@Krieghund thanks again. Pretty sure they are going J4 and sealion. Hold on!
Global Strats- my view
-
Through a solid 1/2 dozen games with good players, here’s my view so far.
The Axis have 2 main strats:
1. Sealion
a. G3
b. G4
c. Canada Invasion
d. other variations2. Barbarossa
In both strats, Japan has to act decisively- they cannot be indecisive. For Sealion it must attack US (through Alaska/Hawaii) or take out India/ANZAC by round 4 or so. For Barbarossa, India is the best choice and coming up through Persia to join the Euro Axis. The Axis must watch how US builds and predict where it is going to attack first- Europe or Pacific or both and how much. As the US, you are trying to “shade” your hand to keep the Axis on their toes. Forcing the BIG DOG (USA) into indecison is the key- keeping him off balance is critical to success.
I am thoroughly enjoying this game so far. I definitely believe that Sealion is not dead for Global, especially with an opprotunistic Japan player. Barbarossa has some variations that are just being unraveled.
All in all though, I believe that the game is balanced towards Allies. In a few months when all the FAQs, Errata, Final Alpha setup, Political changes if any and such is complete, I believe the game will be a slight bid for the Allies.
-
holy christ I am grateful to read something from a Michigan fan??!
someone on here agrees with my most hated opinion that the game is unbalanced? I pity you comrade, for now the wrath of the zealots will decend upon you like the Iowa D-Line on Denard!
Go Bucks!
-
Long term, the game is balanced towards the Allies, as it should be.
Axis have the advantage of speed and they have to do their stuff before the Allies (USA) becomes too big to crush them. That is why there is a number of victory cities to get in order to win.
In that way, the game is balanced
-
holy christ I am grateful to read something from a Michigan fan??!
someone on here agrees with my most hated opinion that the game is unbalanced? I pity you comrade, for now the wrath of the zealots will decend upon you like the Iowa D-Line on Denard!
Go Bucks!
HUh? It is the people who think the game is balanced that are in the minority. No one hates the other opinion, as far as I see.
-
holy christ I am grateful to read something from a Michigan fan??!
someone on here agrees with my most hated opinion that the game is unbalanced? I pity you comrade, for now the wrath of the zealots will decend upon you like the Iowa D-Line on Denard!
Go Bucks!
But like Denard as these strats- you got to give them time to grow! :wink:
Go State!
-
@special:
Long term, the game is balanced towards the Allies, as it should be.
Axis have the advantage of speed and they have to do their stuff before the Allies (USA) becomes too big to crush them. That is why there is a number of victory cities to get in order to win.
In that way, the game is balanced
Agreed, I think time will show this. I think maybe the only rule I might change is the victory conditions to help Axis a bit. Instead- “win immediately when 14 VC are gained”- not hold them for a turn- this would help the Axis a bit and may help with balance, otherwise, so far I see no need to change anything yet besides tweek the Alpha setup a tad to help Axis.
-
@special:
Long term, the game is balanced towards the Allies, as it should be.
Axis have the advantage of speed and they have to do their stuff before the Allies (USA) becomes too big to crush them. That is why there is a number of victory cities to get in order to win.
In that way, the game is balanced
Agreed, I think time will show this. I think maybe the only rule I might change is the victory conditions to help Axis a bit. Instead- “win immediately when 14 VC are gained”- not hold them for a turn- this would help the Axis a bit and may help with balance, otherwise, so far I see no need to change anything yet besides tweek the Alpha setup a tad to help Axis.
Perhaps a 5 ipc NO for Japan not being at war with the US?
-
@special:
Long term, the game is balanced towards the Allies, as it should be.
Axis have the advantage of speed and they have to do their stuff before the Allies (USA) becomes too big to crush them. That is why there is a number of victory cities to get in order to win.
In that way, the game is balanced
I don’t get the “as it should be” angle. If we want the outcome to be historically accurate, then let me save you the rolls. USA! USA! USA! Queue the nurse getting kissed for Life magazine….and…setup the cold war.
I’ve always felt that the dice rolls were representative of weather/terrain/any random factor that could influence a battle, and THAT was what made these games fun and balanced. You shouldn’t have to RELY on them to go overwhelmingly in your favor to have a chance at winning. That’s what it comes down to in G40 as axis. You need great dice, fast, or you’re done.
On a long enough timeline, the allies win…that’s super. +1 for realism. now can we have a GAME please?
-
Agree with MaherC here,
There is a LONG uphill climb for the Axis, or they are done. Any f*ckups early and they are done.
But that’s the challenge you face with the 1939 start date.
Fun game, great map tho! :P
-
@special:
Long term, the game is balanced towards the Allies, as it should be.
Axis have the advantage of speed and they have to do their stuff before the Allies (USA) becomes too big to crush them. That is why there is a number of victory cities to get in order to win.
In that way, the game is balanced
I don’t get the “as it should be” angle. If we want the outcome to be historically accurate, then let me save you the rolls. USA! USA! USA! Queue the nurse getting kissed for Life magazine….and…setup the cold war.
I’ve always felt that the dice rolls were representative of weather/terrain/any random factor that could influence a battle, and THAT was what made these games fun and balanced. You shouldn’t have to RELY on them to go overwhelmingly in your favor to have a chance at winning. That’s what it comes down to in G40 as axis. You need great dice, fast, or you’re done.
On a long enough timeline, the allies win…that’s super. +1 for realism. now can we have a GAME please?
okay, i didn’t mean that as in “because it is histrical”, but rather as IMHO the game was designed: axis having the advantage (or dependence) early on and Allies getting stomped at first but getting stroinger in time.
That is why Axis have to get X victory cities for their win and Allies need to basically kill off all Axis (correct me if i’m wrong).The game isn’t equal in territory, not in money and i like that. the whole is balanced (or extremely unbalanced according to others) and can tip either way, depending on strategies and dice outcome.
As for early fuck ups, this can also count for the allies…
-
I don’t get why with america’s ability to buy massive amounts of shit it is seen as a good idea to try and invade Canada…all it does is slow the USA down a turn or 2 and gets whatever army sent to take Canada killed.
-
Quebec IC is important if British hold UK but they cannot buy boats near to Englan d(because of Kriegsmarine). In that case UK must buy the canadian navy … if not, the other IC is at SAF, and I doubt that any boats built there can aid in Europe
Suggested Topics
