to China, I think it'd be better to have it in his/her hands.

[miragehunter]

Very true... But I always thought that the UK player would be also the ANZAC because they were both tied to the same political alliances.  China is a bigger player than the ANZAC is I'm guessing since I haven't played a full game yet.  I've only gotten to play it for 2-3 rounds when I got on x-mas day.    I haven't yet played it since.  My son hasn't even played it with me yet and he's played AAR with me.  He feels its too much for him and he's 12.

[bcguitars]

I've only played this 3-player so far, and our breakdown was US/China and UK/ANZAC.  This seemed to be the best balance for play experience.  I can see where a UK/China and US/ANZAC might work as well, though, although it splits up the US player's turn.  Maybe I'll try that out some time.

[Funcioneta]

China+UK is better than UK+ANZAC. Giving only UK to a player can make that player exit from the game after India is lost and that's not good, give him at least a chance of holding one of two countries

Another good stuff is proximity: China+India player will not need move from one side to other of the table in a FTF. I suggest this setup of players:

- North side of the table: Japan player
- West: UK+China
- South: ANZAC
- East: USA

In case of 5 players, you need a Playstation near of the table when minor powers start to fall 

[Zenosco]

     We play with four of us every Friday night and it works out well.  We to have 1 player play Anzac and China and it works out well.  Plus we rotate each Friday so every one gets a chance at playing the different country's.  I did that because we played AA50 so much that everyone played the same country each week it started to become the same game play each week.  Rotating the countries now creates different game play each week. 
     On a side note my wife beat me for the first time this past week playing the Allies.  Ive been hearing about it all week now!

[Van_Trump]

I agree that China/ANZAC seems to work best as the 4th player.

I will point out the obvious: players should be planning their next moves during the other players' turns. (and refining them as the situation changes. i.e. the ��� player moves a DD during non-combat to block your planned attack.)

When it comes to purchases everyone should be ready to IMMEDIATELY plop down the new units as soon as their turn begins. Very rarely should someone have to think what to buy in a 4 player game.

The disadvantage of more than 2 players is lack of coordination between the allies. The knock on the original game is that it was a 2 player game masquerading as a 5 player game.