We use a heavy outdoor vinyl for our maps. The kind that sign shops use for promotional banners etc. Really nice on larger maps. Don’t be scared to spend the extra money over paper as it is well worth it long term.
New Big 60'x30' World Map! (Global Conflict)
1. There are three Axis Nations (Germany, Italy, and Japan) Therefore it is possible to have twenty victory cities without having any single axis power having 10.
2. A careful reading of the rules will show that a blockhouse could be better than a tank when defending against an amphibious assault. This is for two reasons. First the blockhouse has a targeted attack so it can chose who it hits (during the first round of combat) Secondly, it fires twice in the first round of an amphibious assault. once at a three (targeted) and once later at a one (no targeted). So in my opinion blockhouses are worth buying.
3. The 2 hit German tank does not exist. it was simply a suggestion which has not been implemented. I personally don’t like a two hit tank or a production limit rule.
4. I have play tested it twice. Both times it was a pretty even match. The Japanese navy is huge (primarily because they wont be able to afford it later on) however this is offset by the USA huge 100 IPC income.
5. Yes some nicer setup charts would be greatly appreciated. I am now revising the setup for the final time and some territory ipc values have been tweaked. I will upload them soon.
For your info. Based on the feedback of others I will also be revising the rules one last time. Because there are so many players everyone tends to sit around waiting a lot, which makes the game less exciting. I have been encouraged by others to let the Axis Nations move at the same time, and Then let the allies move all at once. (with the conduct combat phase being resolved separately for each nation) I have also elected not to use the IPC dollar bills. Instead each player will place supply tokens (1 token = 1 IPC) at their complexes during their collect income phase. Players must use the supplies at the complex for purchases. Note this does mean that a player could capture supplies if he captured a hostile complex. And finally capturing a capital does not prevent a player from building or collecting income. However a player cannot claim victory if his capital is occupied by an enemy.
Phases would go something like this
1. Develop weapons
3. Combat Move
4. Conduct combat
(resolve each nation’s attacks separately)
5. Non Combat Move
6. Place Units
7. Place supply Tokens
Thank you for all the additional information and explanation. A great deal of though has obviously been put into this game. There are 5 of us that regularly play games together. It will be my choice of game in May. We’ll try this game in May and post some feedback. Even with play testing already being done, it is always a surprise what a new group of people find
We have tried simultaneous movement in Axis and Allies variants and found it created some new dynamics to the game that were not anticipated.
For example, with regular turn order, the British may liberate France and then the Americans would reinforce. This generally meant that the British needed the strength to capture the territory, and the Americans would move it behind the British with a more defensive force. With simultaneous movement, the British and Americans could both attack simultaneously. This meant the Germans needed a stronger defense and the Allies individually could be weaker as long as the combined force was enough.
There were also some odd movement scenarios. For example, with separate movement, the Americans might clear a sea zone with a Japanese transport in it, then the British could move through the sea zone to attack an adjacent territory. With simultaneous movement this was not possible.
Overall, we found simultaneous movement to be a completely different game than the turn based game. It required significant new rules and balance. In the end we decided to stay with a turn based game. I am very interested to hear about the simultaneous movement experience tried with this game!
Also, can you please PM me with your email address. I’ll put the setup charts into a nice format. I’d prefer to email them to you for approval so that you maintain control of the ‘look and feel’ of the game and it meets the objectives you have for quality and appearance.
One aesthetic suggestion on the Neutrals: Make the impassible a different color from the neutrals that can be invaded or flown over. Perhaps use sandy yellow or orange for the impassible and the same white for neutrals that can be invaded.
Also, is there a setup chart for the neutrals? The rules say they can be invaded by the Axis, but I can’t find what units start in the neutral territories that can be invaded.
I’ve toyed with different colors schemes, but since I did the entire process on a trial version of photoshop its pretty difficult to alter now. I basically would have to color it in microsoft paint, and it tends to look unnatural when colors are changed. So the colors will change for the time being.
As for the neutral rule. I like neutral counties having units, but have a problem with then never being able to build more. Hypothetically if someone invaded a neutral and the neutral wasn’t conquered wouldn’t it make sense for the neutral to build more units. However I have not discovered a good way to do this. As an alternative to neutral unit placement i came up with this rule using non real simulated units:
“Only the Axis may violate Political Neutrality. Violating political neutrality must take place in the Combat Move phase. The Axis player attacks as normal, keeping track of the number of hits scored. An Allied player then rolls six die for each IPC the territory is worth. The Axis player removes one invading unit for each die roll equal to or lower than the territory’s IPC value. Combat is now complete. If the Axis player does not have any surviving land units or if he did not score as many hits as the territory’s IPC value he must retreat. Any units not capable of retreating are treated as causalities.”
using this rule there is no actual units present on the board. It also means the axis can be defeated. If the Axis player attacks again he will face the same odds as before not a depleted neutral force as is the case in statically placed neutral armies.
someone could carefully determine that in order to sucessfully invade netural country a axis player is stasticly likely to to recieve these casulities:
1 ipc = 1 unit lost
2 ipc = 4 units lost
3 ipc = 9 units lost
Here New Updated map with territories and IPC values final (except possibally neutral mongoilia)
here is the revised setup
And here is the rule book (same as before not re-revised yet)
Hope it helped.
The new setup charts refer to India, yet the map has split India into 3 pieces (Northern India, Southern India, Calcuta).
I’ve also got a finished draft of some attractive setup charts I’d like to email to you for approval and posting.
Sorry for the oversight on my part
This is the corrected setup
NORTHERN INDIA - 1 INF, 1 ART
CALCUTTA - 2 INF, AAGUN, COMPLEX
SOUTHERN INDIA - 3 INF, 1 FIGHTER, AAGUN, COMPLEX
(Ive also updated the links)
Ok, this is my fist post. I have played the game 3 times know and have some thoughts on balancing the game. I found that the Allies are excessively overpowering to begin with. The huge incomes for both UK and USA are way too much for Japan to handle, and Germany is barely a match (if a match) for Russia by itself. Italy matters little (historically acurate) and can be ignored until Germany and/or Japan defeated or put into submission. The starting units are good, the economy needs to be adjusted. I found that if the convoy rules are altered it creates a much more even game. (BTW the convoy rules are somewhat vague in the rulebook). If you require the allied played to have a transport stationed on the convoy site at the end of the player turn to receive the IPC’s from the convoy, it evens things out a lot. Here is my reasoning…
Under the current rules the Allies have little difficulty in controlling all but the Soloman Islands convoy and Soviet Far East convoy for nearly the entire game. (with the possible exception of turn 1).
Under current rules, with the convoys the Allies have enough purchasing power to overwhelm the axis long before they have a chance to capture that many victory cities.
It will likely reduce Russia’s income by 20% until at least turn 3-4 before Russia can afford to get a transport safely to the atlantic convoy. This makes Russia able to be beaten by Germany and requires the UK and USA to do more that beat up on Japan.
Creates more naval conflict (an item sorely lacking from other Axis and Allies games, mostly due to the limited space for manuvering), the allies now have to protect their convoys as they become vunerable to air attack.
I would be very interested to hear if anyone else has played this game yet and what their thoughts are on the balance of play. Overall I think it is superb, and an excellently done map!
Last thought, Japan seems to be the only Axis nation with a legit chance of winning. The axis together cam close to 20 VC when played with the revised convoy rules, but Japan is definetaly the only one with a chance to get to 10 VC’s. I really do like the 10VC’s rule, as it stops the usual KGF strategy that has seemed to rule ealrier Axis and Allies games (at least with the people I play with).
Ok, so does anyong have thoughts on balance of game play?
hey can you post a picture with the pieces set up? Id like to see how the print came out. I am considering sending my copy to printers.
Thanks for the feedback. Contrary to most peoples initial perception, the game does not favor the allies. In fact Playtesting has yet to provide an axis victory. Problems tend to stem from allied income, and technology. In fact no other complaints about gameplay have arrisen.
Im in the process of revising the rules for a final time. Tweaking both of these areas, to make them more ballanced. Both these issues have been addressed. Your convoy rule seems intreaging.
When you played with your revised convoy rules did a country have to have its own transport in its convoy zone to collect ipc, or could another country place a transport there? aka could britian send a transport to the soviet zone to so russia could collect more income? Also, a few people played with supply tokens rather than ipc, which seems to balance the game a bit. Did you do so also? Finally, how bad did germany lose in your games? about how many cities was it able to hold on to?
thanks for the info.
I wouldn’t use the word “final”. From my experience its never a good thing.
More and more people will download, print and play your map. I think there are plenty of valuable feedback coming in.
Its useful to release a map with setup icons. Quick setup but also makes discussion easier.
As for argument on whether its unbalanced, really need to be a bit more specific about each turn. Then Bob_A_Mickelson can show you from the variant designer’s prespective. And things that new players can overlook.
Adlertag last edited by
Now this game is based on A&A Pacific, right ?
A new game, A&A Guadalcanal, have some new rules, like Hidden Sea Movement and subs on station. Now this rules will fit in Pacific too, I think honestly jes. So how about including this in this game ? Any feedbacks ?
The Gameboard and most of the setup is based on Europe and pacific. The rule book is the revised rulebook with some changes added. I want people to be able to play it without much relearning. Thats why its the revised rule book. Any changes have been highlighted in red so someone doesn’t have to read the whole book if they are familiar with the revised edition. If i did my job right the rule book should read very fluidly from beginning to end.
One more thing when you played with the “transports in the convoy rule” did that mean that starting income was lower for allied players?
I’m actually surprised that people cant overcome the economic differences in gameplay. Mathematically The incomes are actually more favorable to the axis than Europe and pacific were. From my experience, its not the income that the problem its the fact that nations can build so many places. (Using supply tokens in the revised edition addresses this issue, though it probably wont be enough)
Do you mean that i should publish a printable/playable map with units on it? Because I found that some of the territories don’t have enough room to do this and still look good. My current thought is releasing a National Production Chart/Tech Chart that has a shrunk map on the reverse with units on it. This small map would replace the setup charts, and i believe speed up set up time.
I think you may want to make a set up that has a picture of the nations territories and the icons on that and make them on 8.5x11 sheets
In USA/ UK case, you can make a unique sheet that has all the different territories and the icons on them arranged in more or less west to east order its easy.
Yes that would be great.
It’ll be faster than table look up for new players.
Ok some calrifications on the “transport in the convoy” rule variant that I have been using.
Starting incomes are reduced. For example the USA would start with 80IPC’s instead of 100 IPC’s. (They begin with a transport in the Eastern USA seazone convoy.)
A nation must have its own transport in its own convoy zone to generate the income. Example: A british transport must be located in a british convoy to generate the convoy IPC’s.
I found that without varying the starting incomes and convoy rules that Germany was never able to take a single Russian VC, the Russians stockpileded a huge number of guys in Belo-Russia and pushed the germans back without difficulty. With the new convoy rule I am in my third game and both times germany has been able to take the VC’s at Kiev and Leningrad, (once took Stalingrad also). The result being that Germany would be able to eliminate Russia if the Allies did not invade Normandy.
In all of my games I have found that Japan is a lot more powerful than Germany with a much greater chance of winning. With the convoy rule in place the axis were able to get very close to victory. They controlled 18 VC’s total and Japan controlled 9 VC’s before being pushed back. The USA and UK must both concentrate on Japan to prevent them from getting 10 VC’s while still putting mild preassure on Germany to prevent Russia from being defeated.
Ok, I thought that for anyone who is interested in discussing balance of play that I would give a quick rundown on the strategies that I have been using so far and their results. These strategies are mostly axis based as it appears that they are in the most need of definite strategic help if they are going to win.
Simple. There is only one strategy that I can see as being effective. Attack Russia with everything that they have got as often as possible. Build inf with a few tanks or artillery and pound away at Russia till the Allied fleets starts knocking. Then turtle and buy inf and hope that Japan can come through with the win. The Germans are never in a position to buy fleet or air units, and simply need to field as many ground troops as possible. On the G1 turn, the German fleet and air force should be able to eliminate nearly the entire UK fleet in the atlantic, of course the German fleet is then almost destroyed and will be by air counterattack on UK1. That does it for the naval strategy and the rest is up to the Allies.
Italy Strategy 1: Into Egypt
The Italians do not start with enough to pose any serious threat to the UK, however, if the UK does not reinforce Egypt it will fall to Italy around Italy turn 3-4. Italy buys another transport on turn one and just ferries troops across to north africa. Once Egypt falls, about 4-5 Italy tanks should subdue Africa in another turn or too. By this stage the UK or USA must respond, but by now Germany is usually colonized and the Allies have plenty left to deal with Italy.
Italy Strategy 2: Support Germany in Russia
This strategy was not very effective. Italy is able to supply a few inf and the occasional tank, but not enough to do much attacking, and not much use unless the Russians are going for the Bulgarian IC and South-Eastern Europe. Again, Italy can pretty much be ignored until Germany is taken care of.
Japan Strategy 1: Island occupation
This strategy was based on the need for IPC’s to fuel Japan’s march into Asia. The fleet on J1 and J2 is capturing all of the british islands and nearly doubles the Japanese IPC’s, which go to buying inf and a few tanks to march through China and into Russia. The strategy worked well for killing China and getting into Russia, but did not capture enough VC’s to come close to win. Australia and New Zealand are so far that the fleet is effectively immobolized for a few turns in capturing them, but are necessary for win.
Japan Strategy 2: All out for Australia
The need for VC’s is great for Japan as they have the best chance of winning for the axis. So I went all out for Australia and New Zealand to capture the IC and VC’s. This however put my fleet too far from Japan, and took too long to recover, the USA was able to build fleet and by USA3 was well established in Northern Pacific threatening the transports landing troops in Asia. Also, British got too strong in Indian Ocean.
Japan Strategy 3: All out for India
The factory at India is key to not only southeast Asia but also to Africa and up into southern Russia. This is the game I am currently playing, and though it appears to be effective, I am afraid that the USA left without much resistance will be too strong and threaten the Pacific before Japan is well enough established.
So I would love to hear criticism of these strategies, and/or other strategies for the game. In all of my strategies the USA went pretty much all out on Japan, with the British split between harassing Germany and fortifying the India IC and navy.
aboslute0233 and everyone else
I will be more than willing to implement your new transport convoy rule if someone can give me a reasonably justifiable explication for why the allies aren’t collecting them on the first turn. (especially USA and russia which arnt at war yet) I realize the rule works practically, but i would like to have a historical purpose for it.
if not i suggest we implement the transport convoy rule under these conditions:
1.Add or move a transport into each convoy zone at the start of the game. To represent undisrupted trade, (UK would have its Atlantic convoys without transports, due to the proceeding U-boat war)
2.Give Germany five more fighters, one in Normandy, Germany, Austria, Hungry, and Bulgaria
This is Why…
Currently there are 10 convoy spaces without transports in them. That totals $50. Germany gets 5 new fighters ($50 value) which will be needed badly in Russia, plus it GIVES GERMANY ITS TEETH BACK! I figure that Germany should be able to destroy the three extra transports added in the Atlantic first turn without a problem. Japan should also be able to easily destroy England’s two pacific convoys, Russia’s pacific, and one of USA on the first turn too. This means that turn two should look like your game’s turn two, with the exception of the five extra fighters which Germany could use to attack and defend on the Russian front / and or the atlantic .
Five fighters may be too much, but if it wouldn’t break the game, i think we should do it. Germany need the Luftwaffe.
Here’s the “working” updated version of the rule book. It replaces IPCs with supply tokens, sides move (but dont resolve combat) at same time for shorter game time, Phases have been reordered, and CAPs removed. IT does not have the updated TECHNOLOGY rules i have mentioned, nor does it include in it any of the comments above.
Considering all the feedback I have received from my first public release of Global Conflict on this form and other outlets, **I have now released my third edition of Global Conflict. **
It is much more balanced than before. Minor changes to setup makes Germany be a more threatening adversary. The Allied economic dominance has been addressed with modified convoy rules and also the edition of supply tokens. Long game play time has been addressed with a new turn sequence which should keep all players more involved with very little idle time. A close competitive game with five players can now be completed in less than six hours. (This does not including setup). Technology rules have also been modified. Three new units have been included. They are Mechanized Divisions, Air Transports, and Cruisers. (If you don’t have these units, replace all cruisers in the setup with destroyers, and ignore mechanized devisions and air transports. Play will still be balanced)
I hope all of you enjoy the game. And as always all comments, suggestions, and game reviews are welcome.
This is the link to all the files you need