@thrasher1 Our group plays China at War, Turkey at War, Fighting Railways, and Diplomacy. We have played others, but those 4 are our favorites. Diplomacy is starting to wear out it’s welcome a bit, as far as I’m concerned. It adds a lot of fun to the game, but it heavily favors the Allies. Some games it can really swing things.
Best Differences from A&A
-
Alright, Covid-19 has me with nothing much to do, so thought I’d post something here for fun.
If you had to chose just one, what would be your favorite difference that was put into place for Global War from the traditional A&A games?
Terrain features being uses? Lend Lease? Special Abilities? Units (though this one seems loaded)? Expansions?
I think my biggest thing is the concept that this is a three way game. It’s definitely harder at times if you can’t get three to play a game of course, but I like that not everything is so “black and white” (or, Axis and Allies). It adds some levels of diplomacy at times, but also adds flavor to what you’re really trying to accomplish, which is to win the game, and not necessarily take Capitals.
What about you?
-
I would say:
- The build up to war meaning there is no ‘opening moves syndrome’, which I really dislike about A&A.
- The softening of ‘just stack infantry and your more expensive units will never die’ philosophy through things like target selection and air superiority rules.
- The revised rules on blitzing and naval screening forces meaning a single infantry or ship can no longer block an entire fleet or army.
Basically I like the things which take the hard edges off A&As rule set which are an established part of how to play that game but really, a bit s*&t when you actually stop to think about it.
Oh and 4) the revised unit prices for version 3 so that certain unappealing unit types are more likely to be acquired.
-
@Credulous very good point! I agree, I think your overall point of changing a lot of “static moves” from A&A is spot on. I think we’ve all seen how many moves are almost considered predetermined in A&A games, and it’s just a matter of the dice at that point. So yeah, that might be on the most macro of levels possible, but it’s certainly a big difference, isn’t it?
So, to your #4. I keep seeing people posting in various places about unit prices changing, but I am not seeing much of that unless I’m missing something? Take the ANZAC as an example. I’m comparing the two reference sheets from V2 and V3 right now, and the only difference in unit costs is that air transports went down an IPP from 9 to 8. Everything else is the exact same. And I’ve understood the new version to have the unit prices be the same across the board for all nationalities, with no differences for powers any longer, correct? I guess I’m not sure what I’m missing for unit prices being changed to be more incentivizing?
-
Hi Chris, cruisers, battleships and destroyers are all cheaper than they were. Fast battleships look like one of the most overpriced units now at 3 IPCs more than a regular battleship, as most (probably all) of the countries which can buy one have legacy battleships slowing their fleets down anyway so is it really worth 3ipcs for a fast one?
With cruisers taking two turns to build but only being marginally more expensive than destroyers they become much more appealing than they were.
-
@Credulous Wow. You know, I definitely forgot that the V3 reference sheets have the ships on a separate page. So I was comparing the V2 sheet to the V3 page that had all units EXCEPT naval on them haha. My mistake, thanks for pointing that out.
Now that I’ve actually paid attention to the differences, I definitely agree with you. Cruisers are much more appealing, and allow smaller nations a bigger punch that they may not have had otherwise.
Great point on battleships, The cost difference may otherwise have been worth it, but yeah, if you already have slower ships in your fleet, there’s no reason to pay more for one that can’t move as quickly anyways!
Suggested Topics
