The Global 'Streamlined' Package

[SpitfirED]

I’ve been reading these forums for some time but thought I’d share some of my ideas on Global.

I play Global 1940 2nd Ed. and Global 1942 with a more causal group of players and we have limited opportunities to play. Thus, whilst simplfying a complicated game may seem a bit paradoxical it allows us to enjoy the bigger map and extra powers without as many of the downsides in terms of time (much as some enjoy making the game even more complicated as with the Global war variant).

To streamline Global we make two changes:

1. Replace ANZAC with the Commonwealth/eliminate the UK ‘two economies’ rule

The two economies rule for the UK is clearly necessary for balance but somewhat clumsy. Equally, ANZAC is a suboptimal size as a standalone power.

We combine all the Canadian, two South African and original ANZAC territories into the Commonwealth with a start income of 20. Any UK forces in these territories are replaced by the OOB ANZAC sculpts. The Commonwealth operates under a multiple capitals special rule that means it is only defeated if all its original victory cities are captured; otherwise it can continue to collect and spend income.

To compensate for the loss of the Canadian territories all the Pacific UK territories and the income from them are controlled by and accrue to the UK as they would conventionally.

2. All bonus rules replaced with oil refineries

This is clearly the most radical change but we find it works - only tested in Global 1942 so far. The bonus rules were not only slow to administer but also, to us, somewhat economically unrealistic. We introduced oil refineries using the blank factory icons we had left over. Oil refineries are worth +3IPCs each and we start the game with two each for Germany (1x Germany, 1x Romania), Japan (Java, Borneo), UK (North Persia, Persia), USSR (Caucus, Siberia) and six for the USA (Central USA).

These are easier to administer and are good way of boosting the economic value of certain territories in order to add extra incentives. Furthermore, rather than just rewarding specific powers for retaining control of otherwise economically irrelevant territories or their original territories this draws them into conflict fighting over common bonus objectives.

These ideas work for us, but if anyone else out there is also trying to make Global a bit simpler please let me know! And yes, we do also play Revised and 1942 Second Edition for when we want that simpler game but its nice to use the big map too…

[knp7765]

I know how you feel. I like the bigger map of Global 1940 but sometimes prefer the simpler rules of 1942 or Anniversary. My problem with simplifying it like your suggestions (e.g. removing ANZAC) is I see ANZAC down there, I have to play it like ANZAC. Your idea for the Commonwealth is intriguing though.

I was wondering about your oil refinery idea. So you use that to replace the national objectives, right? So for example, in 1942 Germany starts with 41 IPCs. With the 2 oil refineries that means Germany’s income is now 47, right?
So the only requirement for these nations to get that “extra” income is to simply keep those territories. Plus other nations can also collect that income if they capture those particular territories, right? Like if Germany captured the Caucasus, they would get an extra 3 IPCs for the Russian oil refinery there.
I like that it does really add value to certain territories, namely North Persia and Siberia since those are usually not worth much.  All the others seem to be in territories that are already kind of pricy anyway, but you can’t really help that. You have to keep them in the areas where the oil really was. Be kind of silly to put an oil refinery in Central Africa or the Solomons just to make them worth something.
So you haven’t applied the oil refinery idea to Global yet? Do you think it could work in Global? Would you give a refinery to ANZAC?
What would you do about China? Their only NO is the Burma Road being open for 6 IPCs. Also, it wouldn’t make much sense to give China oil refineries, would it?

Well, thanks for your idea. That’s one thing I really like about this forum. So many people come up with such inventive ways around problems in the game or just to make the game a little more fun or challenging.

[SpitfirED]

To clarify, I have played Global with my oil refineries replacing the National Objectives, but with the recently released by Larry Harris ‘Global 1942’ set up (see various threads in the Global 1940 forum). With the end of this game in site I will start a game of global with the conventional 1940 second edition set up and test the idea in that.

But yes, you summarise the idea well. As it happens in the Global 1942 set up Germany has a starting income of 54, or 60 with two oil refineries already under its control.

We didn’t give ANZAC (or should I say the Commomwealth…) an oil refinery, but it is obviously well placed to threaten the oil refineries in the money islands.

Good point about China - it didn’t affect us in our game of Global 1942 because the Burma Road was broken from R1 but it would make sense to keep that as the sole remaining ‘National Objective’/as a special rule for the already rather unique nation of China.

[Derek]

Love the oil refinery idea, i may try it sometime.

However I believe your first idea is contradictory.

[knp7765]

I have a question about your Commonwealth idea. Since you combine the UK Pacific with UK London (to make up for UK London losing Canada and South Africa), do you still keep a Major IC in India or reduce it to a Minor IC?
A lot of people think India having a Major IC is too much, particularly in Global and I tend to agree. However, a Minor IC might be too small. I recently came up with the idea for a Mid-Level IC that can produce 5 units and costs 20 IPCs. I think that would be best suited for India in your idea since the UK Pacific is now combined with UK Europe, now the UK could spend massive amounts in Calcutta and make that area way overpowered.

[Flashman]

Some possible additions to refineries if you include neutrals, though perhaps there is a distinction between refineries and sources of crude?

Burma (UK)
Venezuela
Mexico
Argentina?

http://www.basesproduced.com/images/oil2.gif

[Derek]

@Flashman:

Some possible additions to refineries if you include neutrals, though perhaps there is a distinction between refineries and sources of crude?

Burma (UK)
Venezuela
Mexico
Argentina?

http://www.basesproduced.com/images/oil2.gif

What do the numbers on the map represent?

Is it refineries over oil ? With whole numbers being just oil ?

[SpitfirED]

@knp7765:

I have a question about your Commonwealth idea. Since you combine the UK Pacific with UK London (to make up for UK London losing Canada and South Africa), do you still keep a Major IC in India or reduce it to a Minor IC?
A lot of people think India having a Major IC is too much, particularly in Global and I tend to agree. However, a Minor IC might be too small. I recently came up with the idea for a Mid-Level IC that can produce 5 units and costs 20 IPCs. I think that would be best suited for India in your idea since the UK Pacific is now combined with UK Europe, now the UK could spend massive amounts in Calcutta and make that area way overpowered.

I think the response to this situation depends on your opinions on how balanced or otherwise Global 1940 is. Clearly a major IC in India + my combined UK economy = potential for stronger builds in India to the advantage of the allies. However, considering the general opinion that the Allies are weaker than the Axis this may be no bad thing. We have kept the major IC in our games so far but I like the mid size IC idea.

[knp7765]

Regarding the Oil Refineries idea:
Another idea occurred to me. Could the Oil Refineries be SBRd? Perhaps for a max damage of 3 points. Each refinery is worth 3 IPCs to the owner. Take away 1 IPC for each point of damage up to a max of 3. You could repair them just like any other facility ( 1 IPC = 1 damage point, or if you have the improved factories tech it’s half price).

[crusaderiv]

I looked the map, realy nice but only 5 territories for China?

[P-Unit]

I’m also one who believes National Objectives are an enormous pain and time sink to manage and keep track of for what ultimately is simply extra IPCs. I would much rather they be represented by something like you have suggested, oil refineries. I wish this was an official variant. :)