What's the cheesiest thing about Global 1940?

[Guest]

WW2 planes where not designed to fly over himalaya, even a modern non jet would have serius problems doing so.

[CWO Marc]

@ErwinRommel:

Nothing beats this fancy Mongolian rule:
Mongolia will only turn pro axis if SOVIET attacks them.
Somehow if Mongolia got attacked by any other allied nation Mongolia would remain neutral, they dont give a ���� about being invaded. But somehow the rest of the worlds neutrals care so much more about Mongolia than Mongolian’s themselves that they would rally around Hitler to defeat the evil Allies.
Strange complex rule for no apparent reason.

I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR.”  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.

[toblerone77]

@ErwinRommel:

WW2 planes where not designed to fly over himalaya, even a modern non jet would have serius problems doing so.

C47’s flew over them and the tallest peak in the Himalayan range is Mount Everest which is only around 30, 000 feet. My grandfather was a mechanic in India during the war repairing planes that were supplying the Chinese. Google “The Hump” it was a route over the eastern range of the Himalayas which supplied Chaing Kai-Shek.

Planes lost over the Sahara were generally due to pilot error or disorientation and  I believe a well preserved B-24 Liberator was found there not too long ago.

The Sahara and Himalayas are impassable in the game mostly because of land units. This was done routinely via aircraft in the war in the Himalayas. If you’re playing by the book it doesn’t really matter. However in reality it was done.

[Guest]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump

There existed some planes capable, but not many.

[Young Grasshopper]

Giving America a $10 National Objective for owning home land territories that are practically untouchable for any Axis power. However, Nazis marching under Big Ben in London don’t get a dime…. now that’s cheesy.

[gamerman01]

@CWO:

I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as “a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR.”  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.

Then why doesn’t Russia just start the game controlling Mongolia and the 6 infantry?

[gamerman01]

@Young:

Giving America a $10 National Objective for owning home land territories that are practically untouchable for any Axis power.

I have no problem with this.  This reflects USA’s massive production capability, without allowing the Axis to earn 42 a turn for taking USA instead of 32

However, Nazis marching under Big Ben in London don’t get a dime…. now that’s cheesy.

The London NO was seemingly taken away to make Sealion less attractive.
This is like the war bonds technology that IL was speaking of.  A quick fix without much thought put into it.  Kind of like a lot of things with G40 since OOB, actually.  :-P  :x

Great thread.  Reminds me why I’m playing less and less of this game  :-P

I agree with those who hate the 6 VC rule with Japan, and the fact that taking SYDNEY or HAWAII effectively wins the entire war for the Axis.  Losing this game as the Allies to a 6 VC Japan totally sucks, especially if you’re doing well in Europe.  The Axis can win without taking a single major world capital due to this half-baked idea.  That is just wrong.

I’ll add one that’s missing so far:
The stupid true neutrals rule.  That is some serious cheese.  Yeah, the Swiss are gonna go pro-Axis because the USA invaded Venezuela.  I don’t think so.

For perspective, in the original game, you could violate neutrality by paying 3 IPC’s during your combat move and take over the country, which had no IPC value and you couldn’t build an IC there.
Also, in the original game you had the optional? Axis economic victory rule, which made a lot more sense than the 6 Pacific VC rule, because you had to be earning like 84 IPC’s or so worldwide.  You had to control a LOT if you didn’t take 2 Allied capitals (Moscow, London, Washington).  But now in G40 we have regressed  :cry: as Japan can win by taking only 2 non-automatic minor world capitals (2 of Calcutta, Honolulu, and Sydney).

Rant over

[CWO Marc]

@Gamerman01:

@CWO:

I think that the rule is perhaps meant to show just how strongly pro-Soviet the Mongolian People’s Republic really was.  I once came across a book that described Mongolia at that time as "a wholly owned subsidiary of the USSR."  So the rule probably isn’t so much about Mongolia’s attitude towards other countries as it is about its relationship to the Soviet Union.

Then why doesn’t Russia just start the game controlling Mongolia and the 6 infantry?

Mongolia was technically an independent country.  Politically it was a Soviet client state, but officially it was independent and neutral.

[knp7765]

@Gamerman01:

I agree with those who hate the 6 VC rule with Japan, and the fact that taking SYDNEY or HAWAII effectively wins the entire war for the Axis.  Losing this game as the Allies to a 6 VC Japan totally sucks, especially if you’re doing well in Europe.  The Axis can win without taking a single major world capital due to this half-baked idea.  That is just wrong.

Perhaps for Global, we could go back to the original Axis victory conditions of 14 victory cities over the whole board. Would that make it too hard for the Axis? At least in that case, even if Japan got 6 or 7 cities, if Germany/Italy were struggling it still wouldn’t be an Axis victory just yet.

@Gamerman01:

I’ll add one that’s missing so far:
The stupid true neutrals rule.  That is some serious cheese.  Yeah, the Swiss are gonna go pro-Axis because the USA invaded Venezuela.  I don’t think so.

That’s why we use Neutral Blocks. South America, Africa, Europe, Middle-East and Mongolia. So for example, Switzerland would only be affected by attacks on Sweeden, Spain, or Portugal. We put Turkey in the Middle-East block along with Afghanistan and Saudi-Arabia.

[Karl7]

Very rarely do you ever see the Axis strong enough to accomplish world domination.  So if you take away the VC, you’ll need to replace it with something the Axis could achieve.

I think allowing Axis victory upon capture of 2 major capitols with San Francisco counting as a major capitol could work.

That way if Germany can get Moscow or London, Japan can help out by taking SF.

[gamerman01]

@Karl7:

I think allowing Axis victory upon capture of 2 major capitols with San Francisco counting as a major capitol could work.

That’s what I’m talking about

[variance]

Would Sydney count as a world capitol?

[gamerman01]

@variance:

Would Sydney count as a world capitol?

No way.  Not a major world capital in WWII

We’re talking Moscow, London, Washington, San Francisco

Funny how much the original game keeps coming back to mind with G40 issues.  Axis had to take 2 Allied capitals to win in the original, IIRC

I think this game would play better and more fun if it was the old school victory conditions from the original.  Either side has to take 2 major capitals to win (while losing no more than 1 major capital of your own?)
I just know it’s a cheese factory that the Axis win the game if Japan gets 6 cities for a single round, when 4 are pretty much automatic and the other 2 are, well, a lot less than major world power centers.

[gamerman01]

Axis are 310-244 in the A&A.org 2013 league

This is with bids to the Allies averaging 6-12

It is obvious that the VC conditions are too friendly to the Axis.  I find it interesting that people on this thread are saying they are worried that changes could make it harder for the Axis to win.
It NEEDS to be harder for the Axis to win.

And so I add this to the list of what’s the cheesiest thing about Global 1940.

It’s that the Axis win 56% of the games, enabled by the threat that Japan could pick up 2 Pacific cities and win the game.

[Degrasse]

I was looking at your spread sheet of league games, particularly looking at the win percentages as Axis or Allies for the different tiers.  I would like to suggest that for the first three tiers the game seems pretty balanced for win percentages.  80/70 in the first tier for wins as Axis/Allies, followed by 60/50 and 40/30 in the other two tiers.

There’s not a column that shows the bid amounts?

[allweneedislove]

having 2 separate victory conditions for the axis is one of the best concepts in this game.

sure, historically it does not make sense. but this offers a great gaming experience with fighting all over the board.

it also allows for the very fun aspect of the axis losing economically(a long term game will be an allied victory) but having a shot at going all in for a victory city win on one side. i know the most fun games i have had(it does not matter if i am axis or allies) is where the axis will lose a long term game and make a big push for the victory city win and both sides know that the game is coming to an exciting conclusion.

if you are a proponent of removing the victory conditions what would you suggest to encourage the allies to fight in both europe and pacific?

[gamerman01]

I think the same thing can be accomplished another way.
I would start by taking a hard look at NO’s in the Pacific.
See my spreadsheet of ideas for new and changed rules for a starter…  I propose an NO for Japan for Carolines, Midway, Wake, and Guam (instead of the wacky one that Larry has that Japan never gets close to getting, which includes the Solomons and that British one.  What in the world??!)

[gamerman01]

@Degrasse:

I was looking at your spread sheet of league games, particularly looking at the win percentages as Axis or Allies for the different tiers.  I would like to suggest that for the first three tiers the game seems pretty balanced for win percentages.  80/70 in the first tier for wins as Axis/Allies, followed by 60/50 and 40/30 in the other two tiers.

There’s not a column that shows the bid amounts?

No, not tracking bid amounts.  There hasn’t been much variance in the bidding, really.

80/70 (60/50 and 40/30) is a HUGE difference, actually.  If the game was balanced these numbers would not be different.

80/70 means tier 1 players are LOSING 50% more often with the Allies than the Axis.  They are winning 8/10 with Axis, but only 7/10 with Allies.  That is a huge difference.

[CWO Marc]

@allweneedislove:

if you are a proponent of removing the victory conditions what would you suggest to encourage the allies to fight in both europe and pacific?

That’s an interesting thought.  In a way, the general idea of finding a way to encourage the Allies to fight both in Europe and the Pacific would be a bit like the Combined Arms unit-pairing rules, in which a mix of unit types activates enhanced unit abilities.  The Allies would need some kind of multiplier effect (either military or economic) as an incentive to fight in both theatres.  I don’t know how it could be done, but it’s an intriguing concept for a house rule.

Historically, once the US, the UK, the USSR, Germany and Japan were all at war, the basic strategy of the Allies was supposed to be “Hitler first”.  The Allies did, in one sense, stick to that strategy, but the plan got diluted to some extent by the sheer size and diversity of America’s production of war materials.  US industry cranked out vast quantities of land-based weapons and aircraft (which could be used in both theatres), but it also cranked out vast numbers of warships, which arguably were far more useful for fighting the primarily oceanic war in the Pacific than the primarily land-based war in Europe.  The European war did require sea power, but this was primarily in the form of transport ships, escort vessels, a few shore-bombardment vessels, and lots of landing craft / amphibious assault ships.  The top-of-the line combat vessels – the fleet carriers and the fast battleships – were arguably “in excess of requirements” in Europe but were vitally important in the Pacific, so the US could commit them against Japan without greatly hindering the overall “Hitler first” strategy.  This is also true for the US submarine forces: there wasn’t much work for them to do in the Atlantic or in the Mediterranean, but they could (and did) wreak economic havoc on Japan by attacking its vital (and surprisingly ill-defended) convoy routes.

[toblerone77]

It’s been stated elsewhere and generally defeated by opinion, but changes in naval prices to match the cost of land units would enable a better simulation of the PTO and the Italian and British navies.

A battleship cannot sail into Berlin any more than German tanks could simply blitz an empty channel into England.

Lets talk cost. If everyone is paying the same low cost for naval units and we have the well known Transport stats, naval units priced more in line with thier land counterparts would simply add more naval combat and allow a more simulated version of the war.

The arguement that Sealion would be done with ease is valid except that Britain is paying the same cost for naval units as Germany would, hence they can produce more naval defense to counter Germany.

Aircraft become more valuable and more in line with thier historical roles.

I don’t propose that naval structure be  changed in future editions. But I do think a house rule or variant would make for a very entertaining game.