I was curious about this. I have not yet played Global 1940, but have played other versions all without NOs as a lot of times it makes the game somewhat more predictable.
tl;dr Try turning NOs off. Personally I find that it balances the game much better than a bid for the Allies does.
Lengthy, opinionated rant by someone who doesn’t play on ladder below. Take it for what it’s worth
As someone who doesn’t play G40 competitively, I find that removing NOs goes a great deal towards balancing the game, actually. Half the reason Axis is perceived as being overpowered by a huge margin (30+ bids OOB), is because:
Germany’s NOs are laughably easy to obtain, granting them bonus income when they already dwarf the USSR in terms of income by as early as the end of G1 (when you factor in the money seized from France for conquering Paris). This causes games to snowball hard, as there is no serious chance that the Soviets will be able to hold several of the German NO territories (specifically, Volgograd and Novgorod) against the common Italy-Germany can-open style of play.
The USSR’s largest NO actively punishes the Allies for playing the game correctly (i.e. moving UK/US Air Units into Russia to bolster defensive positions, allowing Russia to spend its buys exclusively on expendable land units like INF/MECH).
These two are the main offenders in terms of NOs. The completely lopsided power dynamic between the USSR and Germany in the Nazis’ favor warps the entire rest of the game around it. The UK/US are forced to spend almost 100% of their incomes on the Europe Map just to keep the Soviets alive long enough to see the Mediterranean and Scandinavia cleaned up (which is required in order to turn off a few of Italy/Germany’s NOs). Even when the Mediterranean and Scandinavia are cleaned up, and even when US/UK are spending 100% of their income in Europe, by time the Western Allies can actually build up a force sizable enough to either liberate France or perform a crush on Berlin (usually by means of US takes Denmark -> UK takes Berlin in back-to-back moves, not giving Germany time to react), the European Axis will already have Moscow and be well on their way towards Cairo to take the last VC needed to win on the Europe board.
And even if, despite all of the disadvantages for the Allies I listed above, if the US/UK manage to arrive in time to stop Germany, or if the Nazis’ big all-in battle against Moscow G5/6 goes haywire because of dice, you still haven’t dealt with Japan, who has likely used the absolute lack of US presence in the Pacific to run amok, crush Calcutta, neuter China, and reach within striking distance of either Honolulu or Sidney to win on the Pacific Map. The Allies can start pumping money into the Pacific once the momentum has finally shifted against the European Axis, but left unchecked Japan will be raking in 60+ IPCs/turn (thanks to the high number of territories in China, the high value of the Money Islands, and their similarly easy to obtain NOs). Good luck fighting against that and the terrifyingly large Air Force they started the game with.
Even if Berlin and Rome are Allied-occupied, because of the absurd OOB Victory conditions, the Axis still win if they win on the Pacific Map.
Now, assuming we turn off NOs, suddenly the Axis are making 10-15 less IPCs/turn, which means 1 less Bomber, 2 , less tanks, or 5 less INF to deal with every turn. The Allies will be hurting for some of the extra money too, but not to the same extent as the Axis will be. Without NOs, the Soviets don’t need to waste their early stacks guarding their borderline-indefensible position in Novgorod, and the US/UK can pump air units into Russia without having to worry about reducing the Russians’ ability to defend themselves. The Axis still have the edge without NOs (due to their strong starting positions and more central map location), but they won’t be able to replace expensive units like Tanks, Boats and Planes nearly as easily.
This is probably a much longer explanation than you probably wanted, so gratz if you read the whole thing.
EDIT: Spelling.
An alternative, but more controversial suggestion would be to combine UK Atlantic and UK Pacific into one power, able to spend its money where it pleases (rather than UK Pacific money being spent in Calcutta and UK Atlantic Money being spent in London/wherever you decide to stick a factory on the Europe map). It lets the UK get its Atlantic Fleet up and running more quickly and lets them dump as many land units in India as they need to defend against Japan. I don’t personally play this way, as it violates the spirit of how the game was designed, but I’ve seen the suggestion floated around the forums before.
An even more out there suggestion would be to combine UK Atlantic, UK Pacific and ANZAC into one power, so as to replicate the feel of the smaller A&A Maps where UK/Commonwealth had one economy/turn. See above for why this may/may not appeal to you.
I read the whole thing by the way, ha. And thank you for the detailed opinion, helps a lot.
In a general sense I’ve always felt NOs to be severally limiting to strategies for the game as it incentivizes certain tracks of behavior in the game on both sides, making it much more predictable. I could using NOs for territories rich in some sort of strategic resource historically however.
@Xlome_00 I suggest you reduce the Leningrad, Caucasus, Moscow and Stalingrad bonuses from 5 to 3. If thats not enough, you could nerf the calcutta and spice bonuses back to 3 as well but those are both good incentives for hard to accomplish goals. You can also add a tank or a fighter to Urals and that doesnt affect the open but it does make USSR a bit more viable. The reason the game appears so imbalanced is that a 3-axis all in destroy Moscow is optimal, if the Axis goof around in any form or fashion, the game is much more balanced. Also, if all the players are veterans or experts, they’ll choose to slay Russia. Newer players trying to have fun and goof around experiementing with new ideas? The game is balanced.
I believe the purpose of NO’s is to give the Axis powers options to make attacks instead of relying on the same old same old. With that said, Italy will suffer the most from lack of NO’s while most of the Allies will be hurt too.
we are omitting that shutting off US NOs means they are at minimum income all game. A different game for sure…but probably not an Allied advantage
@taamvan said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:
we are omitting that shutting off US NOs means they are at minimum income all game. A different game for sure…but probably not an Allied advantage
I agree on that.
The US needs any IPC they can get!
I played a few games with minimum income for the Allies. You will unlikely win. The Allies depend on the NO’s, so does the Axis powers.
You may experiment with diffrent NO’s or change them, but shutting them off is not a good idea Imo.
@aequitas-et-veritas said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:
@taamvan said in New to G40...will not playing w/NOs break the game?:
we are omitting that shutting off US NOs means they are at minimum income all game. A different game for sure…but probably not an Allied advantage
I agree on that.
The US needs any IPC they can get!
I played a few games with minimum income for the Allies. You will unlikely win. The Allies depend on the NO’s, so does the Axis powers.
You may experiment with diffrent NO’s or change them, but shutting them off is not a good idea Imo.
We play with NOs off except USA +30 when at war. It works great for us. Give it a try.
