So wherever I go everyone always says that Global 1940 is un-balanced but no one really tells why…
Can somenone tell me why you say it is un-balanced?
I’m going to buy Pacific 1940 ( already have Europe ) and I want to know if it really worths it, I know the game is really awesome, the map, the pieces, everything but what worrys me is the balance of the game …
#1. It’s worth it
#2. Some people say that if the US just dumps into the pacific, they have an overly formidable strategy.
@Zallomallo:
#1. It’s worth it
#2. Some people say that if the US just dumps into the pacific, they have an overly formidable strategy.
Thanks but, it’s just that? I thought it was something about Japan.
Japan can’t keep up with a US enemy that is dumping 70+ IPC into the Pacific every turn. Between turns 6 and 8 the assertion is that Japan is neutralized for the rest of the game and the allies can turn the focus to Germany.
Japan can’t keep up with a US enemy that is dumping 70+ IPC into the Pacific every turn. Between turns 6 and 8 the assertion is that Japan is neutralized for the rest of the game and the allies can turn the focus to Germany.
OK thanks a lot
With the Alpha +2 rules, the Axis can win by getting 8 of 11 victory cities on the Europe boards OR 6 of 8 victory cities on the Pacific boards. Some people think that if the US doesn’t go all out in the Pacific, or at least 80%, that it is somewhat easy for Japan to gain those 6 VCs. Personally, I don’t think it’s that easy. Japan starts with 2 VCs, then Manila and Hong Kong are almost a given that Japan will get those. Then, if the US fleet is not strong enough, Japan could also get Honolulu which would give them 5 victory cities.
Now, the last three – San Francisco, Sydney and Calcutta – are very hard for Japan to get. San Francisco is pretty obvious, US can really stack up defense there before Japan could get over there. Same with Calcutta. Sydney is so far away, it will take Japan 2-3 turns to get down there. Japan has to commit a lot of resources to taking any one of these, while fending off the US Navy and keeping the offensive going in China. Also, they have to keep all those VCs and the US could retake Honolulu, which would put Japan back to 5 VCs again. Or, if they are going the other way and trying to attack San Francisco, it’s possible that ANZAC could liberate Manila, or the British could retake Hong Kong. Heck, if the land war is going badly for Japan, the Chinese might even take a VC back.
Maybe some other players are using different stategies than I am, but I just don’t see it as being quite so easy for Japan to take 6 VCs. It seems to me that it is actually easier for Germany/Italy to capture the 8 VCs on the Europe board, especially if the war goes bad for Russia.
It’s not the fact that Japan can win if USA doesnt build in the pacific. It’s the fact that USA can neturalize Japan by building all in the pacific, and then turn on the Alantic to help there before Axis can win on the Europe side of the board.
If the United States spends every dime in the pacific killing Japan there’s absolutely no reason Germany shouldn’t get to Moscow… With no support from the Americans the British actually have trouble containing Italy. Moscow, Cairo, Leningrad, and Stalingrad equals axis win…
If the United States spends every dime in the pacific killing Japan there’s absolutely no reason Germany shouldn’t get to Moscow… With no support from the Americans the British actually have trouble containing Italy. Moscow, Cairo, Leningrad, and Stalingrad equals axis win…
Turn 6 Russia can easily have 60+ infantry in Moscow, making it pretty difficult for Germany to take it before American support arrives in a few more turns.
I disagree. If Russia stacks 10 Inf in Moscow every turn, I think it would be easier to take Moscow. By that time Germany will have Leningrad, Stalingrad and Caucasus as well as the rest of the Russian land up to Moscow. Even without taking UK, they could be pulling down 81+ IPC per turn and producing 9 tanks per turn in Russia. A couple of turns of suicide attacks and Moscow will fall.
I think playing Russia in the US all in the Pacific is pretty tough, without help from UK in India that is. So if Japan can push towards Calcutta, they can’t help the Russians.
If you turtle that hard Germany will have 20+ IPCs of Russian territory. Add to that bonuses for Stalingrad, Leningrad, the oil bonuses in the south, Norway, and Germans in Egypt you’ve got a Germany making damn near 80-85 a turn. The units sent to crush Moscow are already over there. How does America stop them, where are they landing?? I’m not going to turn a tank stack in Bryansk around cause 6 transports dumped on Normandy….
Granted the Americans are spending the majority of their money in the pacific. If Japan doesn’t declare war until turn 3 they aren’t going to be neutralized by 6 anyway. Well, the Americans won’t be ready to land in Europe by 6. Maybe 8 or 9? By then Germany is a damn house…
These are all great posts. I think the US strategy is use all your IPC’s on Turn 1 in the Pacific. Turns 2 & 3 build in the Atlantic to help the UK, contain Italy and German fleet in the Atlantic which has most likely for the 1st three turns killed or harrassed the UK navy and deprived the UK from a few of their IPC’s by convoy raiding w/subs. Once you can get rid of most of the German subs convoy raiding, eliminate or chase away the German and Italian navy(own the Atlantic), keep the German and Italian navy bottled up in the Med and Baltic. Then, turn your 100% focus to Japan. Otherwise, I agree w/the other posters Germany gets to big and is pounding on Russia. Russia will most likely fall, then game over. You have to help UK get their units off the island w/the US providing fleet protection. Then the UK can concentrate on building nothing but Transports to invade Europe with. By the Turn 4, when the US can really do something, the UK should have a sizeable invasion force in the UK(building and protecting against SeaLion.
So wherever I go everyone always says that Global 1940 is un-balanced but no one really tells why…
Can somenone tell me why you say it is un-balanced?
I’m going to buy Pacific 1940 ( already have Europe ) and I want to know if it really worths it, I know the game is really awesome, the map, the pieces, everything but what worrys me is the balance of the game …
Quit beeing so cheap and just spend the money on what you really want, man. No A&A game was ever so unbalanced that a bid could not fix it.
I like the fact that the axis players win if either side wins helps balance the whole focusing on Germany or Japan first.
I like it the way it is . 1 on 1 is different than 3 on 3. I also think the table top is different than the computer screen. The Axis had 2 wins this weekend and of the 17 games we’ve played with the ALPHA+2 rules and set up were still about 50/50. The skill level is about even on our table
