Isnt the game just broken if USA builds a major factory in Norway?

[Guest]

@oztea:

House Rule

No major factories may be built on foreign soil.

or: no major factories on territories (without victory cities) which are not worth at least 3IPC

[LHoffman]

@13thguardsriflediv:

@oztea:

House Rule

No major factories may be built on foreign soil.

or: no major factories on territories (without victory cities) which are not worth at least 3IPC

As good as coming up with alternate rules is… It remains that nobody is really answering IL’s question. Does the US putting a major factory in Norway effectively end the game for Germany, and thus Japan.

I, for one, cannot say, becasue I haven’t played yet. I can only imagine that Germany can prevent it. Though I am not sure about them retaking it after the Allies get a hold on it.

I will say that if the Allies hold Norway and the US puts a major factory ther… I don’t see how Germany can fight any longer. By this time they will have to deal with all 3 Allies: the US can do what they want, Russia will be a substantial challenge itself and the UK will play an important support role, even if they are a weakened form of their former selves.

Let’s address the question and not try to make up excuses to bypass it. We have not even established that it is a legitimate problem, so we don’t need a fix based on rule/map alterations yet.

I am not a fan of “Broken Game” whistleblowing, but when a legitimate possibility is raised it is worth taking a look at.

[Koningstiger]

Like I said, a possible counter or way to prevent this strategy for Germany is placing a major factory on Norway themselves! Just place 5-10 land and/or air units there on G2,3,and/or 4 and the US likely won’t even try to take it. You can move them to the Russian front from there, so it’s not like those ten units would be a purely defensive move. You could also land some planes there to further strengthen your defenses there.

I like a German built factory in Poland a lot as well. Anyway, I feel that building lost of factories is needed to quickly get infantry units to the front. If you need to bring them all in from (Western-) Germany and/or (Northern-) Italy Germany will have been overrun by the western Allies by the time they’re two territories deep into Russia…

[LHoffman]

@Koningstiger:

Like I said, a possible counter or way to prevent this strategy for Germany is placing a major factory on Norway themselves! Just place 5-10 land and/or air units there on G2,3,and/or 4 and the US likely won’t even try to take it. You can move them to the Russian front from there, so it’s not like those ten units would be a purely defensive move. You could also land some planes there to further strengthen your defenses there.

I like a German built factory in Poland a lot as well. Anyway, I feel that building lost of factories is needed to quickly get infantry units to the front. If you need to bring them all in from (Western-) Germany and/or (Northern-) Italy Germany will have been overrun by the western Allies by the time they’re two territories deep into Russia…

I agree with this and I like the idea. I often play with Germany and one problem with having combined arms forces (tanks, infantry and fighters) is that your “soaker” forces, the guys who should take all the punishment, the infantry, cannot keep up with tanks and planes. For that reason alone Germany could surely use a factory closer to the front lines. I would be far more inclined to buy infantry if they were closer to the front.

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@LHoffman:

@Koningstiger:

Like I said, a possible counter or way to prevent this strategy for Germany is placing a major factory on Norway themselves! Just place 5-10 land and/or air units there on G2,3,and/or 4 and the US likely won’t even try to take it. You can move them to the Russian front from there, so it’s not like those ten units would be a purely defensive move. You could also land some planes there to further strengthen your defenses there.

I like a German built factory in Poland a lot as well. Anyway, I feel that building lost of factories is needed to quickly get infantry units to the front. If you need to bring them all in from (Western-) Germany and/or (Northern-) Italy Germany will have been overrun by the western Allies by the time they’re two territories deep into Russia…

I agree with this and I like the idea. I often play with Germany and one problem with having combined arms forces (tanks, infantry and fighters) is that your “soaker” forces, the guys who should take all the punishment, the infantry, cannot keep up with tanks and planes. For that reason alone Germany could surely use a factory closer to the front lines. I would be far more inclined to buy infantry if they were closer to the front.

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

And it allows German navy to be built up North were it can hit Novograd, UK, Scotland, or Iceland(has anyone ever used it yet).

[LHoffman]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LHoffman:

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

And it allows German navy to be built up North were it can hit Novograd, UK, Scotland, or Iceland(has anyone ever used it yet).

True. I tend not to consider German naval operations because in previous games it has been a really stupid idea. Perhaps it is different in G40? I do not know.

I can see German support ships for ancillary amphibious operations, but even they are sitting ducks against a British/American armada… so… depending on the circumstances, buying ships may be a waste of money for Germany.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@LHoffman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LHoffman:

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

And it allows German navy to be built up North were it can hit Novograd, UK, Scotland, or Iceland(has anyone ever used it yet).

True. I tend not to consider German naval operations because in previous games it has been a really stupid idea. Perhaps it is different in G40? I do not know.

I can see German support ships for ancillary amphibious operations, but even they are sitting ducks against a British/American armada… so… depending on the circumstances, buying ships may be a waste of money for Germany.

Well, in this game, most powers have a lot of money, so Germany can afford a navy. At Norway, you don’t have to build surface ships. Build a sub to kill Russia’s NO

[Koningstiger]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LHoffman:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LHoffman:

But if the factory was in Norway, obviously it would be a strong deterrent to an Allied invasion into Scandinavia.

And it allows German navy to be built up North were it can hit Novograd, UK, Scotland, or Iceland(has anyone ever used it yet).

True. I tend not to consider German naval operations because in previous games it has been a really stupid idea. Perhaps it is different in G40? I do not know.

I can see German support ships for ancillary amphibious operations, but even they are sitting ducks against a British/American armada… so… depending on the circumstances, buying ships may be a waste of money for Germany.

Well, in this game, most powers have a lot of money, so Germany can afford a navy. At Norway, you don’t have to build surface ships. Build a sub to kill Russia’s NO

Then I’d add a Russian destroyer to the sea zone off of Archangelsk. Possibly the Russian sub is still there. If not, at the very least the Russian player can use his planes to take out the sub(s). I wouldn’t consider one sub on its own (or even multiples without escorting surface ships) a serious problem for the Russians.

[LHoffman]

@Koningstiger:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Build a sub to kill Russia’s NO

Then I’d add a Russian destroyer to the sea zone off of Archangelsk. Possibly the Russian sub is still there. If not, at the very least the Russian player can use his planes to take out the sub(s). I wouldn’t consider one sub on its own (or even multiples without escorting surface ships) a serious problem for the Russians.

I don’t think that a German sub there is a big problem either. But have the rules changed or something? I thought planes on their own were not allowed to attack subs?

[hobo]

I’ve only played one game and it became very apparent that the game is seriously broken.  In aa50, it was still possible to win with either side even if the allies concentrated entirely on one axis.  In aag40 however, some of the rules are seriously broken and need to be adjusted for the “global” game.

1. ports are fine in the pacific, but in europe, it’s a disaster for the axis.  There is no way the axis can prevent a large US naval stack with 5 or more transports sitting on the atlantic side of gibraltar.  With air on carriers and bombers in uk, the US could strike anywhere in france, norway, or either german or italian capitals with a stack that could be as large as 20 units very early.

2. japan can’t do enough against north america to prevent the US from going all out kgf by moving all their naval units to europe.  They can be annoying but the US income is too large and the building base too high on continental US to seriously threaten taking w. US.  It would also mean giving up china and the rest of asia to put in a serious enough of an attempt on w. US which means japan’s income is just too small.

3. as discussed here, once the US takes norway, it’s over.  Germany would have to spend too much just to defend their homeland which doesn’t leave enough to do anything against ussr if that player is half way competent.  10 ground units with a stack of air every turn means germany gets picked apart pretty fast.  With the US strike force starting off at gibraltar, it’s impossible for the axis to defend everything with both their homelands are at risk.  Building a major complex in norway first doesn’t help since germany isn’t exactly rolling in dough.  The only way to even make any attempt of holding norway is by giving up any assault on ussr but people can see what would happen there eventually.

4. unlike aa50 where japan can eventually get strong enough and advance quickly enough to actually help germany, aag40 board is too large for japan to do anything to help against kgf.  Anyone looking at the unit counts can see it starts to go downhill for the axis very quickly.  There’s too big of a gap in incomes.

The only thing I can see possibly offsetting these factors are victory cities.  I haven’t lookated at it closely enough, but I guess if victory cities for the axis were set low enough, it might be possible for them to win that way if japan can take out all of asia before germany gets crushed.

[hobo]

Probably can add

5. tanks costing 6 now kills germany.  It was bad enough taking moscow in aa50 with only 3 territories between germany and moscow, but look at how many more territories there are now.  Only an idiot would lose ussr in this game.

[chompers]

@hobo:

I’ve only played one game and it became very apparent that the game is seriously broken.  In aa50, it was still possible to win with either side even if the allies concentrated entirely on one axis.  In aag40 however, some of the rules are seriously broken and need to be adjusted for the “global” game.

1. ports are fine in the pacific, but in europe, it’s a disaster for the axis.  There is no way the axis can prevent a large US naval stack with 5 or more transports sitting on the atlantic side of gibraltar.  With air on carriers and bombers in uk, the US could strike anywhere in france, norway, or either german or italian capitals with a stack that could be as large as 20 units very early.

2. japan can’t do enough against north america to prevent the US from going all out kgf by moving all their naval units to europe.  They can be annoying but the US income is too large and the building base too high on continental US to seriously threaten taking w. US.  It would also mean giving up china and the rest of asia to put in a serious enough of an attempt on w. US which means japan’s income is just too small.

3. as discussed here, once the US takes norway, it’s over.  Germany would have to spend too much just to defend their homeland which doesn’t leave enough to do anything against ussr if that player is half way competent.  10 ground units with a stack of air every turn means germany gets picked apart pretty fast.  With the US strike force starting off at gibraltar, it’s impossible for the axis to defend everything with both their homelands are at risk.  Building a major complex in norway first doesn’t help since germany isn’t exactly rolling in dough.  The only way to even make any attempt of holding norway is by giving up any assault on ussr but people can see what would happen there eventually.

4. unlike aa50 where japan can eventually get strong enough and advance quickly enough to actually help germany, aag40 board is too large for japan to do anything to help against kgf.  Anyone looking at the unit counts can see it starts to go downhill for the axis very quickly.  There’s too big of a gap in incomes.

The only thing I can see possibly offsetting these factors are victory cities.  I haven’t lookated at it closely enough, but I guess if victory cities for the axis were set low enough, it might be possible for them to win that way if japan can take out all of asia before germany gets crushed.

I don’t want to believe this is true but every game I’ve played so far has reinforced these points.  Yes, if the Japan is extremely efficient and well played and makes a beeline for VC’s in the Pacific/Africa/Russia its possible to grab them just in time, however that seems to be the only reliable way the Axis can pull off a win.  I use the term reliable very loosely as each game I play the allies figure out new tricks to slow down the Axis, whereas the Axis are always one bad dice roll or miscalculation away from their plans being stalled for crucial turns they can’t afford to lose.  The Allies have a huge economic head-start that’s tough to chip away at beyond a certain point, and the ability to use the US to dictate the course of the game.

[Flashman]

On the Victory Cities idea, I’ve come up with this suggestion.  I’ve probably overlooked something, but the basic idea is to spread the action out more evenly, and give the Axis a reasonable chance.

The Axis starts with 4 capitals, including Shanghai (which should really be Nanking*). The Allies must capture 3 of these to win.

The Allies have 18 VCs, split into three regions:

Western Region/Atlantic: Washington, London, Paris, Tunis, Cairo, Cape Town

Soviet Region: Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kiev (WUkr), Chelyabinsk (Novos), Vladivostok (Amur)

Eastern/Pacific Region: Chungking (Szech), New Delhi, Singapore (Malaya), Manilla, Sydney, LA or Honolulu

The Axis have to capture 3 VCs in each region and hold 3 of their own caps simultaneously to win; you may consider NO bonuses for holding 3-in-a-group at any other time.

*Former Chinese capital.  Q: should China be considered to have liberated it’s original capital if it takes this tt, and gain/regain the abilities of a major power thereby?

[SgtBlitz]

@Imperious:

I find it hard to believe, but i read that they only play-tested E40 THREE TIMES AND G40 THREE TIMES.

Thats insane to produce a game with such paltry sessions behind it. I hope thats not correct, but i read this from a playtester.

Considering that we’re up to 55 pages of posts on a PBF game of G40, three times for playtesting is not surprising.  GAME IS TOO DAMN LONG.  WHEN WILL TRIPLEA COME OUT WITH A MAP FOR SAVE GAMES???

I agree though, I tried this strat out with the US, had no luck in holding Norway, but got a hell of a response out of the Germans when they took it back.  It is OP.

[Koningstiger]

@LHoffman:

@Koningstiger:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Build a sub to kill Russia’s NO

Then I’d add a Russian destroyer to the sea zone off of Archangelsk. Possibly the Russian sub is still there. If not, at the very least the Russian player can use his planes to take out the sub(s). I wouldn’t consider one sub on its own (or even multiples without escorting surface ships) a serious problem for the Russians.

I don’t think that a German sub there is a big problem either. But have the rules changed or something? I thought planes on their own were not allowed to attack subs?

I’m afraid you misread my post. No, the rule didn’t change. I started out by saying: “Then I’d add a Russian DESTROYER…”

[Battlingmaxo]

@hobo:

Probably can add

5. tanks costing 6 now kills germany.  It was bad enough taking moscow in aa50 with only 3 territories between germany and moscow, but look at how many more territories there are now.  Only an idiot would lose ussr in this game.

LOL

[JamesAleman]

Disclaimer: I have not played Global beyond round two in a sample game.
Just thought I would propose solutions rather than rule changes.

I can offer three options for dealing with a Norway Factory strategy. Its up to you to try them out and see if they work, my focus is Europe for now. (Notice: I have not tried this, this is just 23 years of axis experience and theory)

Option 1: Germany builds 1 air unit a turn on average, keeps most of their air force in tact and waits for the U.S. to land, If they go there fast, their fleet will be small. Attack and sink their fleet. Next round attack and capture your free factory. Build 2 transports sometime before America lands. Use this small fleet’s 6 land units and your air force to recapture the factory at Norway. Play a defensive Germany and let Japan win it for you. Maybe take the neutrals (Sweden,Spain,Portugal,Turkey-Japan can take south American ones) and give all others territories to Germany instead of Italy and Germany will produce 65 or more without Russian territories I believe.

Option 2: Pull a Patton: Redirect your 2 Movement point units to Norway. Your stack should be 30 or more units, fall back with slow movers. Retake Norway with your stack and air, should be able to capture Norway 2 turns after it falls. (U.S. gets 1 build). Once secure, rendezvous with the slow movers and focus on defensive Germany moves if you can not restore your progress into Russia.

Option 3: Build a transport fleet of 10-11 transports, pay for it by securing London, park fleet in German waters where they are safe as long as Denmark is yours, trade Norway as needed with your fleet capacity of 22 land units. Again, may combine this with defensive Germany or a combined Japan Germany Kill America first move on round 4. (UK falls round 3, Jap Airforce of 28 units on Alaska turn 3, Germany takes Quebec round 4.)

Would I recommend these moves as standard? Maybe not, but its a counter to a chosen Allied plan. I’m sure others will come up with more conventional less aggressive counters given time. This was put together with a few moments of thought, given more time better counters may present themselves.

[larrymarx]

Has anyone considered a primarily naval Germany?

The idea struck me when I was considering what to do once Germany takes London. In a game I played, I attempted to hold it with land units. I turtled up and it ended up costing me. Russia was able to take my border territories and gain their +6 bonuses, getting +26 for three territories on one turn. Even with huge stacks of infantry, the game was a slow defeat for the axis.

I began to reconsider my turn 4 options. What if instead of buying tons of infantry, I had used UK’s cash to build about 11 submarines and 2 destroyers? Navy is capable of defending multiple territories at once, so I would have been able to pull all remaining land (including turn three purchases) to the Russian front, ideally taking Leningrad for the IPC bonus and to eliminate the Russian national objective. In the Atlantic, the Americans would have to have a sizable navy to hold off my new fleet. The idea is that you send out destroyers as blockers so they can never attack your submarines, then counterattack whatever they send at the destroyers with an appropriate number of subs and air units. You keep building 1 or 2 destroyers per turn, and the rest submarines. Because the Americans need to invest some money in transports and ground units, and because subs provide the best deal on offense for your money, the naval race will be even or at least you’ll be able to hold them off for quite a few turns.

Meanwhile, the Russians are pounding away at you, and this is the biggest problem with this strategy. You only have a few turns of few to no land purchases before they take Berlin. For this reason, the strategy can only work with concerted aid from Japan and Italy. Italy needs to climb quickly in production and start pumping infantry, and Japan needs to climb in production and start hurling tanks at Moscow.

If the Americans put 100% of their money into the Atlantic from turn 1 and pull their Pacific units as well, I doubt this strategy should be attempted, but depending on the setup on turn 4 after a Sealion, I think this strategy should at least be on the table.

[mikecool70]

@larrymarx:

Has anyone considered a primarily naval Germany?

The idea struck me when I was considering what to do once Germany takes London. In a game I played, I attempted to hold it with land units. I turtled up and it ended up costing me. Russia was able to take my border territories and gain their +6 bonuses, getting +26 for three territories on one turn. Even with huge stacks of infantry, the game was a slow defeat for the axis.

I began to reconsider my turn 4 options. What if instead of buying tons of infantry, I had used UK’s cash to build about 11 submarines and 2 destroyers? Navy is capable of defending multiple territories at once, so I would have been able to pull all remaining land (including turn three purchases) to the Russian front, ideally taking Leningrad for the IPC bonus and to eliminate the Russian national objective. In the Atlantic, the Americans would have to have a sizable navy to hold off my new fleet. The idea is that you send out destroyers as blockers so they can never attack your submarines, then counterattack whatever they send at the destroyers with an appropriate number of subs and air units. You keep building 1 or 2 destroyers per turn, and the rest submarines. Because the Americans need to invest some money in transports and ground units, and because subs provide the best deal on offense for your money, the naval race will be even or at least you’ll be able to hold them off for quite a few turns.

Meanwhile, the Russians are pounding away at you, and this is the biggest problem with this strategy. You only have a few turns of few to no land purchases before they take Berlin. For this reason, the strategy can only work with concerted aid from Japan and Italy. Italy needs to climb quickly in production and start pumping infantry, and Japan needs to climb in production and start hurling tanks at Moscow.

If the Americans put 100% of their money into the Atlantic from turn 1 and pull their Pacific units as well, I doubt this strategy should be attempted, but depending on the setup on turn 4 after a Sealion, I think this strategy should at least be on the table.

I think this is an excellent post Sealion strategy.   I think building all subs on turn 3 (assuming you are very sure that you will take London on turn 3) is the best move that Germany can make.  On turn 4, you can move all those subs, along with your surface fleet, to the seazone just west of UK and build 10 more subs in that same seazone.  This plan will work best if Japan waits till turn 3 to go to war since it severely limits how much navy USA can build by turn 3.  And the best thing is that the USA might be building some transports and land units on turns 1 and 2, limiting their navy even more.

Edit: I forgot that the major factory turns into a minor factory after Germany takes it.  Building all subs and moving them west might only work if Italy combines it fleet with Germany’s.

[larrymarx]

I think building all subs on turn 3 (assuming you are very sure that you will take London on turn 3) is the best move that Germany can make.

Building all subs and moving them west might only work if Italy combines it fleet with Germany’s.

Well, I just finished a game where I employed my submarine strategy and it failed miserably. I violated my own rule of not using it if America puts 100% into the Atlantic from turn 1. I arrogantly believed I could hold them off because they began producing straight ground units and transports to follow up their initial fleet. My problem was that he flew four bombers against my surface navy, crushing it and eliminating any chance of blocking him with my destroyers. It swung the naval standoff in his favor. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe continued to dwindle. He was able to make a landing with 22 land units in France after liberating the UK. I might have been able to salvage the naval war, but then I wouldn’t have been doing anything against his invading force. I ended up hurling 19 submarines and a bomber against the US navy in a last ditch effort. I rolled down, and the game was over.

However, I realized something. If the Italians had had an air force, or if the Japanese had flown a bunch of planes to Europe, I could have salvaged the game. Because my subs could only damage naval units, he ended up damaging all five of his carriers and landing his planes in France. His navy was reduced to only about 20 pips defending 11 transports. If the Italians or Japs had had a followup attack, they could have finished the job for the Germans. I still would have had to deal with the French and the American liberators, but at least their reinforcements would have been stalled.

One thing I did well in this game, however, was eliminate the Russian threat with minimal use of force. I used the flanking maneuver discussed elsewhere on these forums, landing north of Moscow. I took Leningrad with 2 units (it was defended by 1 infantry) and put 20 units in Nenetsia. Russia shrank like a frightened turtle. A combined German and Italian offensive shortly cleared the eastern front of all remaining Russians, killing most of their offensive units. Italy and Germany then had respectable economies, especially since Italy had captured all of Africa. The game rested entirely in the hands of the Americans, whose punches were unfortunately just too strong to block.

With better strategic planning, I might have been able to pull off a naval Germany this game. I am considering alternatives to the submarines, such as destroyers and loaded carriers. It could be that this strategy may never work against a pure KGF strategy, but I’m still keeping the possibility open.

A final thought that ties this post back into the forum’s topic: if I had kept my subs in the Baltic, they would have been a fairly effective deterrent to building naval units out of a Norway factory, assuming I could also hold Denmark. It would take a lot of American IPCs to put something in the water that could stand up to 19 submarines. Thoughts?