I just registered an account here so I could make this specific comment: I’ve played a few games of the Global game with Alpha+3 rules, and
I do enjoy it. It would appear though that it suffers from nearly the same difficulties as the original classic version: with all players
of equal skill, the Axis powers have no chance of winning before the US player comes in and crushes one or the other of them.
To win in the Pacific the Japanese either have to get Sydney or Honolulu. I can’t imagine a competent US player ever allowing Hawaii to be
lost, and the worst case for the ANZAC player is to just stack 2 INF + 1 ART every turn in Sydney, making a loss there unlikely as well,
especially if they get extra defensive aircraft flown in from anywhere.
In Europe Germany either has to crush Russia completely or take 2/3 of the Russian VPs plus London. While taking London appears far more
viable in this game than the original, doing so runs the risk of being weak against Russia. Add the fact that any German player who already
has two of the Russian VPs can probably get the last one making an attack on London uneccessary, and you might as well just stick with
slamming Russia, but Moscow is now a lot father away from Berlin than it used to be. How would you prevent the Russians from building up a doomstack somewhere?
The Axis powers start with a nice wealth of materiel that lead to some fun opening moves, but the places they need to reach are all too far
away to get there before the US player dumps an unbeatable stack someplace (Africa again being a popular choice). Incredibly though I’m
reading posts where people claim this game favors the Axis and the Allies should do bids. The reality I’m seeing is that the Allies should
bid- but they should bid on what turn the US player is allowed to make a combat move. Or make a house rule that the US player should blow
some percentage of their income on tech rolls every turn they are not at war to slow down what they can produce.
All this being said, I do enjoy this version of the game and have had a lot of fun with it, but I’m clearly missing something here as many
other threads I’ve read imply that the Axis actually have more than half a chance in a game with expert play on all sides.
In classic, Russia can block German forward progress by stacking in Karelia. This isn’t an option in 1940 where Italian can openers force the Russians back to Moscow. At that point, if the Axis can’t take Moscow by direct attack they can lay siege to it and take everything of economic consequence, thus securing victory.
If Italy throws its weight early to attacking Russia, doesn’t that just cede Africa to the Allies, which in turn threatens Italy or France? Or gives India the ability to hold out longer?
Unfortunately, Italy doesn’t have to throw its entire weight into Barbarossa. They just need to send maybe 4-8 divisions as special crack can-opener units to the Germans. The Russians can’t block all paths to Moscow since the Italians can throw these divisions at the block (plus the bomber) and the Germans then rush into Moscow with their blitzing units. To avoid letting this happen, ultimately the Russians are backed into their capital. Note that Italian can openers will ultimately deliver the oil fields and Stalingrad once the Russians are backed into their capital.
The Italians can’t dispute Africa unless the allies concede it. They just need to keep the fight going as long as possible in the Med and Africa in order to delay more important Allied objectives.
India will eventually fall from Japan alone (or with German help if you play the game that far out and the Japanese aren’t focused on India) and it’s not as critical as bottling up the Russians.
I just registered an account here
First off, welcome to the boards!
As for the Allies winning every game:
It’s not that uncommon for London to fall on G3. You can read about Sealion all over the boards here.
Also, if Italy manages to get on its feet, there is little that can stop the Axis. My competitive games usually come down to whether Italy got properly established or not. In my current game Japan’s income is roughly equal to the American income, Germany’s is roughly equal to the Russians and Italy’s roughly equal to the Brits. ANZAC and China are virtually irrelevant. Axis will win.
Also, Moscow usually goes down a lot easier if those 12 Siberian infantry don’t make it back to Moscow for the 11th hour save. So Japan can have something to say about that. India can fall as soon as Japan 3, or 4 (very easy to take it on J5). If ANZAC and USA aren’t careful Sydney wont be far behind. There are a lot of factors at play here.
Don’t take this the wrong way but it sounds like you could use a shake-up of your play-group, old strategies die hard. Take a look at some of the strategies on the boards here and savour the look on your UK opponent’s face when you take London AND Calcutta on round 3. Then tell me the Allies are unstoppable.
You’re going to get addicted all over again and it’s going to be a lot of fun.
Welcome to to war room. :evil:
Ah, yes. The counter to the “The Axis win every game” post… :lol:
The game should have a victory points system that works as a time clock.
The axis is the only factor that would need to be calculated.
At the end of a turn you total up how many points that axis power scored. At the end of a round you add them all up. (Germany+Italy+Japan)
Lets say they get one VP for each Victory City they hold, each National Objective they are completing, and two points for each Capital they hold.
Then a chart like this would apply: (ball park numbers)
On turns 1-5
Axis loses if VP total is less than 12
Axis wins if VP total is more than 30
On turns 6-10
Axis loses if VP total is less than 10
Axis wins if VP total is more than 26
On turns 11-15
Axis loses if VP total is less than 9
Axis wins if VP total is more than 22
On each turn including 16 and beyond subtract 2 VP for a win. (20 VP, 18 VP, 16 VP….so on)
Unfortunately, Italy doesn’t have to throw its entire weight into Barbarossa. They just need to send maybe 4-8 divisions as special crack can-opener units to the Germans. The Russians can’t block all paths to Moscow since the Italians can throw these divisions at the block (plus the bomber) and the Germans then rush into Moscow with their blitzing units. To avoid letting this happen, ultimately the Russians are backed into their capital. Note that Italian can openers will ultimately deliver the oil fields and Stalingrad once the Russians are backed into their capital.
Seems interesting but if the Italians aren’t focusing nearly everything they have to get their NOs going, they won’t have enough income to be helpful long-term. I guess I’d have to see this play out.
It’s not that uncommon for London to fall on G3. You can read about Sealion all over the boards here.
I’ve been reading those threads, and they also mention that the US player usually just takes London right back and smashes the German fleet in the bargain. You’re right that I need to see some of this happening in a live game. I’ll have to try and find out where the PBEM community is lurking.
Eqqman hello and welcome! You’re gonna like it here. I strongly suggest the triple a format. While it might seem nothing has changed a true german blitzkrieg and a not so surprise japan attack will eventually change your mind. I believe the fanatics are fine tuning the bid program as I type:)
how the axis wins (my prefered stratigy);
G1; (either save the german battleship and buy carrier to fake sealion, or save all the money to fake it, or just buy 9 inf (or some combo if inf/art) with germany. take finland, france, land ftrs in italy, take yugoslavia
I1, do whatever use one pz to take bulgaria, build 1 mech (or one ftr)
G2; build 18 (ish) mechs and move inf to poland
I2, move inf + mech from turn1 to rumania, if russia have left east poland open, delcare war on russia and take it. (build 1 mech and do whatever in med)
G3 move stack to east poland, if italy holds it, you dont need to declare war, otherwise declare war; build 6-10 mech and start building some planes (to use against Wallies, ftrs and bombers are best)
I3, depends on where russia stands, if they stand in belo, w ukraine is open and germany is strong enough to stand in ukraine, when they can land ftrs there and move their stack, then take ukraine, otherwise move all italian infs to bessarabia
g4, last round to produce mechs against russia, probably not many needed, need to build some infs for paris, some mechs for w germany and some ftrs/bombers to fight allies, move stack in east to w ukraine or besarabia (preferably w ukraine).
I4 stack to ukraine, (russia should not have enough to hold ukraine and bryansk against germany, so ukraine should be empty)
g5 move stack to ukraine built ftrs + bombers + landtroops for west
I5 at this point you should have 2 pz 1-2 bombers 4 inf and 2-4 mechs + 1-2 ftrs that can canopen on the east front, russia should not be capable of stopping you from taking rostov without committing at lesst 10 inf to it, which he should not be able to afford so take rostow, build 3 mechs in ukraine (if you can afford it, italy might be in danger at this point)
G6 move to rostov, land all the ftrs you can afford to have here, and use as many mechs /pz/bombers you need to hit and hold stalingrad + cauc if possible.
R6 ususally have to retreat to moscow, since italians can canopen 10-15 units, and there are 2 paths for germany to hit moscow with the 35 + mechs/pz that germany have.
then hit middle east, while building arts in stalingrad, arts/infs in leningrad. at this point you will often have higher production that the allies.
if japan did india crush in round 3, USA could not land in europe before US4, if you have been good and build enough planes, and enough defence in west, us should not be able to really take anything except for north africa at this point. japanese india crush is very good for this stratigy, because germany have 16 IPC in NOS in the middle east+ cauc, and the landunits in india are the best ones for taking middle east + cauc back. (middle east + cauc + stalingrad =24 IPC for germany)
Japan can alternatlivly hit russia, to make them have less landunits, this is maybe preferable if your stratigy is to attack moscow, instead of the middle east.
If japan did india crush in round 3, USA could not land in Europe before US4, if you have been good and build enough planes, and enough defense in west, us should not be able to really take anything except for north Africa at this point. Japanese India crush is very good for this strategy, because Germany have 16 IPC in NOS in the middle east+ cauc, and the land units in India are the best ones for taking middle east + cauc back. (middle east + cauc + Stalingrad =24 IPC for Germany)
Japan can alternatively hit Russia, to make them have less land units, this is maybe preferable if your strategy is to attack Moscow, instead of the middle east.
The big question is always what are the US and Britain are doing. At a minimum on US4 you are dropping 5 fully-laden TT onto Gibraltar or Morocco, with the same or more following every turn thereafter depending on how badly Hawaii & Sydney need to be defended. If you are feeling fairly certain that Japan is keeping the US out of the war as long as possible, then it may be worth it to make a minor IC in Mexico US1 which will give you two more loaded TT to use US4. However, most other threads I am reading advocate a general attack by Japan J1 or J2 at the latest.
So the absolute worst case for the US player is that they have 14 land units + some air that can be used to attack US5. Going by your schedule, this is the same turn that Germany is buying units specifically to defend against Allied attacks. Are there enough available to cover Normandy and Holland, and possibly Rome (but I’ll assume the Italians are managing to keep at least 1 ship in the Med at all times to delay attacks on Rome by 1 turn, in which case you have to cover Southern France instead)?
It’s not that uncommon for London to fall on G3. You can read about Sealion all over the boards here.
I’ve been reading those threads, and they also mention that the US player usually just takes London right back and smashes the German fleet in the bargain. You’re right that I need to see some of this happening in a live game. I’ll have to try and find out where the PBEM community is lurking.
Yeah, the US is strong enough to do that, but in that case what is the US doing in the Pacific? If the US is busy smashing the German fleet and retaking London, odds are they are going weak in the Pacific which will allow Japan to run hog-wild.
I have found over a number of games that the Allies best strategies involve the US heavily investing in EITHER one side or the other once they enter the war. In games where the US try to support action in both theaters, it effectively limits their material superiority to more of an equal basis with the Axis on either side. Then they end up not having enough in either theater to make a real difference against the Axis.
Look at it this way: Once the US enters the war, with NOs they are making a huge amount, 70-75 IPCs. After some of the first attacks, taking Hong Kong, Philippines, Malaya and the DEI, Japan will be making roughly 35-45 IPCs. Germany should be making roughly 45-50 IPCs. So if the US splits it’s income between theaters, that makes it roughly 35-45 IPCs against each Axis. When you consider that the US also has to purchase expensive naval units just to get started, it really tips the balance over to the Axis on both sides. Germany will be able to fend off US advances, and perhaps even UK as well, while pounding Russia into submission. Japan will be able to hold off the US while grinding away China and taking out Calcutta.
The best Allied plans is for the US to dedicate nearly ALL of it’s wealth in smashing Axis on one side first hopefully quick enough to turn over to the other side deal with them before they get that final VC.
We’ve only played 3 games so far but we were off the opinion that the favour laid heavily on the allies. We’re play straight up box rules which ment victory conditions for the allies is the need to win both sides of the board.
Last game with the suggestions from these forums I player germany and sealion’d successfully, (took two tries) and italy stormed africa and was landing in south russian. But by the end of turn three the rookie playing Japan has entirely collapsed so we called the game in favour of the allies.
If we switched to the new rules of either axis power needs to reach its level of VC for an overall win might be most reasonable. In the above game I’m sure Germany could of delivered that and tokyo just had to sit huddled on its island and not get invaded.
I find that 1) preserving and growing the German airforce / Navy (thereby helping italy) and 2) preserving the Japanese / airforce navy are the key to Axis winning.
The shear presence of these two forces prevents the allies from seizing the initiative. Because of the initial Axis unit advantage and allies IPCs split between severeral countries, the Axis can spend 1 IPC to match 2 IPCs spent by US / UK for the first 3 / 4 turns or so. By turn 5, Russia should be getting into some serious trouble and at that time either 1) Italy stands on its own (if US focuses on Japan) or 2) Japan becomes really strong (if US focuses on Italy).
.
The big question is always what are the US and Britain are doing. At a minimum on US4 you are dropping 5 fully-laden TT onto Gibraltar or Morocco, with the same or more following every turn thereafter depending on how badly Hawaii & Sydney need to be defended. If you are feeling fairly certain that Japan is keeping the US out of the war as long as possible, then it may be worth it to make a minor IC in Mexico US1 which will give you two more loaded TT to use US4. However, most other threads I am reading advocate a general attack by Japan J1 or J2 at the latest.
So the absolute worst case for the US player is that they have 14 land units + some air that can be used to attack US5. Going by your schedule, this is the same turn that Germany is buying units specifically to defend against Allied attacks. Are there enough available to cover Normandy and Holland, and possibly Rome (but I’ll assume the Italians are managing to keep at least 1 ship in the Med at all times to delay attacks on Rome by 1 turn, in which case you have to cover Southern France instead)?
you by my (conservative) estimate, on G4 you should build so you have 8ish mechs in w germany, 3 infs in paris + whatever survived attack first round, so say about 5-6 land units in paris + 8 mechs in w germany. if you have built a few planes, (I dont remember exactly), but lets say you have 11-14 planes at this point. If you put them within reach of normandie, you should be able to have at least 25 units to be able to counterattack US if US lands in force. My entire idea of defence is to make sure I am able to kill him, if he lands (so you need to do a lot of counting to get it right), while defending hard the points I cannot afford to lose (w/e german + s italy).
My genereal “perfect” defence is mechs in w germany, infs in paris, infs in east germany, and enough planes to make sure the wallies are not strong enough to split their fleet, these planes should usually be enough support for the inf/mechs, so that I will be able to kill almost any landingforce.
The Weakest point in my plan is; if my planes are needed east to make sure the russians retreat to moscow, I might not be strong enough to kill an US l+ UK landing + ALL uk planes.
in my last game with germany, I had for turn 7 around 20 planes, 25 mechs in w germany. this was enough to prevent us + uk to land in force (since I would be able to kill close to 50 units in a counterattack if he chose to land in any of the terretories bordering paris.
I recommend playing domination.
